The question: "Are nectromancers evil?" Makes little sense to me. It is the same as asking whether fighters are evil. Well, yes, some of them sure are, others are not. The problem is that it is generally difficult to define "evil" and also to define a "necromancer" (well in Oblivion, it is simple, they are the guys in black robes, but again, Oblivion did very bad on this field).

Necroamncers in my opinion are guys and galls who deal with death. Death is a natural thing, so dealing with it is natural as well. Morticians in our culture deal with death as well and I do not concider them evil just because of this. Sure, necromancers do unnatural things like bringing dead back to life. But is it more unnatural then binding demonic servants or causing lightning stroms just by a gesture of one's hand?

And as far as Mannimarco goes, I think he is the most powerful of the necromancers/liches the OP listed, but I know him best, so that might have influenced my voting. I feel very sorry for how he is presented in Oblivion. It is a sad sad excuse for a master lich and God of worms, really.

EDIT: Many games have a division to good magic vs. bad magic, light magic vs. dark magic, beneficial magic vs. corrupting magic and so on TES always seemed to me to have created a world where magic does not have any lable like this. Magic is a tool and you can use it for whateer you wish. In Oblivon, though they presented Daedric magic and Necromantic magic which are "purely evel and corrupting" thus damaging (gain?) their own unique lore. I donot think that any school of magic can be good or evil in TES, because you can use these termes only about sentient beings. destruction does not have a will of its own, so it is neither good nor bad. Taht guy who tosses fireballs can be good, bad, evil, nasty, sadistic, whatever, but his fireball is not and nor is destruction or any other magic school. There are many corrupting forces in the world of TES, knowledge should not be one of them.

.. WHAT evil intentions???

Sorry but you have to be a bit clearer there, what do oyu think ar ethe necromancers "EVIL INTENTIONS"? Is it wanting to extend their lieftime, well then MANY dunmer are evil too as they do that too.
PLEASE don't tell me "they want to take over the world", that's just crap. Or "they want to kill everyone because they are necromancers", does that mean every butcher has the intention to kill every animal alive?

As intended.

The Majority.







^ Lol I didn't believe that there are so many chaotic evil Elder Scrolls members (If I miss someone sorry)

...WHAT!? HOW!? WHY!? Are you seriously that dense to just label us evil, just because we find that the prejudices against necromancy are wrong?

Tell us then why we're "chaotic evil."

Yes, because the majority is both always right and always proof or credibility of being in the right. :rolleyes: The number of people that support a position has nothing to do with its veracity or lack thereof.


Maybe you should actually read the arguments (and the arguments in the past thread I linked). Recognizing that necromancy in and of itself is just as evil or not evil as any other device in the world is not something that earns you the label of "chaotic evil." Rather it, at most, earns you the label of in-universe ethical nihilist. Or even possibly in-universe ethical absolutist skeptic.

What is Necromancy, really? Necromancy is reanimating the dead. Is that illegal? Is that inherently evil? No. You emulate that whenever you conjure the dead. Necromancy is capturing human souls in soulgems. Is that inherently evil? If it is, then so are the regular soulgems that a mage might use in any play-through, as all souls are given equal primordial status thanks to the dreamsleeve. And the question of whether it's better to permanently inhibit a soul from its passage or better to let that soul get completely purged and the identity destroyed in the dreamsleeve, that's a question that is far to difficult to parse out in terms of good and evil.

Necromancy has just as much potential to be used for good as for ill as any other use of magicka. Necromancy itself is morally neutral. Therefore, important point.Necromancy is not inherently evil.

Now, does Oblivion unflinchingly portray those who practice necromancy to be blanket evil? Yes, pathetically. And my refutation to this goes as follows.
In Daggerfall, the King of Worms was hardly the "I want to take over the world for my own unstated and purposely-left-bland purposes" group. They had their interests, to be sure, but they were a lot more subtle in getting them. And they were not evil. Different, yes. A bit ostracized, yes. But not "zOMG I'm gonna kill you!" as soon as you walk in. Would they leave undead guards to protect against those fringe groups *cough*Temple of Arkay*cough* that wished to do them harm? Naturally. But once you stumbled upon the KoW, it was a party. He talked civilly, invited you to chill with his peoples, or you were free to run on your merry way.

