Necromancy is Not Necessarily Death Magic.

[Iain]

I think it's to reconnect Forsaken with the Living again. Since what really is the difference between an undead and a living if any form of ressurcetion, be it on Azeroth or in the Shadowlands, be it a dragon being reborn or people saved by the red dragonflight, is considered necromancy?

Well, I, and I don't think I'm alone here, was hoping Blizzard would give a compelling answer to that question and not treat it as rhetorical. It's a conundrum that's introduced into the game in the first couple of Vanilla quests for the Forsaken. They're neither dead nor living, they still have free will but they're not the same as the person they used to be before they died.

In fact it goes further back. It's the difference between the Death Knight hero and Paladin in Warcraft 3. The Paladin can resurrect his own for forces, making them 'alive' for all intents and purposes. While the Death Knight can revive both forces and they become an 'undeath' version complete with a different texture effect applied on them.

In that sense Blizzard actually just declared the Warcraft 3 Paladin, Uther, a necromancer. It feels icky.

It doesn't even have to be some deep philosophical answer either. It can be some vague fantasy-babble type of curse/corruption that makes necro-revival different to paladin-revival. Surely there's some interesting substance to be found somewhere?

Torchwood had a similar distinction. Jack Harkness was unable to die, as in, any time he would die he would come back alive, no matter what happened to him. He even ended up being buried alive for three thousand years and constantly dying and reviving with a mouth full of dirt several times a day. Pretty gruesome.

Then the other character, Owen, got ressurected in a different fashion and became unable to die. However, he had no heartbeat, wounds and fractures couldn't recover. A far worse version that Jack's.

So fiction does allow for plenty of meaningful distinctions within the concept of resurrection. And Blizzard themselves has an abundance of various forms of 'bring alive' methods as well. So that's why it's disappointed that 'necromancy' now no longer is a type onto itself but just a general label for every form of it. It dissolves the definition.

- - - Updated - - -

Resurrection is not the same thing as reanimation.

But the engineer's pocket knife can 'reanimate' a player that's been dead for months. Where is the line drawn?

[loras]

Well, I, and I don't think I'm alone here, was hoping Blizzard would give a compelling answer to that question and not treat it as rhetorical. It's a conundrum that's introduced into the game in the first couple of Vanilla quests for the Forsaken. They're neither dead nor living, they still have free will but they're not the same as the person they used to be before they died.

In fact it goes further back. It's the difference between the Death Knight hero and Paladin in Warcraft 3. The Paladin can resurrect his own for forces, making them 'alive' for all intents and purposes. While the Death Knight can revive both forces and they become an 'undeath' version complete with a different texture effect applied on them.

In that sense Blizzard actually just declared the Warcraft 3 Paladin, Uther, a necromancer. It feels icky.

It doesn't even have to be some deep philosophical answer either. It can be some vague fantasy-babble type of curse/corruption that makes necro-revival different to paladin-revival. Surely there's some interesting substance to be found somewhere?

Torchwood had a similar distinction. Jack Harkness was unable to die, as in, any time he would die he would come back alive, no matter what happened to him. He even ended up being buried alive for three thousand years and constantly dying and reviving with a mouth full of dirt several times a day. Pretty gruesome.

Then the other character, Owen, got ressurected in a different fashion and became unable to die. However, he had no heartbeat, wounds and fractures couldn't recover. A far worse version that Jack's.

So fiction does allow for plenty of meaningful distinctions within the concept of resurrection. And Blizzard themselves has an abundance of various forms of 'bring alive' methods as well. So that's why it's disappointed that 'necromancy' now no longer is a type onto itself but just a general label for every form of it. It dissolves the definition.

- - - Updated - - -



But the engineer's pocket knife can 'reanimate' a player that's been dead for months. Where is the line drawn?

Isn't necromancy just shoddy resurrection? Sometimes intentionally, so as to make it easier to control them?

I mean we know i.e. the void can perform perfect resurrections aswell - N'zoth casually resurrected Aszhara when he was freed.

