ic inbox

[megatheorem]

voice • video • text • action
un: warden

Comments

It's a while IC before D gets back to this but he eventually does

[distant_one]

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.

[megatheorem]

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.

[distant_one]

Our realities operate very differently, so our definitions and understanding of words like 'undead' and 'necromancy' are going to differ.

You keep saying 'resurrection'. What does that word mean to you?

[megatheorem]

'Resurrection' refers to revitalizing a corpse. Fully, without decay, as if it never died, soul intact.

[distant_one]

There are people who can do that in your reality to someone other than themselves?

[megatheorem]

Well, just the one.

[distant_one]

And that one is in charge of everything?

[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.]

[megatheorem]

He'd like to think so.

Look, I would rather not talk about this, if it's all the same to you.

[distant_one]

Agreed.