Further, in Oblivion, the Mages Guild overstepped their bounds in banning necromancy, and they took the first hostile swipe. Imagine if you're studying something that's completely legal, something that you're not using to cause mass havoc and despair on the world, and all of a sudden, some guy on a moral high-horse tells you your studies are inherently evil and therefore you must be removed forcibly from the guild. Read http://www.imperial-library.info/obbooks/black_arts_on_trial.shtml. Note that, at the end, Uliceta was discovered to be a practicing necromancer, and Traven makes the decision to send the Mages Guild's own private troops after her to arrest her. First, they have no right under Imperial law to arrest her. But second and most important, remembering that necromancy is not inherently evil, this is just as bad as someone sending out the secret police on someone because of their views. There is no evidence to suggest that Uliceta was using necromancy to damage lives or property, yet Traven automatically entwines "necromancer" with "evil" and acts accordingly, against the laws he's bound to. Which is the moral side, here? Finally, the book notes that she "makes good her escape," as though that's some sort of affirmation of the wrongdoing. Why shouldn't she have fled? She was about to get arrested by those who didn't have the authority, and potentially subjected to who-knows-what kind of punishment for simply practicing an art. Is it really not understandable, then, why all these necromancers leave and are pretty irritated and scared that their guild is dong some majorly judgmental and rash things? So when the KoW and his band come along and offer them a resistance flag, a lot of them probably jump on the bandwagon. Not to say that all of them do; that's just oblivion's failure to display it. Saying that all necromancers are evil because they're all hostile on sight is like saying that all wildlife is evil because all wildlife is hostile on sight.

And last off, there are historical precedents of necromantic or lichified individuals doing things that would have a hard time being called evil. Aeslip, becoming a lich and sealing himself away to protect the Skaal from rogue ice Daedra on Solstheim. Barlizar, becoming a lich and hiding away in the Mournhold sewers to keep the Mazed Band out of the wrong hands. Sharn gra-Muzgob in the Balmora Mages Guild; rude and cantankerous, to be sure, but a loyal Mages Guild member and good friend to Caius and the Empire despite being a necromancer. Archmage Voa of the Stros M'kai Mages Guild, who sealed the soul of Prince A'tor in a soulgem (a purportedly necromantic act) to secure the hopes of the Redguards in throwing off the Imperial yoke by potentially allowing the prince to be revived. Not to mention the many useful practices of necromancy that have been documented, such as ruling officials giving necromancers the corpses of criminals to both ensure that said necromancers are supporting the state and to deter the rate of crime to protect the citizenry.


I would like you to prove to me that necromancy, and by extension, necromancers, are objectively and inherently evil. Good luck. Protip, though: It's impossible. Any philosophical argument that attempts to objectively and universally prove something as evil breaks down.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t22/Rumple_teasza/King%20of%20Worms/KOWpimpinhishos.jpg
Man I miss that guy.

A few good examples:
-Working as surgeons, their extended knowledge of anatomy would allow them to work a lot better and effective than JUST magical healers.
-They can transplant body parts and reanimate them.
-They can work in an army, if soldiers die they can reanimate them and send them back into the fight.
-They could probably works as "coroners" since they'd have studdies causes of death, hell they could even try to reanimate someone and ASK them who killed them.

Lol please don't take my words to seriously. Apologies.

But evil is not a "arbitrary term "
http://uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Ten_Commands:_Nine_Divines

And to make excuses with if the fighter kill and the mage causes destructions why not I to dig some bodies and to force them dance some polka for me makes you evil enough (and yes even if you use bodies of the criminals).

If it's "not arbitrary" then tell me why necromancy was NOT seen as evil till Oblivion and even was welcome within the mages guild?
And you talk like ALL necromancers do crazy things, if you overgeneralize on them you have to overgeneralize on the others, Warriors kill everyone if it means a little extra money and mages blow everything up for fun and power.