[KOUNTERPARTS]

But the engineer's pocket knife can 'reanimate' a player that's been dead for months. Where is the line drawn?

Fair point. However, knowing Blizzard, they may not create any in depth distinction between the two on purpose.


Leaving it vague and up for interpretation so the community can receive it/discuss it how they please.

[Tartys]

So, doing the new quests in 9.2.5 there is an interesting lore tidbit that separates "necromancy" and "death magic":



I wonder how that will affect things in the long run.

Means Undead Paladin.

[Maljinwo]

But the engineer's pocket knife can 'reanimate' a player that's been dead for months. Where is the line drawn?

New class: Technomancer

Bring back people back from the dead using technology and use them as sentries and other machines!

Not to be confused with tinker

[Iain]

Isn't necromancy just shoddy resurrection? Sometimes intentionally, so as to make it easier to control them?

I mean we know i.e. the void can perform perfect resurrections aswell - N'zoth casually resurrected Aszhara when he was freed.

Right, now we're talking. This is interesting. But to say that every time something gets brought back to life it's 'necromancy' is not.

- - - Updated - - -

Means Undead Paladin.

Then how is that different from a living Paladin bringing things back to life? The way I'm reading this it seems to imply there is no distinction. Could it be that Blizzard is just throwing 'necromancy' under the bus to justify Forsaken Paladins? Are they worried players wouldn't otherwise buy it? That's both the lamest and most probably reason I can think of.

[Aucald]

As I understand it, Sin'dane basically describes Necromancy as the act of using magic energy of some kind to reanimate dead flesh, or creating undead beings. The type of energy used isn't as important as the end desired - namely the reanimation of said flesh. That being said, Necromancy is pretty distinct from healing or true resurrection, in that those acts don't reanimate dead flesh inasmuch as they directly restore life to the flesh, up to and including reuniting the body and soul and restarting the vital process in the case of true resurrection. Healing isn't Necromancy, and neither is actual resurrection, as the end result of both doesn't cause undeath. True undeath can confer a number of benefits to its subjects (physical augmentation, the ability to sustain greater damage, etc.) as well as some noteworthy detriments like a lack of sensation and vulnerability to some forms of magic.

We've seen Necromancy performed with a variety of magical essences so far. The Legion have created undead with Fel and Shadow magic, there's a case of an undead being created by the Arcane (Meryl Winterstorm), a handful from Light (such as Calia herself), obviously Death magic as is done in Maldraxxus, and one could arguably even say Nature magic as with the Botani's victims in WoD.

[Nathreim]

So, doing the new quests in 9.2.5 there is an interesting lore tidbit that separates "necromancy" and "death magic":



So, the lore is that necromancy is not the equivalent of death magic, and can be performed by other magic types, such as the Light and also by other magic types. I wonder how that will affect things in the long run. What are you guys' take on this?

SL ruined so much just add Necromancy to the list.

[guisadop]

so, ress spells are necromancy. got it

[Iain]

As I understand it, Sin'dane basically describes Necromancy as the act of using magic energy of some kind to reanimate dead flesh, or creating undead beings. The type of energy used isn't as important as the end desired - namely the reanimation of said flesh. That being said, Necromancy is pretty distinct from healing or true resurrection, in that those acts don't reanimate dead flesh inasmuch as they directly restore life to the flesh, up to and including reuniting the body and soul and restarting the vital process in the case of true resurrection. Healing isn't Necromancy, and neither is actual resurrection, as the end result of both doesn't cause undeath. True undeath can confer a number of benefits to its subjects (physical augmentation, the ability to sustain greater damage, etc.) as well as some noteworthy detriments like a lack of sensation and vulnerability to some forms of magic.

That's a generous interpretation, one that runs Blizzard into trouble when they come up with Forsaken Paladins that use 'necromancy' to explain why they're able to resurrect players.

