I use my own necromancy, which is a thing you don't have. Don't get up in arms over that, it's a simple fact of this necromancy being innate to the applicable people from my home.
So yes, actually, 'encourage it' is profound advice.
It needs blood magic to serve as an anchor to stay liquid. I can't tell you a spell to chant, I'm not that kind of wizard.
Necromancy is manipulating 'life energy' in the living or dead to cause various states of living dead, undead, and unliving and such. Is that more or less true where you're from too?
No. Ours has two kinds of energy, and ordinary necromancers don't resurrect. Nobody would call a skeleton animated by a necromancer any more alive or dead than an automatic door. Personally, I do history.
I'm trying to tell you it's nigh involuntary for me, as a process, which makes it difficult to put into steps. But you will have to put some magic in it.
It's a skeleton; it's only pieces. Mind you, I'd say the same about a full corpse being programmed to move around, but we don't do much of that either. Once the soul has gone, it's only material.
Even without a soul involved a necromancer would still use life energy to animate something that had once been living. Would your method work on something that only looked like a skeleton but hadn't been alive?
I already told you my necromancy deals in two energies, and frankly, hardly anyone cares about the 'life energy' besides me. But: as thanergy, our 'death energy,' can cling to objects that were always inanimate, sure, I don't see why not. The theorems would have to be updated.
Here: I've a construct in Viktor's lab, we call him Junior. We also call him 'he,' obviously, but he's a construct. The thing that controls him is me, telling the thanergy what to do. No one is in there.
Now, a revenant on the other hand— a ghost powering a physical shell— sounds closer to the kind of 'undead' you're talking about. They have many of their original faculties, they can sometimes talk, and so on. That said, my necromancy doesn't force a soul to inhabit a thing to move it around; I can bridge the gap and have a chat with the deceased, if they're willing, but the 'willing' is key.
I've seen evidence that our necromancy can be manipulated in higher-concept ways than we're taught, but that's when the questionable morals and divesting of autonomy start to creep in.
To sum up: my little lab assistant is just an appliance, no matter how much I like him.
It's a while IC before D gets back to this but he eventually does
Mindless and soulless undead are still undead, but only for being animate through life energy. No soul is necessary but they would still be considered undead even if all they are is an 'appliance'.
The difference seems to be that a necromancer where I'm from couldn't reasonably animate something that had never been alive, but there are other mystical disciplines that can. I've fought constructs made of sand and someone who could animate long-broken machines to function under her will.
For something to be alive or undead it doesn't need to have a soul, but something with a soul is usually alive or undead.
Academically, I disagree. Semantics, though. My interpretation of necromantic theory has always been more akin to a science than a magic, besides.
Just about everyone here has leapt immediately to resurrection when they hear 'necromancy,' anyway, and the fact remains that I don't do that. Regardless of the vocabulary.
[Or did they just establish a society and leave it to other people to run while they went off to pursue their own agenda. No D's not projecting or anything.]
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
text; un: JustD | Backdated a few days
no subject
no subject
Give me something more than 'Encourage it'.
no subject
So yes, actually, 'encourage it' is profound advice.
It needs blood magic to serve as an anchor to stay liquid. I can't tell you a spell to chant, I'm not that kind of wizard.
no subject
Necromancy is manipulating 'life energy' in the living or dead to cause various states of living dead, undead, and unliving and such. Is that more or less true where you're from too?
no subject
I'm trying to tell you it's nigh involuntary for me, as a process, which makes it difficult to put into steps. But you will have to put some magic in it.
1/2
2/2
no subject
You're welcome.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I think the underlying mechanics of how life and death work are further apart between your reality and mine than anything else I've come across.
Or we're using the same words but have very different meanings behind them.
no subject
Here: I've a construct in Viktor's lab, we call him Junior. We also call him 'he,' obviously, but he's a construct. The thing that controls him is me, telling the thanergy what to do. No one is in there.
Now, a revenant on the other hand— a ghost powering a physical shell— sounds closer to the kind of 'undead' you're talking about. They have many of their original faculties, they can sometimes talk, and so on. That said, my necromancy doesn't force a soul to inhabit a thing to move it around; I can bridge the gap and have a chat with the deceased, if they're willing, but the 'willing' is key.
I've seen evidence that our necromancy can be manipulated in higher-concept ways than we're taught, but that's when the questionable morals and divesting of autonomy start to creep in.
To sum up: my little lab assistant is just an appliance, no matter how much I like him.
It's a while IC before D gets back to this but he eventually does
The difference seems to be that a necromancer where I'm from couldn't reasonably animate something that had never been alive, but there are other mystical disciplines that can. I've fought constructs made of sand and someone who could animate long-broken machines to function under her will.
For something to be alive or undead it doesn't need to have a soul, but something with a soul is usually alive or undead.
no subject
Just about everyone here has leapt immediately to resurrection when they hear 'necromancy,' anyway, and the fact remains that I don't do that. Regardless of the vocabulary.
no subject
You keep saying 'resurrection'. What does that word mean to you?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
[Or did they just establish a society and leave it to other people to run while they went off to pursue their own agenda. No D's not projecting or anything.]
no subject
Look, I would rather not talk about this, if it's all the same to you.
no subject