Besides, the command of the nine you probably wanted to get to was:
"Honor the earth, its creatures, and the spirits, living and dead. Guard and tend the bounties of the mortal world, and do not profane the spirits of the dead". (since this is the only one concernig the dead)
Who says Necromancers DON'T honor the dead, it also says "honor the creatures", does that mean eating meat is evil (or generally anything you could see as living)? Besides it say don't profane the SPIRITS of the dead, which necromancers don't do, they mess with the BODIES, if you wanna point fingers start with the Dunmer in Vvradenfell as they regularly summon spirits of their ancestors to fight for them.

There's the problem with "divine laws", you VERY quickly run into problems, contradictions and things that plain out make no sense (just like in real life)

Just because the Imperial Nine Divines worship has its own set of values, it's important to note that these are completely subjective values. They cannot be proven to be universal objective values. Nor are they the only sets of values to be portrayed, and nor are they provably better or worse than other values portrayed. Therefore it still stands that evil is, in fact, an arbitrary term in the world of TES.

To bring it to a point: that's what the entirety of TES is pretty much about; multitudes of contrasting and differing and battling viewpoints all fighting for dominance, all believing that they are correct.

Refutation of the Nine Divines' take on morality from a Dunmer perspective: http://www.imperial-library.info/mwbooks/lives_saints.shtml http://www.imperial-library.info/mwbooks/ancestor.shtml
Refutation of the Nine Divines' take on morality from a Nordic perspective: http://www.imperial-library.info/gods/skyrim.shtml


The key words there being: "for you." Subjectivism. Not objectivism. And while it's fine to have a personal view of evil, the game should not actively work to portray them as "the evil guys" as was done in Oblivion. It should supply detailed information, give both sides positive and negative attributes, giving everyone dirt underneath their fingernails essentially, give the contrasting viewpoints contrast themselves by not having everyone in one side think or act the same (not making everyone a polar extreme, in other words) and present every viewpoint in an unbiased light to allow the player to subjectively choose which side is in the wrong and which side is in the right. When the game starts to make that choice for you through its presentation and mechanics, it's not only unfair to the side being presented and ruinous to the nature of morality in TES, it's just plain Boring and Therefore Wrong.

The 10 commandmants are "good" for people in tamriel because they come from the gods of nirn, that are good to their own creation, that exists by their standards, by Nirn's standard, they are as right and good as it gets. For the same reason, what the daedra say is "evil" for people in tamriel, because they do not obey those rules, and it works another way on their planes. I do not see how the dadra's actions and actions against the rules of the nine divines can be good(if good means to keep Nirn intact and working, which is reasonable for the people living there). And forget Arkay's law, what's it good for anyway?(Not about the souls, but bodies, I mean)
By those standards, necromancy is not evil. But what is evil anyway?

For the Aedra , though, how many dozen ways do they get redefined and reinterpreted? And how many times do those redefinitions and reinterpretations actually mythically alter what the Aedra definitively are? Mortals are defined by gods; Gods are defined by mortals. http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text/sporedream.shtml after all. Further, where is it definitive that the Aedra are good to their own creation? Where is it definitive that creation exists by their standards? That all depends on which avenue of the Monomyth is bought into. In the Merish perspective, the world should have never been made at all, as it's a hindrance to what might have been. In the mannish perspective, the world is completely necessary as a freedom from predictability. Yet both parties use the Aedra to make their points. Did the Nine Divines and Shor willingly sacrifice to make Nirn, thus making creation exist by their own standards; were the Daedra craven and cowardly beings that refused to help yet wanted to reap the benefits? Or did Lorkhan trick the Aedra into doing something they didn't want in the end, thus making creation exist antithetically to their standards; were the Daedra correct and smarter to cast disdain on sacrificing for creation?

It, and therefore what is good or evil, depends entirely on which basic unprovable premise you decide to choose.
So too with necromancy, and everything else in the ES universe.

This may be a little off topic but felt like it could fit. How are people sure the whole thing about the Aedra and Daedra are true?

