Elder Scrolls Lore » Discussions


Morality of Necromancy

  • October 6, 2015

    It seems to me that, aside from any cultural stigmas, the morality of necromancy depends on two things:

    1. The ethical treatment of the souls of the deceased.

    So long as the necromancer doesn't harm the souls or detain/subjugate them against their will (eg: don't do this), this shouldn't be a problem. According to the book On Necromancy, one can raise a corpse without disturbing its original spirit as long as it has been dead for a sufficient amount of time. However, exactly how long this is isn't specified.

    2. That the practice itself is not inherently evil or corrupting. 

    This one is a bit trickier, as although it's widely believed, there's not really any definitive information on it. The only things I've found are in Souls: Black and White and The Black Arts On Trial. In Souls: Black and White it is stated, speaking of black soul gems, that "If the gem is not precisely the size of the encased soul, small bits of the caster's soul may leak into the gem when it is touched." Although I see this as less of an issue with necromancy and more of needing to handle black soul gems cautiously. As for The Black Arts On Trial, there is a section wherein the opponent of necromancy states that "The simplest spell requires the spilling of blood, and immediately begins to corrupt the caster's soul. This is not conjecture, but simple fact." However, this may not actually be "simple fact" as the writer states. First, he is obviously very biased against necromancy, and might therefore exaggerate or even fabricate information to prove his point. Second, his assertion that even "The simplest spell requires the spilling of blood" is simply not true: there are given only two complete descriptions of necromantic rituals that I am aware of, (in the books Practical Necromancy and Ascendancy: Pathway to Lichdom) and while both involve cruelty to souls, neither involves blood. Since his first "fact" is false, it stands to reason that his second might be as well.

    I don't have a final answer, but unless someone has proof that it is inherently evil and corrupting, I think I'll go with Necromancy being neutral.

    What do the people of the Vault have to say on this matter?

  • Member
    October 6, 2015

    "Now, it is true, of course, that conjuration is a common tool of sorcery, and we sorcerers often resort to summoning aid from Oblivion when a problem is best solved by judicious application of vicious brute force. It is also true that summoning Daedric spirits to possess and animate corpses, or calling up the souls of the dead for information or other services—in short, necromancy—is a subset of the art of conjuration, albeit inherently distasteful and degrading." Sorcery is not Necromancy

    Just to muddy the waters even more

  • Member
    October 6, 2015

    When I have to choose between getting hit by a fireball or raising a corpse temporarily to do it for me, I choose the corpse.

    Zombies can walk most things off.

  • Member
    October 6, 2015

    It is an indisputable fact that necromancy, the foulest of all magical endeavors, is on the rise. Word of unsettled spirits, shambling corpses, and worse spreads across Tamriel, planting seeds of fear in common folk...

    ...Necromancy, as you likely know, is the manipulation of souls, soul energies, or corpses of the dead. Unwilling spirits are often involved, and in the eyes of any rational being, the “study” of this type of magic is repellant. It should not be surprising to you that much knowledge of necromancy is attributed to Daedric forces, specifically those of the abhorrent Molag Bal, further cementing it as a sphere that must be shunned.

    Undeath is not always a product of renegade mages tampering with souls and rotting flesh. Cursed diseases such as Noxophilic Sanguivoria can corrupt the living. The result is an undead creature that requires the blood of the living for sustenance... Unhallowed Legions

    Propaganda or truth?

  • October 7, 2015

    The discussion could be made more ambiguous - because I am a troll like that - by questioning the criterion for necromancy.

    It is no question raising the dead would be classified as necromancy but what about controlling and/or especially harming them? I doubt some random mage - regardless of skill - could learn how to control and/or especially harm the undead if they spent no time studying them.

    Furthermore, it is acceptable to use the corpses of criminals in Cyrodiil and some Altmer study necromancy for medical purposes.  

    I am going with necromancy being neutral though requiring a special mind to not get lost in the unique power dynamics that makes it appealing to the unconscionable. Hannibal Traven's statements are biased but they are not without merit either. 

  • October 7, 2015
    Well, that sentence actually makes it LESS of an issue for me: first, it means that the original spirit isn't being summoned up to control the body, and is therefore not being disturbed (as long as the corpse has been dead long enough, according to On Necromancy). Second, I'm a Telvanni through and through, so I have no issue whatsoever with, and would even encourage, "consorting with daedra" as the ignorant Vigilants of Stendarr like to call it. :P (I can't insert the normal emotions on my phone for some reason :/
  • October 7, 2015
    Both. It's most definitely propaganda against necromancy, and while the facts it uses are mostly true, they're misconstrued a bit: yes necromancy can involve unwilling spirits, but only for specific spells or if you practice irresponsibly. Also, like I said in my last response, I have no problems with daedra, and while I may not like Molag Bal, I have no problem using knowledge that he decided to share.
    It's not where knowledge/power comes from that matters, it's what you do with it and with what intent.
  • October 7, 2015

    I also agree that Necromancy is neutral, at least as far as it is portrayed in The Elder Scrolls, and that the stigma associated with it is by large cultural "dishonoring the dead" and social "being followed around by a couple of rotting corpses is creepy." 

    Really the most evil magic is Illusion.  One of the easiest spells is Fury which can make a man kill his own family against his will, you don't get much more evil than that.

  • Member
    October 7, 2015

    Personally, I'm on the fence. True, people could use it to see deceased loved ones again, or for medical purposes, or, if possible, advice, but then again, people could make an army of undead to take over a town, rule from the shadows, or the like

  • Member
    October 7, 2015

    in D&D it's considered evil.