Necromancy is Not Necessarily Death Magic.

[Ielenia]

It gets a bit confusing because what Blizzard has implied is a splitting of the definition. Similar to how we have "Warrior" as a class, and 'warrior' as a broad term covering any type of combatant who participates in fighting wars.

You have Necromancy with a capital N being the name of a type of magic associated with the realm of Death, and then there's necromancy which is the general term we're using in this thread applying to any type of magic involved with Undeath or Reanimation. It was stupid for Blizzard to actually tie 'Necromancy' with a capital N to the cosmic chart as a part of Death, implying that the magic is exclusive to Death, only to later retcon their own chart by implying Necromancy can be performed through any source of cosmic magic. That is where all the confusion stems from really.

The latest lore from Sindane pretty much refutes Chronicles' cosmic chart of 'Death Magic = Necromancy'.

However, the latest lore no longer associates "necromancy" as being a synonym to "death magic". Both are now separate terms. "Death magic" is a type of magic, and "necromancy" is what you can do with any type of magic.

- - - Updated - - -

The only thing relevant should be consistency. Not the incoherent mess that the lore...and those "Chronicles" have become.
"Because Danuser said it, and so it was written and so it shall be true."
But we can't cross the line to where it can make any coherent logical sense, because that's "irrelevant."

Your problem is that you're putting words in my proverbial mouth that I never said.

I didn't say "Danuser said so, therefore it is true". I said it is what we see in the game, and it's the latest iteration of the lore, therefore it's the official canon. And that is indisputable.

Again: you not liking what is written doesn't make it any less canon or official.

[Magical Mudcrab]

The inconsistency is in your mind. You only need to step back for a moment and think. The whole thing makes perfect sense given countless examples of just that throughout decades of Warcraft lore.

I get what you're saying, we have in-game examples for this to be the case. The problem is that Chronicle released and changed it so that Necromancy was solely within the domain of Death. Both the descriptions of Life and Death as well as the cosmological chart within the book conveyed this. This idea was extended by Shadowlands, which affirmed characters like the Lich King and Kel'thuzad used Death magic, and that the Scourge and Cult of the Damned did so as well. Now we have this new quote which explicitly says that Chronicle was wrong. There isn't a problem with Chronicle being wrong, but it's reasonable for people to be annoyed by Blizzard's inconsistent writing, of which the whole saga of Chronicle being repeatedly retconned (i.e.: shown as being incorrect) is a primary reason for agitation.

Again, I don't take issue with the changes, but changes did occur.

[username993720]

And I don't know why you think I said that when I never said such a thing.

What is that suppose to mean?:

"Integrated by the dreadlords" before the dreadlords were even on Azeroth?

[FelPlague]

There's no distinction, and your attempt to forge a distinction is disingenuous. Necromantic rituals, necromantic magic, etc. are all part of Necromancy. The word "necromantic" is just the adjective for "necromancy". We can even look at the common understanding of what Necromancy entails, the definition of Necromancy, or even how it's portrayed in other settings like D&D.

Funny you show a horrible fucking made artical of necromancy from D&D

Specially since all ressurection spells are necromancy, even the ones that are mostly used by clerics, and are not even useable by the "dark" classes like wizard and warlock.



In wow you a priest, druid, shaman, paladin, and you just used your light or nature magic to resurrect someone?
You just resurrected someone from the dead, that's necromancy. Necromancy does not equal death magic.

We have seen the light raise people from the dead forever
we have seen nature raise people from the dead forever
We have seen shadow raise people from the dead
we have seen void raise people from the dead
we have seen fel raise people from the dead
we have seen arcane raise people from the dead
we have seen fucking fire raise people from the dead even, the only one we really havent is cold.
we have seen death magic raise people from the dead

But aparently them now saying "Necromancy is necroamncy, no matter the magic" is a retcon?

[Gaidax]

I get what you're saying, we have in-game examples for this to be the case. The problem is that Chronicle released and changed it so that Necromancy was solely within the domain of Death. Both the descriptions of Life and Death as well as the cosmological chart within the book conveyed this. This idea was extended by Shadowlands, which affirmed characters like the Lich King and Kel'thuzad used Death magic, and that the Scourge and Cult of the Damned did so as well. Now we have this new quote which explicitly says that Chronicle was wrong. There isn't a problem with Chronicle being wrong, but it's reasonable for people to be annoyed by Blizzard's inconsistent writing, of which the whole saga of Chronicle being repeatedly retconned (i.e.: shown as being incorrect) is a primary reason for agitation.

