The quest "Through The Aftermath" makes no sense.

RealLifeRedguard

I was playing through Stonefalls when I noticed a massive lore problem with the quest "Through the Aftermath". In it, two dunmer brothers are trying to enslave ancestor spirits, while an argonian is telling them it's wrong.

What?

Isn't necromancy one of the most basic taboos in dunmer culture? It's even in in-game books in ESO. Entire quests in Morrowind revolved around the dunmer despising the west because of their tolerance for necromancy. It's pretty hilarious seeing an argonian lecture two dunmer about respecting their ancestors.

Now, if these brothers are supposed to be an exception to the rule that would be fine, but the game doesn't even seem to reference how uncommon this behavior is, and it doesn't take into account any of the consequences of two dunmer openly committing necromancy.

So what happened in this quest? Am I the only one who found this odd? At the very least the roles should have been reversed.

Tryxus

Turns out that one of those brothers is indeed an exception to that rule:

He's a Worm Cultist

RealLifeRedguard

Tryxus wrote: »

Turns out that one of those brothers is indeed an exception to that rule:

He's a Worm Cultist

Alright, that definitely softens the blow a little bit, but it's still very strange that the other brother is just fine with this, and it makes no sense for two dunmer to be committing necromancy so brazenly and openly. This isn't Telvanni country, this is right in the heart of Morrowind. Not only that, but it's pre-Empire Morrowind (necromancy is legal in the empire). They'd be executed on sight for this. To be fair I'm an altmer so I don't give a damn (there's a bound spirit selling enchanting supplies in Skywatch for goodness sake) but in Morrowind? This feels like a basic misunderstanding of basic lore.

CapnPhoton

Anyone can be an exception to anything. If a particular group is known for something, that doesn't mean every last person has the same feature. Even within a traditional culture, there are always differences.

It would be nice if more people in the real world realized that too...

MythicEmperor

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

Tryxus wrote: »

Turns out that one of those brothers is indeed an exception to that rule:

He's a Worm Cultist

Alright, that definitely softens the blow a little bit, but it's still very strange that the other brother is just fine with this, and it makes no sense for two dunmer to be committing necromancy so brazenly and openly. This isn't Telvanni country, this is right in the heart of Morrowind. Not only that, but it's pre-Empire Morrowind (necromancy is legal in the empire). They'd be executed on sight for this. To be fair I'm an altmer so I don't give a damn (there's a bound spirit selling enchanting supplies in Skywatch for goodness sake) but in Morrowind? This feels like a basic misunderstanding of basic lore.

Well, the other brother regrets it afterwards, iirc. I'm a Telvanni, so I am not bothered by this.

zuto40

isnt one of them a member of the worm cult?

RealLifeRedguard

MythicEmperor wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

Tryxus wrote: »

Turns out that one of those brothers is indeed an exception to that rule:

He's a Worm Cultist

Alright, that definitely softens the blow a little bit, but it's still very strange that the other brother is just fine with this, and it makes no sense for two dunmer to be committing necromancy so brazenly and openly. This isn't Telvanni country, this is right in the heart of Morrowind. Not only that, but it's pre-Empire Morrowind (necromancy is legal in the empire). They'd be executed on sight for this. To be fair I'm an altmer so I don't give a damn (there's a bound spirit selling enchanting supplies in Skywatch for goodness sake) but in Morrowind? This feels like a basic misunderstanding of basic lore.

Well, the other brother regrets it afterwards, iirc. I'm a Telvanni, so I am not bothered by this.

How did the brother not know that binding spirits and making them fight for you...like...the literal definition of necromancy? It's just bizarre and makes no sense. Not to mention, once again, doing something like this out in the open would get you executed. the whole scenario is just a blatant misunderstanding of the dunmer, not to mention it once again paints argonians as the perfect goody-two-shoe heroes who can do no wrong.

UrQuan

The dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than I think you realize. The ghost fence itself is a necromantic construct, and many of the traditional dunmer rituals are necromantic. The brothers of strife were necromantic constructs. Dunmer also freely practice necromancy on non-elves.

The thing that dunmer really seem to object to with regards to necromancy is forcing an elven spirit to remain on Nirn (and even that is something that they are sometimes willing to do as a punishment). If the spirit is willing to voluntarily remain on Nirn (usually only temporarily or partially, as in the case of the ghost fence and the various traditional ancestor worship rituals), they don't seem to have any issues with it.

I would imagine that the case of spirits which are already stuck on Nirn is a bit of a grey area. Controlling those spirits wouldn't be forcing them to remain on Nirn, as they were already unable to make it to the otherworld. This would explain why the one brother was unsure as to whether it was acceptable to bind the spirits that were already trapped on Nirn for the greater good of defending from invasion, or whether that was an abomination and it was better to risk defeat at the hands of the invaders.

RealLifeRedguard

UrQuan wrote: »

The dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than I think you realize. The ghost fence itself is a necromantic construct, and many of the traditional dunmer rituals are necromantic. The brothers of strife were necromantic constructs. Dunmer also freely practice necromancy on non-elves.

The thing that dunmer really seem to object to with regards to necromancy is forcing an elven spirit to remain on Nirn (and even that is something that they are sometimes willing to do as a punishment). If the spirit is willing to voluntarily remain on Nirn (usually only temporarily or partially, as in the case of the ghost fence and the various traditional ancestor worship rituals), they don't seem to have any issues with it.

I would imagine that the case of spirits which are already stuck on Nirn is a bit of a grey area. Controlling those spirits wouldn't be forcing them to remain on Nirn, as they were already unable to make it to the otherworld. This would explain why the one brother was unsure as to whether it was acceptable to bind the spirits that were already trapped on Nirn for the greater good of defending from invasion, or whether that was an abomination and it was better to risk defeat at the hands of the invaders.

The dunmer stance on necromancy is clear, even if it is hypocritical from a western standpoint: for ones ancestors to WILLINGLY aid their descendants is not necromancy to the dunmer. According to every source it's explicitly stated that binding spirits into servitude is anathema to dunmer. There is no possible way both brothers didn't know that. It's a massive oversight and poor writing.

UrQuan

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

The dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than I think you realize. The ghost fence itself is a necromantic construct, and many of the traditional dunmer rituals are necromantic. The brothers of strife were necromantic constructs. Dunmer also freely practice necromancy on non-elves.

The thing that dunmer really seem to object to with regards to necromancy is forcing an elven spirit to remain on Nirn (and even that is something that they are sometimes willing to do as a punishment). If the spirit is willing to voluntarily remain on Nirn (usually only temporarily or partially, as in the case of the ghost fence and the various traditional ancestor worship rituals), they don't seem to have any issues with it.

