You can make an informed decision about that, I'm sure.
The schools of necromancy include, broadly: spirit, bone, and flesh (subtypes blood and lymph). The Sixth is sometimes accused of being preoccupied with the flesh above the other schools, too.
Any necromancer with the requisite knowledge can program a skeletal construct, like the one that lives in my house now, but we don't deal in 'zombies' or 'undead'.
Call it personal interest. I am myself the unwilling product of Nephele's necromancy. Knowing whether or not my kind are possible elsewhere--and if possible, how they are regarded--says a little of what I might expect from people of that world.
It would be interesting to know whether it's not taught because it's abhorrent and reviled--or because there are other reasons to keep it from becoming widespread.
private
The Emperor claims he suppressed the technique because he despises it, personally, and would punish anyone who rediscovered it. I've had a long time to wonder if he was playing to my biases. If he is the kind of ruler to do that.
back public
Our true necromancy requires a soul--or a piece of one--in a construct to animate it. We greater undead are typically the union of a soul and the flesh it wore in life.
I take, from the description elsewhere of thalergy and thanergy--and from spirit magic being a discipline of its own--animating a construct works nothing like that for you.
Like I said, I don't know the overall opinion. Most Scholars on the Sixth would pull out their own fingernails for a shot at getting their hands on brand new theory and technique, but we don't generally waste time moralizing about necromantic practices. Personally, I think soul siphoning is the line at the head of the slippery slope into bad theory and worse practice.
So, I don't know. That you call yourself "unwilling" doesn't make me a fan of the technique that did this to you; necromancy that centers on control and removal of autonomy isn't great, like siphoning. But you, the person walking around? I don't see anything wrong with you.
Our animated constructs work via connection to a thanergetic link, quite literally like a puppet string. And they're pure osseo, besides the pins and the occasional thermal paste. I've seen revenant constructs, the kind with souls, but most minds can't bridge the gap between life and death to maintain a complete self-awareness or full capabilities comparative to their living self.
And they were also all osseo, with rare exceptions. Preserving the flesh for construct use isn't what we do.
So some things remain universal among scholars (written as a jest). What is soul siphoning?
I appreciate the distinction. Back home, there isn't much of one made between necromancers, their practice, and their creations. We are new enough most people think first of the uses we were put to, and not whether we assented to them.
That is very roughly analogous to how I would raise a mindless undead. Though I would say it is more of my appendage than my puppet, as it's tied by a piece of my soul.
How much attention do you need to pay one of your constructs once it's active? What limits how many you can have at once--personal stores, concentration, something else?
private I will.
Are you or those close to you in direct danger from him?
Soul siphoning is what it sounds like: using one person's soul as an additional power source for the necromancer.
You're welcome. If you ever need your personhood reaffirmed, let me know. I'll applaud, and everything. This is, conversely, not a jest in the slightest.
Once a construct is programmed, it's functionally able to do what it needs to do without intervention, as long as the thanergetic link is maintained. I can manage the one I've got now just fine without needing a break, but a bone adept would be better at handling more. Personal stores are always a factor.
private
[...Actually, there's nothing; he clicks the private filter on and then clicks it off again a long moment later. No, the only secure omni in this place besides his own is Viktor's, because Viktor is sitting next to him. And honestly, he is plain not in the mood.]
But a necromancer doesn't--can't?--draw on her own soul for that, I take.
Thank you. I appreciate the spirit of the offer.
Are bone adepts also the ones who can pull bone out of (apparently) nothing? Or can all of you create substrate for your servants as a part of your magic?
[He doesn't push. Silence by itself is evidence of some tension in this web of relationships; though what, exactly, might be causing it is something he'll have to discover at another time.]
Not for very long. I doubt anyone's tried. Spending your own thanergetic reserves is dangerous enough, soul would be even worse.
I could do it if I tried, but it wouldn't leave me in a state to do much else for a while, and I don't mean solely necromantically. A bone adept can reconstruct a skeleton entire out of a fragment of bone as easily as I can read the ghost-within-the-thing, but not vice versa. Ironically, the best of us are highly specialized.
Can a soul be completely destroyed through siphoning? Do injured ones restore themselves over time?
That's more comfortingly familiar than ironic from where I stand. The magic of effort comes entirely from specialization and expertise. A necromancy that encompasses a dozen different disciplines, where even the experts have half-a-dozen other tools in their repertoire from other specialties, is still a wonder to me.
