» Fri May 27, 2011 4:46 am Perhaps the use of a soul doesn't have to be that specific person's soul? It was only mentioned that a soul was needed, not the same soul. So a soul is needed, but the intelligence of the individual servant is determined by their intelligence in life (which also helps if the brain is intact. Skeletons have no brain left are are very simple minded).
At least that is how I interpret the information.
At least that is how I interpret the information.
I have a problem with that theory, because that'd assume the soul of a rat will produce the same results as if I used a mer. If that's the case, then why the hell go after people? From what the book implies, animal corpse = animal ability, mer/man/beastman body = mer/man/beastman abilityish, soul not affecting anything.
What I would be willing to accept is that the bad or inexperienced necromancer would use the energy of a soul to fill in missing gaps of their skill to raise undead. But, I find if that's the case, it can tie very closely with enchanting. In fact, it is exactly like enchanting, only instead of using a sword, you use a dead body.
If that's the case, this kind of thinking I am circumventing at the moment, has some issues that need to be addressed. In DF, soul energy was the actual soul, and if used to enchant, if the item that was used to bind the soul and enchant the weapon were to break, the person/thing that was used pops right out of the weapon/item. In MW and OB, it starts trailing towards the soul used in soul gems is pretty much energy, acting basically as a battery. But, in Redguard, we run into the case of the Prince and Cyrus's sister, which were actual souls bound inside a gem, instead of soul energy.