Again, I don't take issue with the changes, but changes did occur.

And Arcane is placed under the "Order" there, yet there are plenty agents of other forces that use Arcane nilly-willy.

I think people people use that chard WAY too strictly. Even besides this Light/Fel/Nature Necromancy we observed, there is plenty mixing all around if you look at that chart and then remind yourself of all the "cross-use", if you will.

You had Legion use/exploit Shadow and even Void quite a bit - and they are pretty much opposing powers there no less than Light and Void - seeing whole Sargeras' shtick for Legion was a way to beat back Void. Heck, they even had cases of using Light. Or take Dreadlords, who practically can use whatever they need.

Really, in this universe nothing is so strict as the chart may imply. So yes, Light agents having their own way to mimic Necromancy, bottom line end result would still be Necromancy. Even if it's not the "core" domain Necromancy as usually occurs.

I mean it just makes sense really and a lesson to not be too stuck in a chart, especially now that we learned it's incomplete anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

And as above poster gave as example - we don't even really know what "Necromancy" is. You think you do, but you don't - like that guy who brought in D&D and got a good retort showing that even supposedly light and pure resurrection spells may also fit the bill and do so by definition in D&D.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Funny you show a horrible fucking made artical of necromancy from D&D

Specially since all ressurection spells are necromancy, even the ones that are mostly used by clerics, and are not even useable by the "dark" classes like wizard and warlock.

...

In wow you a priest, druid, shaman, paladin, and you just used your light or nature magic to resurrect someone?
You just resurrected someone from the dead, that's necromancy. Necromancy does not equal death magic.

I did not say that resurrection spells in D&D aren't necromancy, this is a strawman you've opted to construct because you made a silly statement and were called out on it by multiple posters. Let's give you a refresher of what you said, because you apparently forgot and decided to go to wander far off the point:

Someone does not notice the difference between

necromantic
and necromancy

raising the dead, and necropsy are two very different things.

What you tried to do was draw a distinction between necromantic (an adjective) and necromancy (a noun), even though they mean the same thing in every single context. The sources I linked were to show that there is no distinction to be drawn between "necromantic" and "necromancy" in any context other than the one being an adjective and the other a noun. I had linked the D&D Wiki page so you could possibly understand their relation without me having to explicitly spell out examples, but I wrongly had faith that you would read and understand the sources, saving me from having to teach you what adjectives and nouns are.

Just for you, I've grabbed the examples I posted a few pages back, so maybe then you'll understand:
- If you have a ritual in which you are using necromancy, what is it called? It is a necromantic (adjective) ritual (noun). In that statement you are saying that the ritual uses necromancy.
- If you create a construct using necromancy, what would it be called? It is a necromantic (adjective) construct (noun). In that statement you are saying that the construct was built with necromancy.
- If you have residual energy left over from a spell that was of the necromancy school, what would it be called? It is residual (adjective) necromantic (adjective, cumulative) energy (noun). In that statement you are saying that the energy that was remaining is from a spell from the necromancy school of magic.

I cannot be more clear than this: "necromantic" is just the adjective form of the word "necromancy".

- - - Updated - - -

And as above poster gave as example - we don't even really know what "Necromancy" is. You think you do, but you don't - like that guy who brought in D&D and got a good retort showing that even supposedly light and pure resurrection spells may also fit the bill and do so by definition in D&D.

Firstly, in D&D, basically all necromancy uses negative energy (i.e.: pulls energy from the Negative Energy Plane). That said, 5e has changed some components of magic, but I believe it's still holds true (if a change has been made, it would likely be released unoffically by Jeremy Crawford until clarified in an official reprint [if required]). Following that, there isn't really a "light" reanimation (in D&D context, "light" reanimation would be necromancy that uses positive energy) in D&D, but even if there was this wasn't even a component of what I was arguing prior (i.e.: their post is wholly unrelated to what I said). That's something the poster fabricated.

