Necromancy is Not Necessarily Death Magic.

[A Chozo]

Spirit healers resurrect us all the time lorewise. Would they be Necromancers? or is the reanimation of a Person only Death Magic if the Corpse remains a corpse.

Gotta remain dead for it to be considered necromancy. It's animation of unliving flesh, the unliving flesh doesn't become living.

Anyone who makes lame-ass jokes saying that paladins, spirit healers and what else are necromancers because the resurrect us completely missed the point and shouldn't even be posting.

[Firann]

Gotta remain dead for it to be considered necromancy. It's animation of unliving flesh, the unliving flesh doesn't become living.

Anyone who makes lame-ass jokes saying that paladins, spirit healers and what else are necromancers because the resurrect us completely missed the point and shouldn't even be posting.

It depends on your source to be fair. While ressurection is the act of being revived and staying alive, necromancy is usually associated with undeath. We agree.

However, in DnD ressurection is a form of necromancy.

[Aucald]

/shrug I didn't read all the comments.

Also, Aucald's post is not a guarantee or confirmation of anything. It's a good theory, but we don't know for certain. Hell, I'll even say it's a really good theory that could (and should) be put into place, but we don't know if it will be. That's up to the WoW story devs.

As of the more recent alteration to Chronicle's own canonicity, its cosmological chart itself is only a theory of how the metacosm functions, and has a competing model from the Grimoire of the Shadowlands and Beyond serving as a similar but distinct theory of the cosmology. There's little in the way of true confirmations to be had here - save for an authority on Necromancy (Sin'dane) detailing its actual functionality as concerns sources of magical power.

[Magical Mudcrab]

As of the more recent alteration to Chronicle's own canonicity, its cosmological chart itself is only a theory of how the metacosm functions, and has a competing model from the Grimoire of the Shadowlands and Beyond serving as a similar but distinct theory of the cosmology. There's little in the way of true confirmations to be had here - save for an authority on Necromancy (Sin'dane) detailing its actual functionality as concerns sources of magical power.

I'm wondering if we'll ever get a reason as to why the Titans were so incorrect in their assessment of the cosmic forces. Perhaps they were wrong about death because necromancy, and those who use it, are just so limited in what they can do that it just wasn't worth investigating? Considering that Zovaal, who was formerly the arbiter and likely had an understanding of undeath, opted to use the built-in defenses of the Sepulcher of the First Ones, dreadlords, and a constellar is probably quite telling. Why would the Titans consider undeath worth studying if they perceived the pinnacle of undeath as being beneath the Keepers/Watchers whom they can mass produce?

[A Chozo]

However, in DnD ressurection is a form of necromancy.

It's a WoW Lore thread so unless specified otherwise, we are talking about Warcraft Necromancy

I've seen some people here trying to bring D&D and Warhammer Necromancy logic to the discussion but it's irrelevant. Like when people argue that Dragons have X numbers of limbs or whatever - as you said, depends on the source or on who's writing.

[Iain]

As for the cosmic chart? It apparently has become outdated information in lieu of what Sin'dane told us.

Valid. But doesn't that bother you? That's a massive lore collapse off the back of a single remark by a rather insignificant NPC. And worst of all, nothing is being put back in its place, there's no gain here. It's just made redundant with nothing to show for.

[Combatbulter]

Valid. But doesn't that bother you? That's a massive lore collapse off the back of a single remark by a rather insignificant NPC. And worst of all, nothing is being put back in its place, there's no gain here. It's just made redundant with nothing to show for.

They pull this kind of stuff quite often, an offhand remark, which unravels what they build. It is precisely why they made certain they have no solid foundation for their lore, so they can pull off their rule of cool and not really have to care for consistency.

[Aucald]

I'm wondering if we'll ever get a reason as to why the Titans were so incorrect in their assessment of the cosmic forces. Perhaps they were wrong about death because necromancy, and those who use it, are just so limited in what they can do that it just wasn't worth investigating? Considering that Zovaal, who was formerly the arbiter and likely had an understanding of undeath, opted to use the built-in defenses of the Sepulcher of the First Ones, dreadlords, and a constellar is probably quite telling. Why would the Titans consider undeath worth studying if they perceived the pinnacle of undeath as being beneath the Keepers/Watchers whom they can mass produce?

I'm not really sure if ideas like right and wrong really enter into it, just a competing set of points of view with their own intrinsic biases. As for undeath, the Titans didn't seem very interested in it at all, and in point of fact seemed to view it as undesirable and inimical to their own views of ordered creation (which, to a degree, it is). Zovaal's essential MO has pretty much always been subversion, though; he subverted Domination to aid him, subverted the Maw from being his prison to his base of power, subverted Sylvanas into his willing lieutenant, and so on. That he would continue this pattern on into Zereth Mortis makes sense for his characterization - from coopting the Sepulcher's own defenses and so on. You can add Denathrius and his creations the Nathrezim as more irons in that particular fire.

[Ielenia]

Valid. But doesn't that bother you? That's a massive lore collapse off the back of a single remark by a rather insignificant NPC. And worst of all, nothing is being put back in its place, there's no gain here. It's just made redundant with nothing to show for.

