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}
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