Nekos and blood?

I sort of agree with Cliff on this one. Necromancy is generally limited to the actions of reanimation and resurrection that are not dictated by holy magics. The spell "resurrection" is typically associated with Light/Holy, yet it still draws on the energy of nearby life forces to keep an object alive that is not yet dead - instead being of critical and life-threatening injury such that if no action is taken they *would* die - therefore the spell wouldn't work on someone that's already dead, as that is necromancy.


Also:

Quote :

Necromancy

For reasons unknown, any spell involving meddling with the afterlife and calling forth a soul to inhabit a body (such as resurrection, or raising the dead) doesn't work on Felarya. A wandering spirit can still decide to possess a body on its own, or be bound to an object or a golem body, but recalling the soul from afterlife and forcing it in any way just won't work. If you encounter an undead creature, it wasn't created on Felarya. Xarmaroch, the cerberus in the Mysterious temple, is a interesting case, as his condition is the result of an extremely powerful curse rather than necromancy.

Some powerful necromancers have come to Felarya and made numerous experiments... with always the same result in the end: most of their magic remain useless. If you are one of them and you want your army of zombies to invade Felarya, you will have to raise it elsewhere and then transport it to Felarya, where it would loose the main advantage of any undead army: the multiplying factor. So better just forget it, really.

The wiki itself mentions examples of differences between curses and necromancy and how they could be mistaken for one another.

Quote :

most of their magic remain useless

The keyword here is most, not ALL. So I win.

Come on Sean. Lighten up. It isn't that big of a deal. They're just trying to establish some general ground rules on the topic of Necromancy here.

Spoiler:

I could lighten up, but here's my point: You can stretch a definition to an extent and you can't decide what it can and can't do to certain extents as well, and that is where the subjectivity comes. For instance, some view necromancy as raising the dead and nothing else, which is fine, but others stretch the definition a bit more such as abilities linked to undeads or magic with various death effects.

In a same vein, people can call Summoning portal crafting for a creature to pass through, which again, is perfectly fine, but another author can have a different view and see it as calling a magical beast, with which you forged a contract written in blood, to your aid.

What should be REALLY restricted is how powerful magic can be. For instance, if there is no consequences or drawbacks to casting a high level spell, other than just using more mana, then it's not balanced. If casting a high level spell requires more time to prepare, cannot be casted safely within a short period of time, then it is more acceptable.

Going back to Necromancy, some can call the holy spell Resurrection as Necromancy since it tampers with the dead. Again, some people stretch a definition, but I will agree with Cliff that it can't be stretched too much. You can't really call chucking a fireball hydromancy, or summoning a light pillar umbra/deomancy. Some call a certain Hold or Paralysis spell a curse since it's a negative effect put on a person via magic.

Since we all have different views on magic, setting them all in stone will only result in more disagreements and arguments and this tangent just proved it. The thing that should be put are lines to not cross to keep magic powerful, but not overpowered. As I have once said, there's nothing worse in a story when a character has access to ludicrous powers with no consequences whatsoever, and all conflicts are foregone conclusions as a result. But in the same vein, forcing people to adhere to very strict rules which can be best described as a long list of "No This, No That", is only going to create tensions as it restricts a person's creativity and abilities to write.

So in conclusion, setting everything in stone and not allowing any form of leeway other than "That's too powerful" will only cause more clash of ideas, cause tensions because a person is unfairly restricted, and will only cause a harsh stagnation because you are forced to adhere to rules and can't use your creativity to think outside of a preconceived norm.

Magic Time!

First of all: It is stated in the wiki that magic exists in many forms because felarya itself supports whatever type of magic a newcomer uses. If portal magic is difficult for one person it may not be difficult for the next.

Note that Necromancy would not specifically be oriented to bringing back the dead, as it involves DEAD MAGIC as two separate words, just put together in latin. Spirit magic is a form of necromancy, just like how Alchemy is not only limited to transmutating gold into coal (but also herblore and potion making). Honestly I think Asaenvolk would best be asked about this kind of thing as he knows a lot about ancient magic, and its roots and stuff here on Earth.

I think the best we can do its categorize different magics in felarya, NOT set ground rules of any kind, because felarya's own rules on what magic is allowed and how its used is limited only to the caster. The only exception I think are the level of power wielded because if one person was too powerful the portal/guardians wouldn't allow them through.

Sean Okotami wrote:

To some, a vampiric touch or energy drain is necromancy. For others, they are forbidden, unspecified spells. Do not try to be objective in a subjective concept.

I don't see them as necromancy personnaly. More like a dark form of magic and curses.
But the important point is that what doesn't work in Felarya is anything involving calling forth the deads. An energy drain would work, wether you call it necromancy or not.

And again, I would appreciate if you take a less agressive tone in your interventions.

