Psh, the Ashlanders are still living in the 1st era.

Well considering it's legal in every province but Morrowind (and the empire supplies them with bandit corpses), I'd say they're fine with it.

People can find this morally objectionable.


The Law is not necessarily morally correct or good. Not really a good argument for or against the idea that Necromancy is evil.


They've always been more comfortable with the Daedra than corpses, and Mannimarco's attack on the mages guild would cause this argument to ring cold anyways. This part isn't necessarily bad, but the current context for this discussion makes it ineffective. (Current context being TES IV)


Someone can find this morally objectionable. Someone could also consider the Dunmer major hypocrites for this.

While I agree with you Kalarn that Necromancy is not evil, this skit doesn't really get at the underlying reasons for why people would think Necromancy is evil. Examples of these underlying reasons would be the idea of the "body as a temple," sanctity of the spirit, the narrative presented by the Mages guild quest line in Oblivion, and the fact that Mannimarco is a jerk of a very high order.

The Dunmer have a different definition of "necromancy" than the Imperials do. And as for their ancestor worship it's all about serving your kin beyond the grave, a very important idea in their culture.

I don't think you got my point.

Let's try again.

Saying that, "HEY! The Video game characters think it's alright," is not an effective argument for necromancy not being evil. That's my point, simple as that. You have to keep in mind real world beliefs and superstitions and how they influence the person your arguing with, and show that those beliefs don't apply in the game world.

Example not dealing with TES: Let's say your trying to argue that in your favorite fiction work, the characters trading souls as currency is okay. A bad argument would be to say that "In the in-fiction cultures, it's okay." A good argument (assuming it was accurate) would be to say that "well in this fictional work, the soul is not inviolable, holy, or intrinsically connected to identity. Souls are more goop than anything." The difference between the two is that the first one basically asks you to jump on the bandwagon, the second argument informs you that the fictional world works differently, and thus certain RL beliefs can't be used to form the basis of moral judgments about the fictional world.

edit1: and just to be clear, all I'm doing is pointing out a stronger method of arguing that necromancy isn't evil. That's all. I've already stated my view on the thread topic on the first page.