Secondly, the purpose of quoting D&D was to give examples showing that necromancy (noun) and necromantic (adjective) being used after that poster tried to show they were different words by comparing raising the dead and necropsy, the latter of which has nothing to do with the definition of necromancy. They're basically trying to move off base because they cannot defend their earlier argument.

For the record, because many people seem to be confused, this is my only position on the Necromancy and Death relationship:
Chronicle is a source of canon and Chronicle explicitly linked Death and Necromancy. If we have subsequent changes to the canon that invalidate Chronicle, that's a retcon.

My position is no more complex than the emphasized statement, but for whatever reason saying that new lore which retroactively changes how things work in the lore is a retcon is now controversial. Other questions do exist on why the Titan PoV is so limited when you would expect the Pantheon of Order to understand the applications of Arcane magic better than mortals, but these are things that we just won't get an answer to.

[Aucald]

I get what you're saying, we have in-game examples for this to be the case. The problem is that Chronicle released and changed it so that Necromancy was solely within the domain of Death. Both the descriptions of Life and Death as well as the cosmological chart within the book conveyed this. This idea was extended by Shadowlands, which affirmed characters like the Lich King and Kel'thuzad used Death magic, and that the Scourge and Cult of the Damned did so as well. Now we have this new quote which explicitly says that Chronicle was wrong. There isn't a problem with Chronicle being wrong, but it's reasonable for people to be annoyed by Blizzard's inconsistent writing, of which the whole saga of Chronicle being repeatedly retconned (i.e.: shown as being incorrect) is a primary reason for agitation.

Again, I don't take issue with the changes, but changes did occur.

I don't think achieving Necromancy via means other than true Death magic is actually a retcon even in terms of the cosmology map in Chronicle Vol. 1. Regardless of how you achieve the end, the use of Necromancy still affects the machinery of Death as a primordial essence or state - the use of Necromancy prevents the natural cycle from occurring (e.g. a deceased soul traveling to Oribos to be judged and sent to its assigned afterlife in the Shadowlands of Death). It is in that sense that both Necromancy and Undeath fall under the umbrella of Death, not in the sense that Necromancy requires Death magic to perform. It also underscores that Necromancy as an art was created by denizens to reside within the realms of Death (namely the Necrolords of Maldraxxus) - but as Sin'dane relates to us, while they created the process of Necromancy, the means to achieve it isn't unique to Death. Similarly, there's an elemental distinction for Fire in the cosmology, but flame itself can be created by a variety of essences including Arcane, Fel, and even via the Light.

[Ielenia]

What is that suppose to mean?:

Yeah, no. You're wrong.

I'm talking about Azeroth. And how necromancy has existed in Azeroth before the dreadlords.

[cocomen2]

All cosmic forces can do Fire/Heal/Resurrection/Teleport ... Why we must limit rising Undead only to Death? then we gonna limit other cosmic forces in their things too?

Lets do mock up rules like these and see how it goes:

1) Only Life can Resurrect, boom and wait for Druid for ress.

2) Only Light can heal, healing from other cosmic forces than Light are gone.

3) Only Fel can produce fire, bye mage and shaman fire specs...dragons just a lizards now.

4) Only Arcane can make Portals and Teleports, sorry crying Warlocks and other plebs.

/s

Now image a Void that can't do Fire/Heal/Resurrection/Teleport/Undead ..... ye that's gonna be old god "HELICOPTER".

[username993720]

Yeah, no. You're wrong.

I'm talking about Azeroth. And how necromancy has existed in Azeroth before the dreadlords.

What? Necromancy on Azeroth did not exist before the Dreadlords. What are you talking about? They literally were the first ones to use it on Azeroth during the War of the Ancients.

[Loreth88]

Necromancy isn't dark magic, it's using magic in general to communicate with the dead, either by summoning them as ghosts or by raising them. So yes, all forms of raising the dead is necromancy. Just movies and stuff have been generalizing necromancy as evil.

I like the concept of the Warhammer Fantasy necromancers: Necromancers are among the most cursed of all those who practice the magical arts, for they have damned their souls and exchanged their Humanity for the ability to raise the dead and command them to wage war upon the living as the Undead.

