Hi

Thought this was an interesting enough subject to discuss on a divisive figure. Here was the follow - up from the character update thread:

"I have always been uneasy on the issue of necromancy, something that I disagree with a lot of forum members with. I don't see the practised art any worse than conjuration or illusion, since your forcefully bounding a creature or person to do what you want. Did Raven consider that when he manipulated Alarissha's mind and then let guards murder her? It follows a very similar pattern of forceful manipulation, the only difference being the vessel is living rather than dead, which makes it even worse in my opinion. It is like vampires - You can play good ones, and bad ones. You can play an illusionist that murders innocents by warping their minds into a rage, and necromancers that will only use the bodies of bandits or evil - doers. The argument was partially discussed in the black arts on trial. But the book was biased and did not give necromancy a fair discussion. First of all, it was written by Traven who is extremely anti - necromancy, like with historical references in the real world, you have to always take into account bias. Almost all works are bias by the writers opinion, no matter how slight. And the book was not stating facts, but opinions, which is very grey waters on the subject. The second thing that annoyed me intensely was how, surprise surprise, the argument to not ban necromancy came from somebody who was painted as a scheming liar. The book did not cover the subject broadly enough either.

I have always disliked Traven, he is a very divisive person. In my opinion, he went against the wishes of the majority of mages in Cyrodill, and that is just not on. His rules were shaped by his personal hatred of necromancy, and he did not take into account general consensus and academical rationality. I have respect for Traven, but I have never liked him. In my opinion, Traven was quite as ruthless as Mannimarco at getting what he wanted. And if somebody didn't fit in with his visions then normally he sent the player character to go and kill them. Ok, so he made a great sacrifice at the end, but Traven was old, and he probably knew that the Avatar was going to be favoured over him for being at the top.

In terms of implications, Traven's actions were one of the factors that resulted in the destruction of the mages guild. His policy's pretty much destroyed the internal heart of the guild, with most of the senior mages having been hunted down and slaughtered. Granted, they may of been bad, but isn't it ironic how Travens main opponents just happened to all mysteriously die?

And, in the end, what did it achieve? Broadly the collapse of academical study and progression of magic. A lot of magic subsequently vanished after the collapse of the mages guild. I know some people regard him as a hero, I don't. I think he was an utterly ruthless man who knew who his friends and enemies were, and how to get rid of them."

The mages guild is outlined in the mages charter and it does not give the right for an individual guild head to alter its rules. Traven essentially ignored the democratic freedoms the charter granted to the practise and study of all studies of magic. It was an independent opinion that he shared.

I really despise this part of Tes. Not one scrap of reference throws necromancy in a good light. Where was the "other" side of the argument - The developers wanted to us to view necromancy as evil, with no discussion. And I refuse to accept that. Because there is always two sides to a coin. Skyrim gave a much more balanced and fair argument on necromancy, with both positive and negative debates. However, it also accepted necromancy was not 100% there - is - no - question evil. I respect the individual opinions of people, Traven, however, does not. If you don't fit in with his rules and his opinions then you cant join a millennia - old organisation that he has no ownership of. Not discussing something is, in fact, stupid and narrow - minded. The very opposite of what the centre of learning should be. Academically, you have to be open - minded and respect other peoples opinion. Its basic respect. Had necromancy not been painted in one of the most one - sided argument I have ever seen, a lot more people would question whether Traven was a hero or a vicious dictator that didn't care about other peoples opinions.

Im open to discussion. I ask you to consider one more thing - Imagine if Traven was an actual member of this forum, could you honestly say you would actually enjoy discussion with him? I do not think so. I actually think he would rub a lot of people up the wrong way with his opinionated views on magic and what is right and what is wrong. The game is limited in that it can only provide a snapshot of Travens life - Give a more detailed anolysis, what would you find?

Traven, I think, was a guy who meant well but simply let his personal biases overrule his thinking. He should never have risen to the rank of Archmage; a moderate should have taken the job instead.

It's pretty clear that while people liked him, they were uneasy about his policies. Not every necromancer is a worm anchorite in the making; remember the orc in the Balmora Mages' Guild?

I doubt that all the Council of Wizards were necromancers, but they could have easily been disgruntled moderates or academic scholars. The only Guild Master with anything to say about him was his successor in the Anvil guild; all the rest seem to be rather...worried, I guess. There's an IL forum post written from the perspective of a disgruntled Archmagister chewing out Traven for his bone-headedness: http://www.imperial-library.info/content/differences-magical-schools-3e-432

I have only been through the Mages Guild once so I don't feel qualified to have an opinion about Traven.

But, in my opinion, this quoted part is irrelevant to your discussion. Speaking for myself, in real life I do not care whether I might enjoy discussion with a leader. This is not a criterion I apply to leaders. In fact, I suspect that most leaders - of corporations and governments alike - are pretty unpleasant people to be around in general. I doubt that I would want to spent two seconds around anyone who runs my government or who runs any corporation whose products I purchase. This is not what I ask of them. What I ask is they they do their job well. If they do their job well, I am satisfied.

Good source LordofBones. Demonstrates the argument pretty well.

Jeepers this is a very biased poll.

For example, in the second question there is no option to say what he did was right. Every option as of this post (Too Harsh, Too Soft, Too Fast, Not managed well) is negative. And the last question does not say anything positive either.

I think Traven is a very admirable and courageous person (character). I'd be honored if he were my friend. He is a man who stood up for what he believed in, and helped others at great personal sacrifice.

And while I can't go into details in the general forum (where this is now), if you look a what happened in the end, the Mages Guild came out of the crisis in very good shape.

No it didn't, it collapsed at the beginning of the 4th era. That is why the third question is there.

I agree with Savlian and think that you shouldy modify the 2nd question, OBSKMO, because there isn't any answer in favor of Traven. I can't vote on the 2nd question but I'd vote on the 1st one as "He did what he thought was best" and on the 3rd one as "It was inevitable". But of course I can't vote without answering to every question. And I don't regard Traven as monster at all.

Hardly. The entire Council of Wizards was gutted and the organization collapsed not two years later. There are even rumors that Traven used the position for his own political agenda.

The problem with "standing up for what he believed in" is that his beliefs not only compromised the scholastic integrity of the guild, but it also ran contrary to the founder's own aims. What Vanus wanted as a public institution open to anyone willing was instead turned into a private body. "Helping others" isn't what I'd call using an unsuspecting apprentice as bait - something that Count Hassildor is furious about.

I′ve never played through the MG completely and I really have no fixed opinion about Traven. He may or may not be a good or bad person, I don′t know him enough to say which.

About Necromancy, if executed in a correct manner I guess it′s not as evil as I used to think. Strict rules, openness and overseeing is of course necessary as with everything so we don′t go back to the days of old when doctors paid good money to anyone who dug up fresh corpses in the graveyard in the middle of the night just so they could get test subjects for their experiments.