I was calm. If I was agressive, I would attack the person directly. Alright, I did, but I could have done worse.

like i said, its not a lil disease, its a curse. if lea can be cursed by a powerful mage, i think a vampire can spread HIS curse to everyone.

and dam i was only asking something about vampires, not a whole thread about necromancy XD ah well ^^

Krisexy26 wrote:

like i said, its not a lil disease, its a curse. if lea can be cursed by a powerful mage, i think a vampire can spread HIS curse to everyone.

and dam i was only asking something about vampires, not a whole thread about necromancy XD ah well ^^

Ehhhh, it seems like a really bad curse. Why give someone enhanced strength, speed, senses, dark magic and immortality? Curses are bad things. Things you'd put on your worst enemy. Vampirism as a curse just does not work.

It is either a disease, or a form of necromancy. Those are the only way it makes sense. The last thing we need is a bunch of vampire characters invading Felarya. Vampires, in general, are usually over-powered (or, with the advent of twi-tards, self-inserts and/or mary sues). There isn't a whole lot of ways to really use them.

It has been a long-standing trend that vampires can only come from off-world, and cannot covert people while in Felarya. I don't really see a reason to change that all of a sudden.

rcs619 wrote:

It is either a disease, or a form of necromancy. Those are the only way it makes sense. The last thing we need is a bunch of vampire characters invading Felarya. Vampires, in general, are usually over-powered (or, with the advent of twi-tards, self-inserts and/or mary sues). There isn't a whole lot of ways to really use them.

At least if we go for the MODERN view of vampire. A lot of real-world cultures have tons of insane, disturbing life-draining ghouls that they classify as vampires, any of those could work. Like pennangalans or puichens

This is something that's been bothering me. If Vampirism, Lycanthropy or more recently, Zombie Outbursts are diseases, does that mean that they can potentially be cured? Also, as for vampirism, the original creator of vampires couldn't keep the details straight.

Sean Okotami wrote:

I was calm. If I was agressive, I would attack the person directly. Alright, I did, but I could have done worse.

That's not an excuse

I'm pointing it this time because it's starting to cause some problems. If you have a point to make, do it in a civil and calm way. Not only it's nicer for others, but your points would have much more impacts this way than with that usual angry, snickering tone you use.

Right, right, my apologies.

rcs619 wrote:

Ehhhh, it seems like a really bad curse. Why give someone enhanced strength, speed, senses, dark magic and immortality?

It requires you to eat other people. Now, in Felarya terms, that's like telling an Earthling "It requires you to sleep".

rcs619 wrote:

Curses are bad things. Things you'd put on your worst enemy. Vampirism as a curse just does not work.

By modern versions, yes. Old versions, wherein you could only rest either in your coffin or on home soil, could not cross water (either standing, running, or both), were killable via the sun, could only enter a building if given direct permission, must watch all those who you do not pass the curse onto die around you, and so on, it's still quite readily a curse. And, if I'm not mistaken, most if not all of those are only the major ones from Western Mythology, let alone Eastern.

rcs619 wrote:

It is either a disease, or a form of necromancy. Those are the only way it makes sense.

Normally, I'd say necromatic curse. Few realms have different versions (ex: Vampires in WHFB have started to branch slightly away from the Necromatic bit, and Hellsing Vampires can be made mass-production style), but predominantly it's related to Necromancy. Elder Scrolls is another variant, but in this case it's a disease that's readily recognized and treatable via divine (or at least as divine as (D)Aedra can be) intervention.

rcs619 wrote:

The last thing we need is a bunch of vampire characters invading Felarya. Vampires, in general, are usually over-powered (or, with the advent of twi-tards, self-inserts and/or mary sues). There isn't a whole lot of ways to really use them.

Overpowered when the world is pretty consistently baked in sunlight? Heck, it's arguable that the "positive energy" nature of the world could be downright harmful to a Vampire by default. Being stuck without shapeshifting powers due to sudden day expansion, needing to drag your coffin everywhere with you, prone to combustion from spontaneous sunlight, that it takes place around a lot of major rivers, etcetera.

Not that I'm saying Felarya needs Vampires, mind.

Malahite wrote:

Not that I'm saying Felarya needs Vampires, mind.

I think that after what you said, vampires would never go to Felarya. No, really, do we need the vampire-explotation, zombie-exploitation and werewolf-exploitation to reach Felarya? Is it really necessary?

Okay, this topic was brought to my attention. Necromancy its a tricky subject, in some cultures what was considered necromancy was a bit more narrow than in others, not every one had the same concepts of what was possible with magic in the real world. Some early Greek concepts for example just allowed you to commune with the undead, not even raise them as undead or back to life within the bounds of what would be considered necromancy. On the OTHER hand even OLDER ideas of what was essentially necromancy concepts in China or India (or younger) Nordic it included a whole lot more than just communing with the dead or raising them.