An injured soul? I've never heard of anything like it. I've seen a body have its soul removed and filled with something else; I assumed the soul was destroyed elsewhere, that time.
I think it can be both. I doubt every facet of necromancy has been uncovered, either; the fluidity makes more sense to me than something more rigid, like the delineation of blood magic in this place.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
[.......the end, presented without elaboration.]
no subject
What are the other necromantic specialties? If there's few enough to enumerate them.
no subject
The schools of necromancy include, broadly: spirit, bone, and flesh (subtypes blood and lymph). The Sixth is sometimes accused of being preoccupied with the flesh above the other schools, too.
no subject
And a necromancer of any school might animate the mindless dead to do her bidding?
no subject
Any necromancer with the requisite knowledge can program a skeletal construct, like the one that lives in my house now, but we don't deal in 'zombies' or 'undead'.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Why, do you suppose, it's not in the curriculum?
How hard would it be for someone to discover on her own?
no subject
Why?
no subject
It would be interesting to know whether it's not taught because it's abhorrent and reviled--or because there are other reasons to keep it from becoming widespread.
private
The Emperor claims he suppressed the technique because he despises it, personally, and would punish anyone who rediscovered it. I've had a long time to wonder if he was playing to my biases. If he is the kind of ruler to do that.
back public
Our true necromancy requires a soul--or a piece of one--in a construct to animate it. We greater undead are typically the union of a soul and the flesh it wore in life.
I take, from the description elsewhere of thalergy and thanergy--and from spirit magic being a discipline of its own--animating a construct works nothing like that for you.
no subject
So, I don't know. That you call yourself "unwilling" doesn't make me a fan of the technique that did this to you; necromancy that centers on control and removal of autonomy isn't great, like siphoning. But you, the person walking around? I don't see anything wrong with you.
Our animated constructs work via connection to a thanergetic link, quite literally like a puppet string. And they're pure osseo, besides the pins and the occasional thermal paste. I've seen revenant constructs, the kind with souls, but most minds can't bridge the gap between life and death to maintain a complete self-awareness or full capabilities comparative to their living self.
And they were also all osseo, with rare exceptions. Preserving the flesh for construct use isn't what we do.
private
With respect, ask someone else.
no subject
I appreciate the distinction. Back home, there isn't much of one made between necromancers, their practice, and their creations. We are new enough most people think first of the uses we were put to, and not whether we assented to them.
That is very roughly analogous to how I would raise a mindless undead. Though I would say it is more of my appendage than my puppet, as it's tied by a piece of my soul.
How much attention do you need to pay one of your constructs once it's active? What limits how many you can have at once--personal stores, concentration, something else?
private
I will.
Are you or those close to you in direct danger from him?
no subject
You're welcome. If you ever need your personhood reaffirmed, let me know. I'll applaud, and everything. This is, conversely, not a jest in the slightest.
Once a construct is programmed, it's functionally able to do what it needs to do without intervention, as long as the thanergetic link is maintained. I can manage the one I've got now just fine without needing a break, but a bone adept would be better at handling more. Personal stores are always a factor.
private
[...Actually, there's nothing; he clicks the private filter on and then clicks it off again a long moment later. No, the only secure omni in this place besides his own is Viktor's, because Viktor is sitting next to him. And honestly, he is plain not in the mood.]
no subject
Thank you. I appreciate the spirit of the offer.
Are bone adepts also the ones who can pull bone out of (apparently) nothing? Or can all of you create substrate for your servants as a part of your magic?
[He doesn't push. Silence by itself is evidence of some tension in this web of relationships; though what, exactly, might be causing it is something he'll have to discover at another time.]
no subject
I could do it if I tried, but it wouldn't leave me in a state to do much else for a while, and I don't mean solely necromantically. A bone adept can reconstruct a skeleton entire out of a fragment of bone as easily as I can read the ghost-within-the-thing, but not vice versa. Ironically, the best of us are highly specialized.
no subject
That's more comfortingly familiar than ironic from where I stand. The magic of effort comes entirely from specialization and expertise. A necromancy that encompasses a dozen different disciplines, where even the experts have half-a-dozen other tools in their repertoire from other specialties, is still a wonder to me.
no subject
I think it can be both. I doubt every facet of necromancy has been uncovered, either; the fluidity makes more sense to me than something more rigid, like the delineation of blood magic in this place.