[Aucald]

That's a generous interpretation, one that runs Blizzard into trouble when they come up with Forsaken Paladins that use 'necromancy' to explain why they're able to resurrect players.

A Forsaken Paladin wouldn't use Necromancy to resurrect players, they'd use the Light to restore their life completely, the same way any other Paladin would. There's no reason why a Forsaken Paladin would use a different form of magic than standard Paladins, or else they wouldn't actually be a true Paladin - they'd be something else.

[Super Dickmann]

That's a generous interpretation, one that runs Blizzard into trouble when they come up with Forsaken Paladins that use 'necromancy' to explain why they're able to resurrect players.

I honestly think that this is just a throw-away line to shill Calia and one that's basically true already in terms of how necromancy in the sense of manipulating dead bodies/spirits has been associated with all sorts of schools. It isn't new lore, raising things with powers other than 'Death' has even been more common than the opposite. However, I wouldn't put past it that Blizzard, in their quest for homogeneity and to further prop up Calia gut an old pillar of lore and have the Light not burn the Forsaken after all to excuse consequence-free, human with a skin condition-style undead paladins.

Which would be a shame, as you wouldn't need to retcon anything to have undead paladins. The lore is there since the CDev interviews what I think is like 10+ years ago now, especially not to explain how they bring people back in-game where resurrection is chiefly a game mechanic. Undead paladins, like undead priests, would have their souls and bodies forcibly aligned, meaning they'd be able to feel their rotting bodies at all times. Only the most fanatical or most masochistic would be able to go through with it given this. Having Calia be used to introduce this would work fine, but not in the sense of them getting her consequence-free version, but the most convinced royalists or the most repentant willingly putting themselves through constant pain to defend their people/pay for their crimes/feel closer to their Queen.

[loras]

Right, now we're talking. This is interesting. But to say that every time something gets brought back to life it's 'necromancy' is not.

- - - Updated - - -



Then how is that different from a living Paladin bringing things back to life? The way I'm reading this it seems to imply there is no distinction. Could it be that Blizzard is just throwing 'necromancy' under the bus to justify Forsaken Paladins? Are they worried players wouldn't otherwise buy it? That's both the lamest and most probably reason I can think of.

Oh very true, but is anyone / any reputable one saying that sorta stuff?
Most of what i can recall of in-universe sources is that necromancy is an "imperfect" reattachment of the soul to a body, i.e. shoddy resurrection.

In that sense i take the idea of different sorts of magic fuelling necromancy to mean that they reflect the sort of energy used, i.e. death energy creating rotting things, void energy mostly dessicated or warped things, fel energy to create destoyed and destructive things, life energy infested things, light energy static things, and arcane magic "stiff" ("machine-like" things). All necromancy, all imperfect connections, all with different consequences based on the energies used.

In that sense death knights would either just be less-imperfect resurrections or death magic mixed with something else (perhaps elemental magic, given the often frosty theming).

[Vaedan]

It does sort of beg the question, "what exactly is death magic?" though...

Well, from what we've seen in Shadowlands, I'd say Death magic is manipulation of anima. Necrolord seem to use anima in their necromancy. Venthyr anima siphoning could also be fine example of Death magic and it's possible that it is used as infamous "Blood magic" on Azeroth. Draining anima of the living targets would mean absorbing their anima (lifeforce).

I think Death magic could have also positive effects, as we've seen in Ardenweald and Bastion... but it's just assumption on my side.

[Iain]

A Forsaken Paladin wouldn't use Necromancy to resurrect players, they'd use the Light to restore their life completely, the same way any other Paladin would. There's no reason why a Forsaken Paladin would use a different form of magic than standard Paladins, or else they wouldn't actually be a true Paladin - they'd be something else.

Agreed, but that makes the reason for Blizzard to insert this piece of exposition even more dubious. I'm not opposed to 'light necromancy' per se. But it's just thrown into the player's lap. The complete opposite of how Blizzard introduced the Drust. Which was handled beautifully. A slow burning plot line that unravelled the mystery and a cool pay-off in the Shadowlands.