I would imagine that the case of spirits which are already stuck on Nirn is a bit of a grey area. Controlling those spirits wouldn't be forcing them to remain on Nirn, as they were already unable to make it to the otherworld. This would explain why the one brother was unsure as to whether it was acceptable to bind the spirits that were already trapped on Nirn for the greater good of defending from invasion, or whether that was an abomination and it was better to risk defeat at the hands of the invaders.

The dunmer stance on necromancy is clear, even if it is hypocritical from a western standpoint: for ones ancestors to WILLINGLY aid their descendants is not necromancy to the dunmer. According to every source it's explicitly stated that binding spirits into servitude is anathema to dunmer. There is no possible way both brothers didn't know that. It's a massive oversight and poor writing.

You might want to go and re-read Ancestors and the Dunmer. You're over-simplifying and ignoring some of what's in there. Specifically the section titled Mad Spirits. Like I said, the dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than you seem to think.

Cadbury

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

MythicEmperor wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

Tryxus wrote: »

Turns out that one of those brothers is indeed an exception to that rule:

He's a Worm Cultist

Alright, that definitely softens the blow a little bit, but it's still very strange that the other brother is just fine with this, and it makes no sense for two dunmer to be committing necromancy so brazenly and openly. This isn't Telvanni country, this is right in the heart of Morrowind. Not only that, but it's pre-Empire Morrowind (necromancy is legal in the empire). They'd be executed on sight for this. To be fair I'm an altmer so I don't give a damn (there's a bound spirit selling enchanting supplies in Skywatch for goodness sake) but in Morrowind? This feels like a basic misunderstanding of basic lore.

Well, the other brother regrets it afterwards, iirc. I'm a Telvanni, so I am not bothered by this.

...not to mention it once again paints argonians as the perfect goody-two-shoe heroes who can do no wrong.

You know what grinds my gears about Argonians? Its that they keep talking about "erecting a spine of friendship" or some nonsense. That right there is more disturbing than any references to slavery or necromancy. What happened to just a handshake? I mean, jeez....

RealLifeRedguard

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

The dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than I think you realize. The ghost fence itself is a necromantic construct, and many of the traditional dunmer rituals are necromantic. The brothers of strife were necromantic constructs. Dunmer also freely practice necromancy on non-elves.

The thing that dunmer really seem to object to with regards to necromancy is forcing an elven spirit to remain on Nirn (and even that is something that they are sometimes willing to do as a punishment). If the spirit is willing to voluntarily remain on Nirn (usually only temporarily or partially, as in the case of the ghost fence and the various traditional ancestor worship rituals), they don't seem to have any issues with it.

I would imagine that the case of spirits which are already stuck on Nirn is a bit of a grey area. Controlling those spirits wouldn't be forcing them to remain on Nirn, as they were already unable to make it to the otherworld. This would explain why the one brother was unsure as to whether it was acceptable to bind the spirits that were already trapped on Nirn for the greater good of defending from invasion, or whether that was an abomination and it was better to risk defeat at the hands of the invaders.

The dunmer stance on necromancy is clear, even if it is hypocritical from a western standpoint: for ones ancestors to WILLINGLY aid their descendants is not necromancy to the dunmer. According to every source it's explicitly stated that binding spirits into servitude is anathema to dunmer. There is no possible way both brothers didn't know that. It's a massive oversight and poor writing.

You might want to go and re-read Ancestors and the Dunmer. You're over-simplifying and ignoring some of what's in there. Specifically the section titled Mad Spirits. Like I said, the dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than you seem to think.

Even ESO calls it necromancy in the quest. Somehow the brother just didn't call it necromancy until after he felt bad about it. I don't know how much clearer you can get.

No matter how nuanced the dunmer's stance on necromancy is, they still believe that enslaving spirits to fight for you is necromancy. I mean, what else is necromancy if not that?

"Who can know the shame of the dead, the ceaseless weeping of the necromancer's thrall? Cruel enough is the ancestor's service given in love to Hearth and Kin. But ghost or guardian, bonewalker or bonelord, summoned by profane ritual and bound by force to the corpse miner's will, how may such a spirit ever find rest? How may it ever find its way back to its blood and clan?
-Blasphemous Revenants

UrQuan

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

The dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than I think you realize. The ghost fence itself is a necromantic construct, and many of the traditional dunmer rituals are necromantic. The brothers of strife were necromantic constructs. Dunmer also freely practice necromancy on non-elves.

The thing that dunmer really seem to object to with regards to necromancy is forcing an elven spirit to remain on Nirn (and even that is something that they are sometimes willing to do as a punishment). If the spirit is willing to voluntarily remain on Nirn (usually only temporarily or partially, as in the case of the ghost fence and the various traditional ancestor worship rituals), they don't seem to have any issues with it.

I would imagine that the case of spirits which are already stuck on Nirn is a bit of a grey area. Controlling those spirits wouldn't be forcing them to remain on Nirn, as they were already unable to make it to the otherworld. This would explain why the one brother was unsure as to whether it was acceptable to bind the spirits that were already trapped on Nirn for the greater good of defending from invasion, or whether that was an abomination and it was better to risk defeat at the hands of the invaders.

The dunmer stance on necromancy is clear, even if it is hypocritical from a western standpoint: for ones ancestors to WILLINGLY aid their descendants is not necromancy to the dunmer. According to every source it's explicitly stated that binding spirits into servitude is anathema to dunmer. There is no possible way both brothers didn't know that. It's a massive oversight and poor writing.

You might want to go and re-read Ancestors and the Dunmer. You're over-simplifying and ignoring some of what's in there. Specifically the section titled Mad Spirits. Like I said, the dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than you seem to think.

Even ESO calls it necromancy in the quest. Somehow the brother just didn't call it necromancy until after he felt bad about it. I don't know how much clearer you can get.

No matter how nuanced the dunmer's stance on necromancy is, they still believe that enslaving spirits to fight for you is necromancy. I mean, what else is necromancy if not that?

"Who can know the shame of the dead, the ceaseless weeping of the necromancer's thrall? Cruel enough is the ancestor's service given in love to Hearth and Kin. But ghost or guardian, bonewalker or bonelord, summoned by profane ritual and bound by force to the corpse miner's will, how may such a spirit ever find rest? How may it ever find its way back to its blood and clan?
-Blasphemous Revenants

From Ancestors and the Dunmer (bold & italics added by me - also note that this source is specifically talking about the Dunmer and their attitudes towards both their ancestors and necromancy):

Mad Spirits

Spirits that are forced to remain in our world against their will may become mad spirits, or ghosts. Some spirits are bound to this world because of some terrible circumstances of their death, or because of some powerful emotional bond to a person, place, or thing. These are called hauntings.