Many European concepts of necromancy go all the way back to Salomon and probably a whole lot earlier, the earliest concepts mostly concerned with communing, though the idea of using it to raise people into a semblance of life was later added, but then again the earliest terms for necromancy that was recognized was "νεκρομαντεία - nekromantía" which more or less meant "dead proficiency". Over time these terms changed in meaning and though what Necromancy meant changed as well.

Necromancy basically means "Dead magic", so any form of magic that involves death as a concept is Necromancy, be it draining life, raiseing the dead, talking to the dead, making vampires or zombies, ALL are necromancy. If you want to say that you can't raise the dead or make undead then it should be specified and not use a catch all phrase like Necromancy.

Now Vamperism, at least the version that we mostly think of that is descended from Romanian vampires, they were much more like ghouls that drank blood than what we think of them today. As for what I mean by ghoul, watch a modern zombie movie and remove the insane infection rate and add a bit more cunning. They were shambling corpses that were hard to kill and had weird weaknesses. The modern concept of vampires came about via Bram Stoker who mixed the vampire myths with the then more popular succubus myths.

...Sorry to pop in unannounced...

But As to the original question. I think there are nekos who like the taste/smell of blood, there are humans who like it too... Though they don't need it or anything, it's just a matter of personal taste...

And as to the necromancy. The only problem you two had in your discussion was that you defined necromancy differently. So it's just a matter of personal opinion as to what counts as necromancy and what does not...

And like Karbo said: Resurrecting doesn't work, cursing and such does work. Now get back to the original topic.

(Oh, and I second what Malahite said about being a vampire.)

Dart 180 wrote:

Well i'm sure there have been cases where a Neko has been bitten by a vampire, resulting in a Neko vampire which would have a taste for blood. Fangs doesn't equal thirst for blood.

Well, now I have to wonder if a vampire Neko would have extra long fangs. But that's another topic. Just figured I'd put it out there while this thread's still high.

well that's assuming on a couple conditions,

1) the fangs just extend automatically due to some weird biological phenomenon (mutations are never known to occur right off the bat. if you get radiation poisoning, its your unborn kid that will have the problems.)

2) there just need to be fangs large enough to make puncture wounds

3) there's actually a special thing that grows on the tip of the fangs that acts more like a suction, instead of something that just induces bloodletting.


not very familiar with vampire anatomy though, those were just off the top of the head guesses.

The giant fang issue is basically if vampirism can recognize already suitable biological components, or just applies the same physical changes no matter what. If it would "notice" that fangs are already present and simply alter them to be vampiritic.

As for vampirism itself, I believe it's a disease...well, actually, it varies. Nowadays, there are different types of vampires. Anyway, the classic kind is a magical species -like fairies- with a need to physically bite into victims and drain their blood (originally, all of their blood) in order to pass on the condition.

If it was a curse, any mage with the proper training would be able to infect someone with it without laying a hand on them, or at least without needing to puncture their flesh. So while it is a magical condition, it's still a disease and shouldn't be able to take in most circumstances in Felarya.

Dante8411 wrote:

The giant fang issue is basically if vampirism can recognize already suitable biological components, or just applies the same physical changes no matter what. If it would "notice" that fangs are already present and simply alter them to be vampiritic.

As for vampirism itself, I believe it's a disease...well, actually, it varies. Nowadays, there are different types of vampires. Anyway, the classic kind is a magical species -like fairies- with a need to physically bite into victims and drain their blood (originally, all of their blood) in order to pass on the condition.

If it was a curse, any mage with the proper training would be able to infect someone with it without laying a hand on them, or at least without needing to puncture their flesh. So while it is a magical condition, it's still a disease and shouldn't be able to take in most circumstances in Felarya.

You cannot make Vampires on Felarya.

Really, Vampires tend to get made through one of two ways.

- A disease: This has been used more in more modern films and such. This wouldn't work in Felarya because of the healing factor.

- A form of necromancy: If we take the magical route, then Vempirism is a form of necromancy. They are getting bit in the neck, in a major artery. The person getting bit actually dies in the process, but some form of dark magic allows their consiousness to inhabit the now dead body, and prevent it from decaying. This would not work on Felarya because necromancy does not work there.

Both of these can apply to Lycanthropy as well, since it also tends to use one of these two methods.

So yeah, Vampires could, in theory, come into Felarya from another world (although, the vampire myth is a human creation, so I don't see why they would come from another world), and they could feed on people to survive, but no one they feed on will become a vampire themselves.

thank you very much rcs

That's pretty much what I figured...
Though Lycanthropy doesn't kill, so if magically passed on, it could actually work in Felarya. Vampires drain all of their victims' blood, or at least enough that their cells die and are reanimated/sustained/dead but still functioning.

Nobody who dies from a werewolf attack becomes a werewolf. Only the bitten or sometimes scratched who survive the ordeal.
Although it also behaves more like an infection than a curse.