Now we get a NPC saying 'actually necromancy is when we revive things, and we can use anything to accomplish that'. It doesn't resolve any problem in the lore right now so it's got to be either a setup for something that will come later or it's a pointless thing to say altogether.

There was no shortage of 'death magic' was there? We weren't running out of any supply and just like the Drust, the Death magic kept seeping into other worlds to be used in abundance.

So:

- If necromancy doesn't require death but can be sustained with anything without any difference, why does Blizzard felt the need to point that out?
- If Blizzard thought this was an interesting observation, then why didn't they weave it into a story and let the player slowly piece this together themselves?
- If light necromancy is instead different in some way (and I'm not saying it is, I'm just hoping that's the case), why wouldn't mr Sin'Dane further elaborate on this unprompted bit of trivia?

Oh very true, but is anyone / any reputable one saying that sorta stuff?
Most of what i can recall of in-universe sources is that necromancy is an "imperfect" reattachment of the soul to a body, i.e. shoddy resurrection.

In that sense i take the idea of different sorts of magic fuelling necromancy to mean that they reflect the sort of energy used, i.e. death energy creating rotting things, void energy mostly dessicated or warped things, fel energy to create destoyed and destructive things, life energy infested things, light energy static things, and arcane magic "stiff" ("machine-like" things). All necromancy, all imperfect connections, all with different consequences based on the energies used.

In that sense death knights would either just be less-imperfect resurrections or death magic mixed with something else (perhaps elemental magic, given the often frosty theming).

I always felt that necromancy was at least philosophically different in that it reduced the remains of a being to pure utility. The revival is imperfect because it doesn't need to be perfect. The being that's now revived is just a means to the Necromancer's end. That's how you defile life. There's no such thing as altruistic Necromancy.

And of course the Light has shown itself not to be inherently altruistic or even humane either. But it the Light does pride itself on purity. So if the light can be used to create 'impure' necromatic stuff then what does the Light even mean? It seems to imply that all these schools of magic sort of do the same thing and are only distinguished by the colour of their spell effects.

That's why I'm struggling with this. This new piece of information doesn't create anything new, it just collapses two distinct ideas into a homogenous mush.

[Iain]

Why is this such a huge discussion?^^

It's a huge discussion because it covers things that you're already mentioned yourself:

This creates possibilities, for example undead paladins, but doesn't change the language of the people on azeroth.

If Undead paladins use necromancy to revive players in a way that's different from holy resurrections then that ought to have an impact on the revived being, if that's also a player then that opens up a whole new can of worms, impossible to reflect in actual gameplay or even lore.

If Undead paladins use necromancy in a way that isn't different from holy resurrections, then that means all living paladins are effectively necromancers for all intents and purposes. It makes Uther and Kel'thuzad the two most famous necromancers in the lore.

[Super Dickmann]

That's why I'm struggling with this. This new piece of information doesn't create anything new, it just collapses two distinct ideas into a homogenous mush.

In-story it's just Calia asking an authority on necromancy if she can make friends. The Calia of this questline is directionless and needy, unsure of what she's supposed to be.

Out of story, it's an appeal to authority to tell us that no, really, she's totally Forsaken, despite another NPC (Belmont) saying five mins. later in choosable dialogue how different she is. Their end goal is to make Calia the face of the Forsaken but backlash forced them to make this in the most prolonged and painful way possible with as many sops to the fanbase as they can squeeze without compromising their love of world peace and their end goal of having them be represented by her going forward. In service of this, they've swapped strategy from telling us how great it is that the Forsaken can be like her to instead tell us that she's actually like them, she just doesn't look the part. Look she's helping out with traditional Forsaken activities.

It has no bearing on resurrections or whatever, because Calia's ostensibly undead, she's just a flawless pearl-skinned homunculus totally in tune with her soul blessed by God instead of a rotting corpse. Neither are living in the sense of biological function.