Some spirits are captured and bound to enchanted items by wizards. If the binding is involuntary, the spirit usually goes mad. A willing spirit may or may not retain its sanity, depending on the strength of the spirit and the wisdom of the enchanter.

Some spirits are bound against their wills to protect family shrines. This unpleasant fate is reserved for those who have not served the family faithfully in life. Dutiful and honorable ancestral spirits often aid in the capture and binding of wayward spirits.

These spirits usually go mad, and make terrifying guardians. They are ritually prevented from harming mortals of their clans, but that does not necessary discourage them from mischievous or peevish behavior. They are exceedingly dangerous for intruders. At the same time, if an intruder can penetrate the spirit's madness and play upon the spirit's resentment of his own clan, the angry spirits may be manipulated.

covenant_merchant

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

MythicEmperor wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

Tryxus wrote: »

Turns out that one of those brothers is indeed an exception to that rule:

He's a Worm Cultist

Alright, that definitely softens the blow a little bit, but it's still very strange that the other brother is just fine with this, and it makes no sense for two dunmer to be committing necromancy so brazenly and openly. This isn't Telvanni country, this is right in the heart of Morrowind. Not only that, but it's pre-Empire Morrowind (necromancy is legal in the empire). They'd be executed on sight for this. To be fair I'm an altmer so I don't give a damn (there's a bound spirit selling enchanting supplies in Skywatch for goodness sake) but in Morrowind? This feels like a basic misunderstanding of basic lore.

Well, the other brother regrets it afterwards, iirc. I'm a Telvanni, so I am not bothered by this.

How did the brother not know that binding spirits and making them fight for you...like...the literal definition of necromancy? It's just bizarre and makes no sense. Not to mention, once again, doing something like this out in the open would get you executed. the whole scenario is just a blatant misunderstanding of the dunmer, not to mention it once again paints argonians as the perfect goody-two-shoe heroes who can do no wrong.

To be fair, the main antagonist in the Rivenspire questline is an Argonian necromancer and vampire to boot.
Yes, it is true that in the Stonefalls and more generally the EP questlines, Argonians are presented in a positive light, but that comes from their background. There's an emphasis on the fact that most of them if not all are former slaves, freed with the establishment of the Pact, which wasn't formed that long ago. And while I personally, love shades of grey (not the book, which is stupid and ridiculous), but as in moral grey areas, as in yes - slavery is horrible and should be condoned, but not all slaves end up being angelic holier-than-thou people, I guess it would have been too polemic and complicated to portray in an oversimplified MMO.

MrDenimChicken

if you analyze the quests in this game, you are going to have a bad time

RealLifeRedguard

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

The dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than I think you realize. The ghost fence itself is a necromantic construct, and many of the traditional dunmer rituals are necromantic. The brothers of strife were necromantic constructs. Dunmer also freely practice necromancy on non-elves.

The thing that dunmer really seem to object to with regards to necromancy is forcing an elven spirit to remain on Nirn (and even that is something that they are sometimes willing to do as a punishment). If the spirit is willing to voluntarily remain on Nirn (usually only temporarily or partially, as in the case of the ghost fence and the various traditional ancestor worship rituals), they don't seem to have any issues with it.

I would imagine that the case of spirits which are already stuck on Nirn is a bit of a grey area. Controlling those spirits wouldn't be forcing them to remain on Nirn, as they were already unable to make it to the otherworld. This would explain why the one brother was unsure as to whether it was acceptable to bind the spirits that were already trapped on Nirn for the greater good of defending from invasion, or whether that was an abomination and it was better to risk defeat at the hands of the invaders.

The dunmer stance on necromancy is clear, even if it is hypocritical from a western standpoint: for ones ancestors to WILLINGLY aid their descendants is not necromancy to the dunmer. According to every source it's explicitly stated that binding spirits into servitude is anathema to dunmer. There is no possible way both brothers didn't know that. It's a massive oversight and poor writing.

You might want to go and re-read Ancestors and the Dunmer. You're over-simplifying and ignoring some of what's in there. Specifically the section titled Mad Spirits. Like I said, the dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than you seem to think.

Even ESO calls it necromancy in the quest. Somehow the brother just didn't call it necromancy until after he felt bad about it. I don't know how much clearer you can get.

No matter how nuanced the dunmer's stance on necromancy is, they still believe that enslaving spirits to fight for you is necromancy. I mean, what else is necromancy if not that?

"Who can know the shame of the dead, the ceaseless weeping of the necromancer's thrall? Cruel enough is the ancestor's service given in love to Hearth and Kin. But ghost or guardian, bonewalker or bonelord, summoned by profane ritual and bound by force to the corpse miner's will, how may such a spirit ever find rest? How may it ever find its way back to its blood and clan?
-Blasphemous Revenants

From Ancestors and the Dunmer (bold & italics added by me - also note that this source is specifically talking about the Dunmer and their attitudes towards both their ancestors and necromancy):

Mad Spirits

Spirits that are forced to remain in our world against their will may become mad spirits, or ghosts. Some spirits are bound to this world because of some terrible circumstances of their death, or because of some powerful emotional bond to a person, place, or thing. These are called hauntings.

Some spirits are captured and bound to enchanted items by wizards. If the binding is involuntary, the spirit usually goes mad. A willing spirit may or may not retain its sanity, depending on the strength of the spirit and the wisdom of the enchanter.

Some spirits are bound against their wills to protect family shrines. This unpleasant fate is reserved for those who have not served the family faithfully in life. Dutiful and honorable ancestral spirits often aid in the capture and binding of wayward spirits.

These spirits usually go mad, and make terrifying guardians. They are ritually prevented from harming mortals of their clans, but that does not necessary discourage them from mischievous or peevish behavior. They are exceedingly dangerous for intruders. At the same time, if an intruder can penetrate the spirit's madness and play upon the spirit's resentment of his own clan, the angry spirits may be manipulated.

I think you're ignoring the context here.

Some spirits are captured and bound to enchanted items by wizards. If the binding is involuntary, the spirit usually goes mad. A willing spirit may or may not retain its sanity, depending on the strength of the spirit and the wisdom of the enchanter.

Do you really think they book is saying it's okay to bind spirits against their will, even though they usually go mad? Clearly they're saying why some spirits go mad and why this is wrong. I'm not sure how you're reading this.

Some spirits are bound against their wills to protect family shrines. ]This unpleasant fate is reserved for those who have not served the family faithfully in life. Dutiful and honorable ancestral spirits often aid in the capture and binding of wayward spirits.

These spirits are not the ancestors of the dunmer in question, they are not protecting family shrines, and we have no indication that have not served their families faithfully. If this isn't necromancy, then what is? Oh, and once again, they call it necromancy after it's done.