Necromancer, damned not just themselves, but the raised person to. Thats why they are evil. Break down the natural order of things.

[Iain]

What? Necromancy on Azeroth did not exist before the Dreadlords. What are you talking about? They literally were the first ones to use it on Azeroth during the War of the Ancients.

I find it unlikely that the Zandalari didn't at least dabble with that shit. Zul'Gurub, Zul'Farak, Zul'Aman and Naz'mir are steeped in necromancy (which apparently counts as Necromancy™ now) and all of that preceded the Great Sundering.

- - - Updated - - -

I like the concept of the Warhammer Fantasy necromancers: Necromancers are among the most cursed of all those who practice the magical arts, for they have damned their souls and exchanged their Humanity for the ability to raise the dead and command them to wage war upon the living as the Undead.

Necromancer, damned not just themselves, but the raised person to. Thats why they are evil. Break down the natural order of things.

Technically they got screwed by Dark Elves. It's their magic that's driving the undeath. So it's the Lore of Shadow that branched into the Lore of Death.

But yes, vastly cooler than 'anything can be necromancy if you try hard enough'.

[Ielenia]

What? Necromancy on Azeroth did not exist before the Dreadlords. What are you talking about? They literally were the first ones to use it on Azeroth during the War of the Ancients.

Were they?

[Therougetitan]

What? Necromancy on Azeroth did not exist before the Dreadlords. What are you talking about? They literally were the first ones to use it on Azeroth during the War of the Ancients.

That's weird. Could have sworn Galakrond made undead proto-dragons. Which by definition given to us is the animation of dead bodies. Also weird because Valkyr existed before the war of the ancients and Helya had her undead vrykul. Perhaps you should consider a novel from almost two decades ago didn't plan for the expansion of lore and new stuff has been added.

[Eucep]

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

From what SL seems to suggest, Death magic is the energy created by the cycle of souls and more importantly, their memories. In particular both Bastion and Revendreth shows this well how memories get turned into anima.

[Iain]

From what SL seems to suggest, Death magic is the energy created by the cycle of souls and more importantly, their memories. In particular both Bastion and Revendreth shows this well how memories get turned into anima.

But fel magic is that as well. It relies on sacrifices from living beings.

[Eucep]

But fel magic is that as well. It relies on sacrifices from living beings.

I think that is why death magic is suggested to be more specific about the memories being taken from a soul and said soul then 'moves on' in the cycle. Fel, does not bother with the memories, it fully burns up the soul. The only interjection is the non-canon showcase of Varian ending up in another world after his body and soul got destroyed, with only memories remaining in Anduin.


As a seperate note: I think in wow we can indeed see necromancy as we before knew it as the 'low effort' version that leads more to puppets then actual resurrections. It is just animating bodies without restoring them or putting souls into receptacles like an abomination. Let's keep game mechanics loose from lore, which is the main thing giving plenty of us the idea that a resurrection is 'easy'. Calia for example seems an in between the resurrection and the reanimation with her body having been mended and possibly even her flesh replaced by non flesh as she seems made of marble or maybe solidified light.

The change is indeed quite obvious to do with probably working on changes for the Forsaken. I could even suggest that the Forsaken might get more in contact with Maldraxxis and might study more into flesh craft which might help them with the issue that some Forsaken are currently falling appart and unable to mend it. Lacking the 'living world' that is Maldraxxis itself, we might end up seeing them turning to other sources like elemental and thus shamanism to rebuild bodies or to nature and druidism to rebuild bodies like the Drust do.

[Gaidax]

What? Necromancy on Azeroth did not exist before the Dreadlords. What are you talking about? They literally were the first ones to use it on Azeroth during the War of the Ancients.

Oh really now?

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Helya

And done by Agent of Order no less, by the way.

[DatToffer]

However, the latest lore no longer associates "necromancy" as being a synonym to "death magic". Both are now separate terms. "Death magic" is a type of magic, and "necromancy" is what you can do with any type of magic.

Why couldn't it be both ?

[Ielenia]

Why couldn't it be both ?

Because that's like saying "sword" and "swordplay" are the same thing. Magic types (such as Death magic) are tools, and the spell schools (such as necromancy) are what you can do with said tools.