[Aucald]

Agreed, but that makes the reason for Blizzard to insert this piece of exposition even more dubious. I'm not opposed to 'light necromancy' per se. But it's just thrown into the player's lap. The complete opposite of how Blizzard introduced the Drust. Which was handled beautifully. A slow burning plot line that unravelled the mystery and a cool pay-off in the Shadowlands.

Now we get a NPC saying 'actually necromancy is when we revive things, and we can use anything to accomplish that'. It doesn't resolve any problem in the lore right now so it's got to be either a setup for something that will come later or it's a pointless thing to say altogether.

There was no shortage of 'death magic' was there? We weren't running out of any supply and just like the Drust, the Death magic kept seeping into other worlds to be used in abundance.

So:

- If necromancy doesn't require death but can be sustained with anything without any difference, why does Blizzard felt the need to point that out?
- If Blizzard thought this was an interesting observation, then why didn't they weave it into a story and let the player slowly piece this together themselves?
- If light necromancy is instead different in some way (and I'm not saying it is, I'm just hoping that's the case), why wouldn't mr Sin'Dane further elaborate on this unprompted bit of trivia?

Undeath being caused by multiple sources isn't really new lore - and Sin'dane is just telling Calia that what she sees that makes her "distinct" is really just an external rationalization on her part - being made undead by the Light doesn't make her different anymore than being made undead by Shadow, Death, Fel, or Arcane. Necromancy also doesn't "revive" things, it reanimates them, specifically into a state of undeath - reviving is more in line with restoring vitality, life, and/or health which is more the general wheelhouse of Light, Life, Spirit, and Nature type magics (true healing as opposed to strict reanimation). It's unusual for Light magic to be used to create an undead being, which is why it happens so rarely in the Warcraft universe, but Sin'dane is saying it's not impossible and it doesn't mean that Calia is different (or even special) in terms of being an undead being. Undeath is undeath, Necromancy is Necromancy, in other words - whether an undead being is made from Death, Shadow, Light, or Fel, they're all uniformly undead with the same basic issues that state entails (e.g. imperfect connection of the body and soul, reanimation of dead flesh, etc.)

[SinR]

Necromancy with Nature Magic. Or Arcane.

I mean, because why the fuck not?

[Aucald]

Out of story, it's an appeal to authority to tell us that no, really, she's totally Forsaken, despite another NPC (Belmont) saying five mins. later in choosable dialogue how different she is. Their end goal is to make Calia the face of the Forsaken but backlash forced them to make this in the most prolonged and painful way possible with as many sops to the fanbase as they can squeeze without compromising their love of world peace and their end goal of having them be represented by her going forward. In service of this, they've swapped strategy from telling us how great it is that the Forsaken can be like her to instead tell us that she's actually like them, she just doesn't look the part. Look she's helping out with traditional Forsaken activities.

There's more to being Forsaken than just being undead, though; which is why the various undead mobs around Brill during the quest aren't considered Forsaken, and why Prince Farondis' legion of ghostly Night Elves in Aszuna also aren't Forsaken. Calia's concern in the 9.2.5 quests was that her unique nature (e.g. being an undead being created by the Light) would make it impossible for her to bridge the gap between her and the other Forsaken - that they were two fundamentally different as beings for her to ever be "accepted." Sin'dane laid those worries to rest, more or less, by telling her that her origins via the Light were immaterial insofar as undeath is concerned. She still has to cross the cultural bridge between her and other Forsaken, though; since she doesn't share in their history as victims of the Third War, and additionally bears the name of and a relationship with their most hated adversary. She's got more work to do before she's got universal acceptance among the Forsaken, which is likely going to be part and parcel of her story going forward.

- - - Updated - - -

Necromancy with Nature Magic. Or Arcane.

I mean, because why the fuck not?

Already happened, really. The Botani reanimated dead Orcs in Gorgrond via Nature magic in WoD, and Meryl Winterstorm reanimated himself via Arcane magic in the Troll Wars.