Again, the dunmer stance on the dead is nuanced, but it's clear: binding spirits against their will is necromancy, the worst taboo of all. It makes them go insane and they can't find peace. This quest makes no sense.

RealLifeRedguard

covenant_merchant wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

MythicEmperor wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

Tryxus wrote: »

Turns out that one of those brothers is indeed an exception to that rule:

He's a Worm Cultist

Alright, that definitely softens the blow a little bit, but it's still very strange that the other brother is just fine with this, and it makes no sense for two dunmer to be committing necromancy so brazenly and openly. This isn't Telvanni country, this is right in the heart of Morrowind. Not only that, but it's pre-Empire Morrowind (necromancy is legal in the empire). They'd be executed on sight for this. To be fair I'm an altmer so I don't give a damn (there's a bound spirit selling enchanting supplies in Skywatch for goodness sake) but in Morrowind? This feels like a basic misunderstanding of basic lore.

Well, the other brother regrets it afterwards, iirc. I'm a Telvanni, so I am not bothered by this.

How did the brother not know that binding spirits and making them fight for you...like...the literal definition of necromancy? It's just bizarre and makes no sense. Not to mention, once again, doing something like this out in the open would get you executed. the whole scenario is just a blatant misunderstanding of the dunmer, not to mention it once again paints argonians as the perfect goody-two-shoe heroes who can do no wrong.

To be fair, the main antagonist in the Rivenspire questline is an Argonian necromancer and vampire to boot.
Yes, it is true that in the Stonefalls and more generally the EP questlines, Argonians are presented in a positive light, but that comes from their background. There's an emphasis on the fact that most of them if not all are former slaves, freed with the establishment of the Pact, which wasn't formed that long ago. And while I personally, love shades of grey (not the book, which is stupid and ridiculous), but as in moral grey areas, as in yes - slavery is horrible and should be condoned, but not all slaves end up being angelic holier-than-thou people, I guess it would have been too polemic and complicated to portray in an oversimplified MMO.

Would it have been too complicated? It has less to do with the type of game (an mmo) and more to do with good writing and 3 dimensional character design. The example you gave in Rivenspire was a very good one. I forgot about him. I wish we could've seen more of that.

UrQuan

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

The dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than I think you realize. The ghost fence itself is a necromantic construct, and many of the traditional dunmer rituals are necromantic. The brothers of strife were necromantic constructs. Dunmer also freely practice necromancy on non-elves.

The thing that dunmer really seem to object to with regards to necromancy is forcing an elven spirit to remain on Nirn (and even that is something that they are sometimes willing to do as a punishment). If the spirit is willing to voluntarily remain on Nirn (usually only temporarily or partially, as in the case of the ghost fence and the various traditional ancestor worship rituals), they don't seem to have any issues with it.

I would imagine that the case of spirits which are already stuck on Nirn is a bit of a grey area. Controlling those spirits wouldn't be forcing them to remain on Nirn, as they were already unable to make it to the otherworld. This would explain why the one brother was unsure as to whether it was acceptable to bind the spirits that were already trapped on Nirn for the greater good of defending from invasion, or whether that was an abomination and it was better to risk defeat at the hands of the invaders.

The dunmer stance on necromancy is clear, even if it is hypocritical from a western standpoint: for ones ancestors to WILLINGLY aid their descendants is not necromancy to the dunmer. According to every source it's explicitly stated that binding spirits into servitude is anathema to dunmer. There is no possible way both brothers didn't know that. It's a massive oversight and poor writing.

You might want to go and re-read Ancestors and the Dunmer. You're over-simplifying and ignoring some of what's in there. Specifically the section titled Mad Spirits. Like I said, the dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than you seem to think.

Even ESO calls it necromancy in the quest. Somehow the brother just didn't call it necromancy until after he felt bad about it. I don't know how much clearer you can get.

No matter how nuanced the dunmer's stance on necromancy is, they still believe that enslaving spirits to fight for you is necromancy. I mean, what else is necromancy if not that?

"Who can know the shame of the dead, the ceaseless weeping of the necromancer's thrall? Cruel enough is the ancestor's service given in love to Hearth and Kin. But ghost or guardian, bonewalker or bonelord, summoned by profane ritual and bound by force to the corpse miner's will, how may such a spirit ever find rest? How may it ever find its way back to its blood and clan?
-Blasphemous Revenants

From Ancestors and the Dunmer (bold & italics added by me - also note that this source is specifically talking about the Dunmer and their attitudes towards both their ancestors and necromancy):

Mad Spirits

Spirits that are forced to remain in our world against their will may become mad spirits, or ghosts. Some spirits are bound to this world because of some terrible circumstances of their death, or because of some powerful emotional bond to a person, place, or thing. These are called hauntings.

Some spirits are captured and bound to enchanted items by wizards. If the binding is involuntary, the spirit usually goes mad. A willing spirit may or may not retain its sanity, depending on the strength of the spirit and the wisdom of the enchanter.

Some spirits are bound against their wills to protect family shrines. This unpleasant fate is reserved for those who have not served the family faithfully in life. Dutiful and honorable ancestral spirits often aid in the capture and binding of wayward spirits.

These spirits usually go mad, and make terrifying guardians. They are ritually prevented from harming mortals of their clans, but that does not necessary discourage them from mischievous or peevish behavior. They are exceedingly dangerous for intruders. At the same time, if an intruder can penetrate the spirit's madness and play upon the spirit's resentment of his own clan, the angry spirits may be manipulated.

I think you're ignoring the context here.

"Some spirits are captured and bound to enchanted items by wizards. If the binding is involuntary, the spirit usually goes mad. A willing spirit may or may not retain its sanity, depending on the strength of the spirit and the wisdom of the enchanter."

Do you really think they book is saying it's okay to bind spirits against their will, even though they usually go mad? Clearly they're saying why some spirits go mad and why this is wrong. I'm not sure how you're reading this.

It's very clearly saying that this is a practice that goes on in dunmer society, and the fact that they usually go mad is a consequence of this. The book doesn't say anything about whether it's OK or not, just that this is something that happens in dunmer society.

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

"Some spirits are bound against their wills to protect family shrines. This unpleasant fate is reserved for those who have not served the family faithfully in life. Dutiful and honorable ancestral spirits often aid in the capture and binding of wayward spirits."

These spirits are not the ancestors of the dunmer in question, they are not protecting family shrines, and we have no indication that have not served their families faithfully.

Again, the dunmer stance on the dead is nuanced, but it's clear: binding spirits against their will is the worst taboo of all. This quest is moronic from the ground up.

