Resurrection could be mysticism, using forces beyond the mortal plane. Although Hellmouth is right about the soul leaving your body and going into the dreamsleeve. You would have to capture it in a soulgem or stone. I still wonder if there would be a way to go into the dreamsleeve and get your soul back, even though I'm inclined to believe that it's like pouring a drop of water (your soul) into a pond (dreamsleeve). It's impossible to get that drop of water back because the entire pond is all the same water; hence why souls are "wiped clean" when the enter the realm. god, this is turning into a lore thread now. haha


Yes, but you're not forcing souls back into the dead; you're animating them. Hmm, and with that, I guess you couldn't animate a flower. You'd actually have to rejuvenate it's cells and get it to start functioning again, i.e. ressurection.
Yeah, I guess the lame term for necromancy is just reanimation. I think resurrection would probably be a combination of mysticism & restoration. What do you guys think?

Don't forget to add spikes all over it, and add rusted claws for hands.

I dont remember the name of the quest either, but I remember the chick you talking about, it is after you have started fighting against the necromancers and you go to lend help to the battle mages, but they all get killed in the dungeon, the last one leads you in and dies in a trap, the point of the quest was to save the inside man the mages guild had working inside the necromancers, but the chick, an ex mage turned rogue to work with the necromancers, is the only other person (besides the king of worms) to supposedly turn a dude into a zombie, but one that doesnt even attack you when you find him in the secret room.

The worm thall bit looked to have been ripping someone's soul out, while making them into a corpse on the spot. As for the necromancer, sounds like what I said earlier, an attempt to grab his soul and bit it back into his king's body. However, I assume this was done in haste, and was a partial success. She "resurrected" the king, but as a corpse with thought (almost like lichification). As for her, she likely lichified herself in an attempt to extend her life when she was trapped. The knights probably didn't like her attempt to revive the slain king.

Not too many spikes if I'm going to ride it, I don't want to add to the clipping issues.

I liked the idea of rusted claws, but only if they carry a Disintegrate Armor/Weapon effect when they strike. Like they're covered in some kind of bacteria that eats metal or something.

.....really? I mean cuz it didn't say all that in the link I just gave you anywhere.... :facepalm:

No no no for an inanimate object it is just a matter of restoration and healing and the same for other nature creatures like spriggins they are spirits not creatures with souls they may be restored I guess but not brought back to life as life is not what they really have they are the spirits of lakes and whole forests not individuals.


Reanimation is different from necromancy reanimation is just that re-animation (its more something to be applied to animals led more by what their nature was not by individual thought they would just move around no real thought to it) a person that was brought back by necromancy has a soul, but it is a soul that has left then forced back from death and is detached not really part of that body anymore as the body is dead, but they can be told what to do and they have some of the skills they had in life because it was a part of them and their memories so it is wholly different see?

There's no need for it. You can already raise numerous undead creatures with Conjuration. Unless they split the skill and add more spells there's really no point.

No, not really.
Although I didn't know spriggans were spirits of the forest. That's cool. I bet there are also rock spirits and water spirits and whatnot too.

That's what I surmised of what I read on Arielle Jurard. I don't have the DLC, so I can't really say.

Normally I might agree with you, but not on this one as I have always thought of necromancy as completely different from conjuration, because it is not even close to the same, thing one is evil one is not, conjuring is not evil because you are conjuring from pure magic a creature that acts a certain way for a certain period of time no souls have been ripped from the netherworld or whatever and forced back into a body, whereas with necromancy you have the dead shell of a body and you force a soul into it to bring it back to serve your needs and for all intents and purposes it is a permanent state of being even after your death they should by the power you used to lock them there, stay until the body itself is totally destroyed.

I said everything you just "surmised" is http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Lord_Jaren%27s_Journal so you didn't so much surmise as you retyped what you read from the journal.

Who says you are forcing a soul back into a corpse? All I see is that you are reanimating a dead body with magicka, not forcing a soul back into a body (unless one was attempting to do that).

What do you mean no not really??? and if you saying no to my explanation how can you say no to my explanation when you dont even know what spriggins and such are, its almost common knowledge among us nerds who grew up reading fiction and fairy tails and playing D and D on weekends lol

It may be the NyQuil, but I have no idea of what you are trying to point out. That she used the dead body and soul of the former king? I said it is not out of the possibility to grab someone's soul before it left and use it, and then there's just taking a dead body and turning it into a mindless servant using magicka.