Now we did see the Daedra exist and we did see things the Nine divines did. But can we be sure that whatever is told about them is actually true?
Look at the Tribunal for example, they rose to something we can CALL godhood, but they still never where real Gods, they just had a godlike power. Specially evident as they became mortal again once that source of power was gone.
So it's possible the Aedra pull a similar game.

Well just a theory thrown in, just saying don't say "God(s) said so" as a too heavy argument, even in a fantasy world.

I ask this question, because I view necromancers and liches as mages who study the dead. The only ones I view as evil are the ones who kidnap victims. The mages' guild banned their art, and then tried to exterminate them. Champion of Cyrodiil/Raminus/Travern should all be in prison for this. The goverment allowed necromancers and gave them corpses, why'd they become instantly chaotic evil? I view necromancers as any of the following factions: Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, and rarely, Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. I view liches as any of the following factions: Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, or Lawful Evil (Liches have codes or laws they abide by)

I've not finished the mage guild quest in 'Oblivion' (and I'm selectively reading about it to avoid specific spoilers), but as I understand it people believe that Necromancers are portrayed as pure (objective) evil in Oblivion. Well, from the guild's point of view, sure, evil is after all subjectively defined, and as such 'Oblivion' is not any less relativistic on its take on evil; even the province itself may define necromancy as evil - we're in cyrodiil after all - and it's my understanding that the empire is not too fond of necromancers.

There are countless of real life parallels to moral relativism - 'the west' vs. 'terrorism' beeing just one. Neither 'terrorists' nor 'the army' define themselves as evil, in fact most (if not all?) people see themselves as 'good'... Which view prevails are in large a matter of influence, power and self interests.

Living in the sphere of influence (Cyrodiil) you'd be hard pressed to find the province embracing the moral relativism of "evil" - in this case relating to necromancy....

The problem here is that necromancers where not displayed as evil before, it was all done in Oblivion and, honestly,it WAS just to have a enemy for the mages guild to battle.
While Necromancers where not tollerated in Morrowind too it was due to necromancy being outlawed due to cultural and political reasons since as a compromise for the colonization Vvradenfell kept Dunmeri law. In the other parts of the empire Necromany was allowed and even welcome, it WAS part of the mages guild before. While you can say "It is seen as evil in that land" it was NOT before, why the sudden change and why is EVERYONE seemingly OK with it?

Reall the only reason was "Necromancers are always evil in OTHER fantasy so they are here too" and who wants to be "different" after LotR did so well now huh?

Well, though much of the lore still escape me, I'm arguing based on the presumption that the empire frowns upon necromancy. If that's true, it'd be easy to simply define it as 'evil'.

No one here is arguing moral relativism. Moral relativism itself is an inherently flawed ethical theory; it's nothing but a giant contradiction. Either ethical nihilism is being argued or skeptical absolutism, where it is acknowledged that moral codes occur naturally yet it is denied that we will ever prove them.

Further, assuming that everyone in Cyrodiil finds necromancy to be abhorrent, we can say that all of Cyrodiil subjectively feels that necromancy is evil. However, here's where real-world philosophy and game design tactics intermesh. Because the game only portrays Cyrodiil, then our game, regardless of whatever else is known in the lore, presents necromancy as objectively evil in the sense that no other conclusion can rationally be reached. It's why so many of the arguments put forth either involve metagame understandings such as the dreamsleeve, or known information as displayed in other games.

And the beginning assumption is tenuous at best. Even in Oblivion's portrayal, the only people who actually care about the necromancers in the slightest are the Mages Guild. And Oblivion's portrayal aside, it's not only unbelievable that every single necromancer in the province is going to rally to the cause of Mannimarco, it is Boring and Therefore Wrong. You say yourself (correctly) that no one thinks of themselves as evil, and that everyone arrives at their actions as the result of semi-rational anolysis, regardless of its veracity. Oblivion's portrayal of necromancers provides no rationale whatsoever, beyond begging-the-question "They do bad things because they're evil, and they're evil because they do bad things" logic. There are no necromantic manifestos or literature that explain the why's, the motivation, the inner philosophy. There is no spectrum within the necromancers themselves; they are all clones of one another in terms of their actions and supposed beliefs that we are not given. In fact, there is no given motivation whatsoever to the KoW's actions of attacking the guild and wanting to remove it. So while no-one thinks of themselves as evil, Oblivion sure doesn't give a lot of evidence to support this for the necromancers. It's not that we want everyone to suspend judgment in the Imperial Province; that's not it at all. It's that if you're going to flesh out Group A's dislike of Group B, then you'd better flesh out Group B's defense and rebuttal to Group A's dislike just as much.