No, the dunmer stance on binding spirits against their will is clear: they're OK with it depending on the circumstances. In some circumstances it's the worst taboo of all. In other circumstances it's perfectly acceptable. The clearest example we have of a circumstance where they consider it to be perfectly acceptable is when it's to protect something that they consider to be vitally important to dunmer society/culture. How many family shrines would be destroyed if the invasion was successful? Does preventing that justify binding these spirits, or is that not an acceptable reason to do it? That's exactly the moral dilemma facing the dunmer in that quest. He's torn between deciding if the circumstances justify binding the spirits, or if it would be an abomination to do so. It's completely consistent with what we know about dunmer attitudes towards necromancy.

RealLifeRedguard

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

The dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than I think you realize. The ghost fence itself is a necromantic construct, and many of the traditional dunmer rituals are necromantic. The brothers of strife were necromantic constructs. Dunmer also freely practice necromancy on non-elves.

The thing that dunmer really seem to object to with regards to necromancy is forcing an elven spirit to remain on Nirn (and even that is something that they are sometimes willing to do as a punishment). If the spirit is willing to voluntarily remain on Nirn (usually only temporarily or partially, as in the case of the ghost fence and the various traditional ancestor worship rituals), they don't seem to have any issues with it.

I would imagine that the case of spirits which are already stuck on Nirn is a bit of a grey area. Controlling those spirits wouldn't be forcing them to remain on Nirn, as they were already unable to make it to the otherworld. This would explain why the one brother was unsure as to whether it was acceptable to bind the spirits that were already trapped on Nirn for the greater good of defending from invasion, or whether that was an abomination and it was better to risk defeat at the hands of the invaders.

The dunmer stance on necromancy is clear, even if it is hypocritical from a western standpoint: for ones ancestors to WILLINGLY aid their descendants is not necromancy to the dunmer. According to every source it's explicitly stated that binding spirits into servitude is anathema to dunmer. There is no possible way both brothers didn't know that. It's a massive oversight and poor writing.

You might want to go and re-read Ancestors and the Dunmer. You're over-simplifying and ignoring some of what's in there. Specifically the section titled Mad Spirits. Like I said, the dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than you seem to think.

Even ESO calls it necromancy in the quest. Somehow the brother just didn't call it necromancy until after he felt bad about it. I don't know how much clearer you can get.

No matter how nuanced the dunmer's stance on necromancy is, they still believe that enslaving spirits to fight for you is necromancy. I mean, what else is necromancy if not that?

"Who can know the shame of the dead, the ceaseless weeping of the necromancer's thrall? Cruel enough is the ancestor's service given in love to Hearth and Kin. But ghost or guardian, bonewalker or bonelord, summoned by profane ritual and bound by force to the corpse miner's will, how may such a spirit ever find rest? How may it ever find its way back to its blood and clan?
-Blasphemous Revenants

From Ancestors and the Dunmer (bold & italics added by me - also note that this source is specifically talking about the Dunmer and their attitudes towards both their ancestors and necromancy):

Mad Spirits

Spirits that are forced to remain in our world against their will may become mad spirits, or ghosts. Some spirits are bound to this world because of some terrible circumstances of their death, or because of some powerful emotional bond to a person, place, or thing. These are called hauntings.

Some spirits are captured and bound to enchanted items by wizards. If the binding is involuntary, the spirit usually goes mad. A willing spirit may or may not retain its sanity, depending on the strength of the spirit and the wisdom of the enchanter.

Some spirits are bound against their wills to protect family shrines. This unpleasant fate is reserved for those who have not served the family faithfully in life. Dutiful and honorable ancestral spirits often aid in the capture and binding of wayward spirits.

These spirits usually go mad, and make terrifying guardians. They are ritually prevented from harming mortals of their clans, but that does not necessary discourage them from mischievous or peevish behavior. They are exceedingly dangerous for intruders. At the same time, if an intruder can penetrate the spirit's madness and play upon the spirit's resentment of his own clan, the angry spirits may be manipulated.

I think you're ignoring the context here.

"Some spirits are captured and bound to enchanted items by wizards. If the binding is involuntary, the spirit usually goes mad. A willing spirit may or may not retain its sanity, depending on the strength of the spirit and the wisdom of the enchanter."

Do you really think they book is saying it's okay to bind spirits against their will, even though they usually go mad? Clearly they're saying why some spirits go mad and why this is wrong. I'm not sure how you're reading this.

It's very clearly saying that this is a practice that goes on in dunmer society, and the fact that they usually go mad is a consequence of this. The book doesn't say anything about whether it's OK or not, just that this is something that happens in dunmer society.

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

"Some spirits are bound against their wills to protect family shrines. This unpleasant fate is reserved for those who have not served the family faithfully in life. Dutiful and honorable ancestral spirits often aid in the capture and binding of wayward spirits."

These spirits are not the ancestors of the dunmer in question, they are not protecting family shrines, and we have no indication that have not served their families faithfully.

Again, the dunmer stance on the dead is nuanced, but it's clear: binding spirits against their will is the worst taboo of all. This quest is moronic from the ground up.

No, the dunmer stance on binding spirits against their will is clear: they're OK with it depending on the circumstances. In some circumstances it's the worst taboo of all. In other circumstances it's perfectly acceptable. The clearest example we have of a circumstance where they consider it to be perfectly acceptable is when it's to protect something that they consider to be vitally important to dunmer society/culture. How many family shrines would be destroyed if the invasion was successful? Does preventing that justify binding these spirits, or is that not an acceptable reason to do it? That's exactly the moral dilemma facing the dunmer in that quest. He's torn between deciding if the circumstances justify binding the spirits, or if it would be an abomination to do so. It's completely consistent with what we know about dunmer attitudes towards necromancy.

Where are you getting this information from? Because nothing you've sourced so far suggests this. What you've shown me suggests that when wizards bind spirits against their will they go insane, and that dishonored spirits are bound to guard family shrines. You've also shown me that it's perfectly fine to call upon one's ancestors to WILLINGLY receive their aid. Everything I've shown you describes the practice of forcing the dead into your service as vile necromancy.

According to the book you quoted, Ancestors and The Dunmer, even TELVANNI don't openly use necromancy on other dunmer:

Telvanni "Necromancy"
The Telvanni are adept masters of necromancy. They do not, however, practice necromancy upon the remains of Dark Elves. Sane Telvanni regard such practices with loathing and righteous anger. They do practice necromancy upon the remains of animals and upon the remains of Humans, Orcs, and Argonians -- who are technically no more than animals in Morrowind.

So the only evidence we have ever had up until this one quest in ESO suggests that dunmer consider necromancy, especially on other dunmer, to be vile, loathsome, and insane. How much clearer can this possibly be?