The word itself is what makes the difference reanimate means just what the word says to re animate or in plain english to make move again nothing else is implied at all whereas necromancy means to bring back to life though it is a poor life indeed no enjoyment can be had by a dead body and its will is not its own but a soul is needed to bring it back whether it be its own or anothers, and in this case they also have some use of the skills they had in life a mage soul would still be able to cast some spells and a fighter be able to use a sword,... something reanimated does not they just walk around and will at most strike at you and maybe bite or try to eat you as like with an animal.

Necromancy for the purpose of making a few zombies or skeleton warriors seems like a waste of time, my impression has always been that the main point of Necromancy is the manipulation of souls. So by extension, you make the zombie by applying http://www.newyorknighttrain.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/soulpwerjonathan.jpg to a dead body.

I find necromancy is the art of prepping and reanimating. I can only assume that some practices use souls, that is if the person wanted to become a lich (let the body die first, than insert your soul into an undying shell), or in cases of bringing back an intelligent undead. The other is taking a dead body and making it move and perform actions through magicka. I'd assume the latter produces a more basic servant, while the former produces a more intelligent one that can be independent, or, if the user is cruel, a dominated servant.

And, I dunno, I'd assume a really skilled necromancer would rather have his servants run really well without the need of a soul. Using a soul sounds like a crutch for those who just svck. Also, I assumed it was an art of, pretty much, studying bodies and finding out how they work and ways to make it better. I know the altmer nobles who are allowed to practice necromancy are used to do that.

You just answered your own question my friend, that is just it, soul manipulation, by killing the host and forcing the soul back into it you can then control it and its powers or those it retains from life.

The difference is the same as having guard dogs(zombies) or human guards(head of mages guild), to only one of these can you say go to such and such a place and kill such and such a person the other you would have to lead there then let them loose to kill indiscriminately till they killed the person/persons you wanted dead.

Eh, a decent necromancer should be able to control their zombies with enough skill that they don't end up killing indiscriminately, without having to hold its hand. Animal reanimations, however, really only know how to guard. With human servants, they should be able to do some of the cleaning too. Then again, our only source about the art, in detail, is in that book I linked.

Heck, this is the only tidbit about how well reanimated bodies respond to commands,

And that making a mummy, somehow, makes the reanimated body able to understand commands and have more independence than just raising a zombie.

No need to add another skill, we already have conjuration but maybe when we reach a certain level we can decide which path we could take, an option for necromancy and normal-legal conjuration that has just as many benifits.

Necromancy is legal, except in Morrowind, and heavily regulated in Summerset Ilse.

When you end Oblivion, I believe it is still frowned upon among the mages of the guild even though they decided to re legalize it among the mages ( but more for a let us keep our enemies close kind of thing).

Here is a few more books you seem to be missing from your list on books relating to necromancy
1.Arkay the enemy
2.Blasphemous revenants
3.Manimarcos, king of worms
4.N'gasta! Kvata! Kvakis!
5.Necromancers moon
6.The black arts on trial
7.Tome of unlife
8.The path of transendence


This is by no means all just a few more that I could find but in all the games there have been books so there are bound to be more that have been overlooked and/or forgotten.

They relate to necromancy, but are not about necromancy. That's the problem.

Arkay the enemy is propaganda, nothing about necromancy
Blasphemous revenants is about how the dunmer view necromancy and the undead, nothing about how it is practiced
Mannimarco, king of worms is a poem about the Mannimarco, most likely biased against him
N'gasta! Kvata! Kvakis! is actually an advertisemant for a restaurant. It's nothing but rubbish
Necromancers moon is battle plans, nothing about the art
The black arts on trial mentions nothing about how it is really practiced, other than you soul becomes corrupted, and it's from someone that has an obvious bias against it.
Tome of Unlife, well, no one can really read that, so it's of not help
The path of transendence is just about a necromancer trying to become a lich, and most likely someone who is completely insane. To note, I find the need to sacrifice innocents to be nothing more than hogwash, as Aesliip was able to lichify himself in complete isolation, and he wasn't a bad guy. Hell, he pretty much saved the Skaal, despite casing him out.

Like I said, On the Preparation of the Corpse is the only insight of the art, other than raising the dead.