Anyone who has even the most passing interest in the lore of this game is going to tell you that retcons are the norm in this franchise. Shadowlands was a huge retcon. Mists of Pandaria was also a retcon that added a pandaren monk trainer to every starting area (except goblins and worgen). Cataclysm was also a huge retcon that completely destroyed the Onyxia questline for the Alliance, as it was no longer the player who ousted Onyxia, but Varian himself.

Etc, etc.

So. Does it bother me? Eh, at this point, not really anymore.

[Iain]

.

Right, but those retcons broke lore to make way for something fresh and interesting, they broke through a limitation to expand everything further. But Zil'dane doesn't do that. He redefines WoW's necromancy to Merriam Webster's necromancy. Of course taking a sledgehammer to lore is warranted if it makes way for something better. That happens in 40k all the time as well. That franchise wouldn't be able to survive if they had to stick to anything established in its earliest incarnation. And yet at the same time they're incredibly careful that all these authors don't start contradicting each other where it matters.

[Shadowferal]

Adding material isn't a retcon. It's progress...growth. MoP was an amazingly fleshed out turn of the world.
WoD was however a retcon. And it was just shit on the lore.

[Ielenia]

Right, but those retcons broke lore to make way for something fresh and interesting, they broke through a limitation to expand everything further.

Eh, that is really arguable. I'd argue that the Onyxia retcon was not fresh nor interesting. That the retcon that was Shadowlands was also not interesting. Etc, etc.

But Zil'dane doesn't do that. He redefines WoW's necromancy to Merriam Webster's necromancy.

Sin'dane. And it's a 'she'. At least as far as I can tell. Other than that, using your own argument, I would say it does make things "more fresh and interesting" by divorcing both terms (death magic, and necromancy) and allows Death magic to do more than just 'raise bodies'.

[Phob]

Necromancy is magic that affects the dead, but it's not death magic.

Like many others, you're taking a real life definition of the word and avoiding the in-lore definitions. We have magic types (such as Death, Nature, Light, Elemental, etc) and spell schools (such as necromancy, divination, illusion, abjuration, etc.)

See you highlighted something. Re-read what you highlighted please.

[username993720]

What the fuck are you talking about? You really got lost in your own arguments.

Just like your previous accusation, I have also never said the denizens of the Shadowlands were not the first to use necromancy.

So, they could have spread the influence of necromancy to other forces?

[Ielenia]

So, they could have spread the influence of necromancy to other forces?

Not to Azeroth, as beings on Azeroth were already practicing it before their arrival.

[username993720]

Not to Azeroth, as beings on Azeroth were already practicing it before their arrival.

"Beings". Galakrond.
These beings still draw their power from the different cosmic forces, which the Dreadlords have infiltrated and spread their influence.

[Firann]

It's a WoW Lore thread so unless specified otherwise, we are talking about Warcraft Necromancy

I've seen some people here trying to bring D&D and Warhammer Necromancy logic to the discussion but it's irrelevant. Like when people argue that Dragons have X numbers of limbs or whatever - as you said, depends on the source or on who's writing.

I'm not arguing on what the lore of the other franchises are saying. I was just commenting on your comment about having to stay undead to be necromancy and stated that it is mot always the case. Infact we didn't have much info in WoWs lore on the matter. Now we do.

Like i said previously, as I understand there is a distinction:
1. Necromancy is a school of magic similar to evocation.
2. Schools of magic can be fueled by various sources; arcane, fel, nature, light etc.
3. Necromantic magic is a fuel similar to other power sources. It has a similar name to necromancy but different, primarily as it is related to the realm of death. This is what is refered to as magic of Death.

Points 1 and 2 are causing confusion as they are similar in name.

[Super Kami Dende]

Gotta remain dead for it to be considered necromancy. It's animation of unliving flesh, the unliving flesh doesn't become living.

Anyone who makes lame-ass jokes saying that paladins, spirit healers and what else are necromancers because the resurrect us completely missed the point and shouldn't even be posting.

Where is that ever specified though. If someone is dead resurrecting them is reanimating unliving flesh. It just then becomes living again.

[Iain]

using your own argument, I would say it does make things "more fresh and interesting" by divorcing both terms (death magic, and necromancy) and allows Death magic to do more than just 'raise bodies'.

Death magic could always do that already, there's also spirit magic that doesn't involve corpses.

So in both ways it's not necessary to redefine necromancy. It doesn't enable Death to do more than that, because it already could. And it doesn't enable other forms of magic to perform necromancy, as they already could. All it achieves is a reduction.

[Lolites]

But it isn't and she isn't, because she still has none of the drawbacks of undeath

not only that, forsaken went through ALOT of shite together, which she literaly avoided...
they might let her join forsaken, but letting her on council is such crap...

- - - Updated - - -

But to say that every time something gets brought back to life it's 'necromancy' is not.

tbh, nobody said that, well maybe some people on forums did, but nobody ingame, pretty much just that necromancy can be powered by different types of magic, which we already know, but raising someone and resurecting them is not really the same imo, as we see on Calia, or Rezan (i think)
also, not to forget resurection can also be powered by different types of magic, priest-druid-monk use different power sources yet all are able to resurect people