TheShadowScout

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

Tryxus wrote: »

Turns out that one of those brothers is indeed an exception to that rule:

He's a Worm Cultist

Alright, that definitely softens the blow a little bit, but it's still very strange that the other brother is just fine with this, and it makes no sense for two dunmer to be committing necromancy so brazenly and openly...

Actually the other brother isn't exactly fine with it... Just desperate.
With the covenant invasion and all that... when you almost saw everyone around you killed by invading brutes, its easy to go with the "let's make those ghosts fight for us!" idea... and if the player decides to go with it, the other brother will be quite shocked as the result, and realize it was a wrong thing to do, which will lead to the follow up quest that exposes his brothers secret...

But remember, the times of TES:Morrowind are almost eight centuries in the future. In fact, it is quite likely that the worm cults necromantic shenannigans in the times of ESO led to the strong taboos against necromancy in later times...

RealLifeRedguard

TheShadowScout wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

Tryxus wrote: »

Turns out that one of those brothers is indeed an exception to that rule:

He's a Worm Cultist

Alright, that definitely softens the blow a little bit, but it's still very strange that the other brother is just fine with this, and it makes no sense for two dunmer to be committing necromancy so brazenly and openly...

Actually the other brother isn't exactly fine with it... Just desperate.
With the covenant invasion and all that... when you almost saw everyone around you killed by invading brutes, its easy to go with the "let's make those ghosts fight for us!" idea... and if the player decides to go with it, the other brother will be quite shocked as the result, and realize it was a wrong thing to do, which will lead to the follow up quest that exposes his brothers secret...

But remember, the times of TES:Morrowind are almost eight centuries in the future. In fact, it is quite likely that the worm cults necromantic shenannigans in the times of ESO led to the strong taboos against necromancy in later times...

Good theory, but there's several problems with it. This is before Morrowind was ever conquered by the more liberal and morally permissive Imperials, and the tribunal faith is at its peak right now. The dunmer should be even more zealously against necromancy than they were in TES:III.

Also, these dunmer taboos against necromancy go back millennia. Heck, both books that describe the dunmer hatred of necromancy are present in ESO. The dunmer don't forsake their beliefs out of desperation. If anything they double down. Half of the house Indoril nobles committed suicide when the Empire conquered Morrowind. They literally couldn't rationalize or comprehend a reality where they would ever submit to the mannish races or their culture. Dunmer stand by their principles.

UrQuan

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

The dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than I think you realize. The ghost fence itself is a necromantic construct, and many of the traditional dunmer rituals are necromantic. The brothers of strife were necromantic constructs. Dunmer also freely practice necromancy on non-elves.

The thing that dunmer really seem to object to with regards to necromancy is forcing an elven spirit to remain on Nirn (and even that is something that they are sometimes willing to do as a punishment). If the spirit is willing to voluntarily remain on Nirn (usually only temporarily or partially, as in the case of the ghost fence and the various traditional ancestor worship rituals), they don't seem to have any issues with it.

I would imagine that the case of spirits which are already stuck on Nirn is a bit of a grey area. Controlling those spirits wouldn't be forcing them to remain on Nirn, as they were already unable to make it to the otherworld. This would explain why the one brother was unsure as to whether it was acceptable to bind the spirits that were already trapped on Nirn for the greater good of defending from invasion, or whether that was an abomination and it was better to risk defeat at the hands of the invaders.

The dunmer stance on necromancy is clear, even if it is hypocritical from a western standpoint: for ones ancestors to WILLINGLY aid their descendants is not necromancy to the dunmer. According to every source it's explicitly stated that binding spirits into servitude is anathema to dunmer. There is no possible way both brothers didn't know that. It's a massive oversight and poor writing.

You might want to go and re-read Ancestors and the Dunmer. You're over-simplifying and ignoring some of what's in there. Specifically the section titled Mad Spirits. Like I said, the dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than you seem to think.

Even ESO calls it necromancy in the quest. Somehow the brother just didn't call it necromancy until after he felt bad about it. I don't know how much clearer you can get.

No matter how nuanced the dunmer's stance on necromancy is, they still believe that enslaving spirits to fight for you is necromancy. I mean, what else is necromancy if not that?

"Who can know the shame of the dead, the ceaseless weeping of the necromancer's thrall? Cruel enough is the ancestor's service given in love to Hearth and Kin. But ghost or guardian, bonewalker or bonelord, summoned by profane ritual and bound by force to the corpse miner's will, how may such a spirit ever find rest? How may it ever find its way back to its blood and clan?
-Blasphemous Revenants

From Ancestors and the Dunmer (bold & italics added by me - also note that this source is specifically talking about the Dunmer and their attitudes towards both their ancestors and necromancy):

Mad Spirits

Spirits that are forced to remain in our world against their will may become mad spirits, or ghosts. Some spirits are bound to this world because of some terrible circumstances of their death, or because of some powerful emotional bond to a person, place, or thing. These are called hauntings.

Some spirits are captured and bound to enchanted items by wizards. If the binding is involuntary, the spirit usually goes mad. A willing spirit may or may not retain its sanity, depending on the strength of the spirit and the wisdom of the enchanter.

Some spirits are bound against their wills to protect family shrines. This unpleasant fate is reserved for those who have not served the family faithfully in life. Dutiful and honorable ancestral spirits often aid in the capture and binding of wayward spirits.

These spirits usually go mad, and make terrifying guardians. They are ritually prevented from harming mortals of their clans, but that does not necessary discourage them from mischievous or peevish behavior. They are exceedingly dangerous for intruders. At the same time, if an intruder can penetrate the spirit's madness and play upon the spirit's resentment of his own clan, the angry spirits may be manipulated.

I think you're ignoring the context here.

"Some spirits are captured and bound to enchanted items by wizards. If the binding is involuntary, the spirit usually goes mad. A willing spirit may or may not retain its sanity, depending on the strength of the spirit and the wisdom of the enchanter."

Do you really think they book is saying it's okay to bind spirits against their will, even though they usually go mad? Clearly they're saying why some spirits go mad and why this is wrong. I'm not sure how you're reading this.

It's very clearly saying that this is a practice that goes on in dunmer society, and the fact that they usually go mad is a consequence of this. The book doesn't say anything about whether it's OK or not, just that this is something that happens in dunmer society.

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

"Some spirits are bound against their wills to protect family shrines. This unpleasant fate is reserved for those who have not served the family faithfully in life. Dutiful and honorable ancestral spirits often aid in the capture and binding of wayward spirits."

These spirits are not the ancestors of the dunmer in question, they are not protecting family shrines, and we have no indication that have not served their families faithfully.

Again, the dunmer stance on the dead is nuanced, but it's clear: binding spirits against their will is the worst taboo of all. This quest is moronic from the ground up.