And finally, necromancy is perfectly legal within the Empire. Grave-robbing is illegal, but necromancy is perfectly legal. To be a necromancer, you just have to get your base material from legal Imperial sources (and they have in the past). If Cyrodiil were so up-in-arms about it, then they'd have made it a punishable offense a long time ago, and the common non-mage citizenry would actually have something to say on the matter en masse.

I always assumed necomancy and lichdom damaged your soul, and mind, or at least thats how it seemed in game. I think your weaker willed people how would use lichdom to gain power were consumed by it. Many of the liches in game had probably lost there mind as there body rotted away, it seems like it would be traumatic.

To be a lich, you really needed to pretty powerful or intelligent already. It does take years of research and study to get an idea of the procedure, and once completed, it cannot be reversed. Plus, as I said earlier, there are many different reason to be a lich. However, the most notable reason is so that the person doesn't die of old age.

Also, the art of necromancy is not a quick, easy, corrupting school of magic so painfully portrayed in many sources. In fact, it's pretty much an art as it is a science. You have to have patience to properly prepare a body. A strong will to make sure the thing you just reanimated doesn't decide to kill you (but that often seems to be the case of using dead animals). And it takes plenty of practice to properly and effectively create a good skeleton. Not to mention a ton of study on anatomy and especially physiology. And why would just casting a reanimation spell be damning to your soul? How would it be damning? What's the difference of having a dead body get up and do some basic chores a different accomplishment from restoration, the school of life and healing? If I had my arm cut off, I'd sooner go to a necromancer to stick my arm back, because they would at least know how to attach it back properly and how to suture, than go to some priest and make them stop the bleeding. I WANT MY ARM BACK!

If you ask me, mysticism, conjuration, and destruction are actually the most unstable of the schools. With mysticism, you can go insane, and you kind of have to to be a great practitioner mysticism. With conjuration, should you ease your concentration of binding your daedra pet, they will break free of your control, kill you, and destroy everything around them till they are whisked back into oblivion. Why else do you occasionally hear inexperienced conjurers have scamps of other kinds of daedra suddenly break free and destroy the area around them? And then there's destruction. Really, a school that teaches you to control elements to cause harm. What if that spell detonated right on you? In DF if you cast an area of effect spell, and you happened to be in its radius, you also got hurt.

it takes a grim person to play with dead bodies... but i can see your point.

What about med students? They have to play with dead bodies. Surgeons have to cut up people while they're alive on the table.

I agree of course, perhaps I spoke too soon on the matter - I've yet to meet many necromancers in Oblivion.



As I said, lore still escape me - in part a wrongful assumption on my part then.



Well, I did not intend to use the philosofical meaning on "moral relativism" in the context of a strict ethical theory. I merely combined the words myself to illustrate that the subjective view of right and wrong is coloured by its place in the world. In fact, in many conflicts you'll find pros and cons for both sides if you take a deep look. To me this is pretty commonsense, but of course, I could read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Ah, my apologies then. If we're talking ethical relativity in an anthropological sense and not a philosophical sense, then you are certainly correct.

A tangent on the philosophical moral relativism position and why it's contradictory: whereas anthropology would simply note differing morals without commenting on the truth of the morals, philosophy would claim that actual moral truth is dependent upon culture. And since moral truth depends on culture, one culture cannot then make value judgments on another culture, or even their own culture in a different time frame. Because of this claim, they must absolutely be tolerant of other cultures' moral truths. The contradiction comes in the "must" in that last sentence. It forces people into such worldviews as "intolerant tolerance" or "absolute inabsolutism."