No, the dunmer stance on binding spirits against their will is clear: they're OK with it depending on the circumstances. In some circumstances it's the worst taboo of all. In other circumstances it's perfectly acceptable. The clearest example we have of a circumstance where they consider it to be perfectly acceptable is when it's to protect something that they consider to be vitally important to dunmer society/culture. How many family shrines would be destroyed if the invasion was successful? Does preventing that justify binding these spirits, or is that not an acceptable reason to do it? That's exactly the moral dilemma facing the dunmer in that quest. He's torn between deciding if the circumstances justify binding the spirits, or if it would be an abomination to do so. It's completely consistent with what we know about dunmer attitudes towards necromancy.

Where are you getting this information from? Because nothing you've source so far suggests this. What you've shown me suggests that when wizards bind spirits against their will they go insane, and that dishonored spirits are bound to guard family shrines. You've also shown me that it's perfectly find to call upon one's ancestors to WILLINGLY receive their aid. Everything I've shown you describes the practice of forcing the dead into your service as vile necromancy.

You're directly contradicting yourself there. Let's break down what you just said:

-dishonored spirits are bound to guard family shrines.
-practice of forcing the dead into your service as vile necromancy.

Those 2 statements directly contradict each other. If dishonoured spirits can be bound against their will (and wizards also bind spirits against their will often enough for it to be discussed in the source) then obviously the practice of forcing the dead into your service isn't always considered vile necromancy. It's completely 100% clear that the dunmer are fine with binding spirits against their will under the right circumstances, and if the circumstances aren't right then they consider it to be anathema. The right circumstances seem to be when it's done to protect what dunmer society considers most important.

The example that we have spelled out specifically is to protect family shrines. The lore simply doesn't tell us under what other specific circumstances it's considered to be OK, although we do know that dunmer wizards are known to bind spirits against their will to enchanted items. We don't know what specifically the circumstances are when they do that, but it's common enough to be remarked upon, so evidently it's part of dunmer society. Presumably it would only be accepted in cases where it is seen to protect dunmer society, and there are probably traditions and/or laws around that.

And that's exactly where the moral dilemma in this quest comes in. Binding the spirits would be protecting dunmer society from destruction at the hands of invaders, but given the circumstances there can be no precedent for this particular situation in dunmer tradition. That's why he's unsure of whether they should do it.

I get that you're having trouble admitting that you didn't have a solid understanding of the lore when you started this thread, but when you're directly contradicting yourself in an effort to avoid admitting you were wrong, that's when it's time to stop. It's obvious that when you started this thread you either hadn't read Ancestors and Dunmer, or you had read it some time ago and had forgotten that it clearly talks about the fact that dunmer do bind spirits against their will. It's just that they have traditions around when that's allowed and when it isn't. The quest clearly depicts a dunmer presented with what appears to him to be a grey area where tradition doesn't guide him to know whether binding these spirits for this purpose should be allowed.

UrQuan

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

TheShadowScout wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

Tryxus wrote: »

Turns out that one of those brothers is indeed an exception to that rule:

He's a Worm Cultist

Alright, that definitely softens the blow a little bit, but it's still very strange that the other brother is just fine with this, and it makes no sense for two dunmer to be committing necromancy so brazenly and openly...

Actually the other brother isn't exactly fine with it... Just desperate.
With the covenant invasion and all that... when you almost saw everyone around you killed by invading brutes, its easy to go with the "let's make those ghosts fight for us!" idea... and if the player decides to go with it, the other brother will be quite shocked as the result, and realize it was a wrong thing to do, which will lead to the follow up quest that exposes his brothers secret...

But remember, the times of TES:Morrowind are almost eight centuries in the future. In fact, it is quite likely that the worm cults necromantic shenannigans in the times of ESO led to the strong taboos against necromancy in later times...

Good theory, but there's several problems with it. This is before Morrowind was ever conquered by the more liberal and morally permissive Imperials, and the tribunal faith is at its peak right now. The dunmer should be even more zealously against necromancy than they were in TES:III.

Also, these dunmer taboos against necromancy go back millennia. Heck, both books that describe the dunmer hatred of necromancy are present in ESO. The dunmer don't forsake their beliefs out of desperation. If anything they double down. Half of the house Indoril nobles committed suicide when the Empire conquered Morrowind. They literally couldn't rationalize or comprehend a reality where they would ever submit to the mannish races or their culture. Dunmer stand by their principles.

OK, now I know you don't understand the lore in the slightest. The dunmer actually became more anti-necromancy after submitting to the Empire, not the other way around:

Ancestors and the Dunmer wrote:

Publisher's Note

This book was written by an unknown scholar as a guide for foreign visitors to Morrowind shortly after the Armistice was signed. Many of these practices have since fallen into disfavor. The most obvious changes are those regarding the practice of Necromancy and the Great Ghostfence. Dunmer today regard Necromancy upon any of the accepted races as an abomination.

At the time of Morrowind dunmer had become more anti-necromancy than had been described in Ancestors and the Dunmer. They didn't become more OK with it after becoming part of the Empire, where it was accepted. The opposite happened.

Kova

Has anyone also made the point that a cultural stereotype doesn't always reflect the will and opinion of the individual? I understand that it's a useful lore mechanic, but saying that "no true dunmer" (see no true scotsman fallacy) would support such an act is brazen to say the least.

RealLifeRedguard

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

The dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than I think you realize. The ghost fence itself is a necromantic construct, and many of the traditional dunmer rituals are necromantic. The brothers of strife were necromantic constructs. Dunmer also freely practice necromancy on non-elves.

The thing that dunmer really seem to object to with regards to necromancy is forcing an elven spirit to remain on Nirn (and even that is something that they are sometimes willing to do as a punishment). If the spirit is willing to voluntarily remain on Nirn (usually only temporarily or partially, as in the case of the ghost fence and the various traditional ancestor worship rituals), they don't seem to have any issues with it.

I would imagine that the case of spirits which are already stuck on Nirn is a bit of a grey area. Controlling those spirits wouldn't be forcing them to remain on Nirn, as they were already unable to make it to the otherworld. This would explain why the one brother was unsure as to whether it was acceptable to bind the spirits that were already trapped on Nirn for the greater good of defending from invasion, or whether that was an abomination and it was better to risk defeat at the hands of the invaders.

The dunmer stance on necromancy is clear, even if it is hypocritical from a western standpoint: for ones ancestors to WILLINGLY aid their descendants is not necromancy to the dunmer. According to every source it's explicitly stated that binding spirits into servitude is anathema to dunmer. There is no possible way both brothers didn't know that. It's a massive oversight and poor writing.

You might want to go and re-read Ancestors and the Dunmer. You're over-simplifying and ignoring some of what's in there. Specifically the section titled Mad Spirits. Like I said, the dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than you seem to think.

Even ESO calls it necromancy in the quest. Somehow the brother just didn't call it necromancy until after he felt bad about it. I don't know how much clearer you can get.

No matter how nuanced the dunmer's stance on necromancy is, they still believe that enslaving spirits to fight for you is necromancy. I mean, what else is necromancy if not that?

"Who can know the shame of the dead, the ceaseless weeping of the necromancer's thrall? Cruel enough is the ancestor's service given in love to Hearth and Kin. But ghost or guardian, bonewalker or bonelord, summoned by profane ritual and bound by force to the corpse miner's will, how may such a spirit ever find rest? How may it ever find its way back to its blood and clan?
-Blasphemous Revenants

From Ancestors and the Dunmer (bold & italics added by me - also note that this source is specifically talking about the Dunmer and their attitudes towards both their ancestors and necromancy):

Mad Spirits

Spirits that are forced to remain in our world against their will may become mad spirits, or ghosts. Some spirits are bound to this world because of some terrible circumstances of their death, or because of some powerful emotional bond to a person, place, or thing. These are called hauntings.

Some spirits are captured and bound to enchanted items by wizards. If the binding is involuntary, the spirit usually goes mad. A willing spirit may or may not retain its sanity, depending on the strength of the spirit and the wisdom of the enchanter.

Some spirits are bound against their wills to protect family shrines. This unpleasant fate is reserved for those who have not served the family faithfully in life. Dutiful and honorable ancestral spirits often aid in the capture and binding of wayward spirits.

These spirits usually go mad, and make terrifying guardians. They are ritually prevented from harming mortals of their clans, but that does not necessary discourage them from mischievous or peevish behavior. They are exceedingly dangerous for intruders. At the same time, if an intruder can penetrate the spirit's madness and play upon the spirit's resentment of his own clan, the angry spirits may be manipulated.

I think you're ignoring the context here.

"Some spirits are captured and bound to enchanted items by wizards. If the binding is involuntary, the spirit usually goes mad. A willing spirit may or may not retain its sanity, depending on the strength of the spirit and the wisdom of the enchanter."

Do you really think they book is saying it's okay to bind spirits against their will, even though they usually go mad? Clearly they're saying why some spirits go mad and why this is wrong. I'm not sure how you're reading this.

It's very clearly saying that this is a practice that goes on in dunmer society, and the fact that they usually go mad is a consequence of this. The book doesn't say anything about whether it's OK or not, just that this is something that happens in dunmer society.

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

"Some spirits are bound against their wills to protect family shrines. This unpleasant fate is reserved for those who have not served the family faithfully in life. Dutiful and honorable ancestral spirits often aid in the capture and binding of wayward spirits."

These spirits are not the ancestors of the dunmer in question, they are not protecting family shrines, and we have no indication that have not served their families faithfully.

Again, the dunmer stance on the dead is nuanced, but it's clear: binding spirits against their will is the worst taboo of all. This quest is moronic from the ground up.

No, the dunmer stance on binding spirits against their will is clear: they're OK with it depending on the circumstances. In some circumstances it's the worst taboo of all. In other circumstances it's perfectly acceptable. The clearest example we have of a circumstance where they consider it to be perfectly acceptable is when it's to protect something that they consider to be vitally important to dunmer society/culture. How many family shrines would be destroyed if the invasion was successful? Does preventing that justify binding these spirits, or is that not an acceptable reason to do it? That's exactly the moral dilemma facing the dunmer in that quest. He's torn between deciding if the circumstances justify binding the spirits, or if it would be an abomination to do so. It's completely consistent with what we know about dunmer attitudes towards necromancy.

Where are you getting this information from? Because nothing you've source so far suggests this. What you've shown me suggests that when wizards bind spirits against their will they go insane, and that dishonored spirits are bound to guard family shrines. You've also shown me that it's perfectly find to call upon one's ancestors to WILLINGLY receive their aid. Everything I've shown you describes the practice of forcing the dead into your service as vile necromancy.

You're directly contradicting yourself there. Let's break down what you just said:

-dishonored spirits are bound to guard family shrines.
-practice of forcing the dead into your service as vile necromancy.

Those 2 statements directly contradict each other. If dishonoured spirits can be bound against their will (and wizards also bind spirits against their will often enough for it to be discussed in the source) then obviously the practice of forcing the dead into your service isn't always considered vile necromancy. It's completely 100% clear that the dunmer are fine with binding spirits against their will under the right circumstances, and if the circumstances aren't right then they consider it to be anathema. The right circumstances seem to be when it's done to protect what dunmer society considers most important.

The example that we have spelled out specifically is to protect family shrines. The lore simply doesn't tell us under what other specific circumstances it's considered to be OK, although we do know that dunmer wizards are known to bind spirits against their will to enchanted items. We don't know what specifically the circumstances are when they do that, but it's common enough to be remarked upon, so evidently it's part of dunmer society. Presumably it would only be accepted in cases where it is seen to protect dunmer society, and there are probably traditions and/or laws around that.

And that's exactly where the moral dilemma in this quest comes in. Binding the spirits would be protecting dunmer society from destruction at the hands of invaders, but given the circumstances there can be no precedent for this particular situation in dunmer tradition. That's why he's unsure of whether they should do it.

I get that you're having trouble admitting that you didn't have a solid understanding of the lore when you started this thread, but when you're directly contradicting yourself in an effort to avoid admitting you were wrong, that's when it's time to stop. It's obvious that when you started this thread you either hadn't read Ancestors and Dunmer, or you had read it some time ago and had forgotten that it clearly talks about the fact that dunmer do bind spirits against their will. It's just that they have traditions around when that's allowed and when it isn't. The quest clearly depicts a dunmer presented with what appears to him to be a grey area where tradition doesn't guide him to know whether binding these spirits for this purpose should be allowed.

They are not a contradiction.

The practice of binding the dead against their will is wrong. One's ancestors may be bound (the book doesn't say willingly or not) to guard the family shrine And I don't understand why you have to be so rude and condescending. Can you please respond to the rest of my post? It's explicitly stated in the book you sourced that even Telvanni do not openly practice necromancy (as in binding spirits against their will) on dunmer. How do you explain that? Every source we've looked at clearly states the following:

-Binding spirits against their will is necromancy
-Binding spirits unwillingly makes them go insane in most cases (I assume you agree the dunmer think this is bad)
-One's ancestors willingly helping you is fine
-One's ancestors may be bound to protect family shrines (the book doesn't state whether this is willing or not, but that these ancestors usually didn't serve the family faithfully in life).

The dark elves would never think of practicing sorcerous necromancy upon any dark elf or upon the remains of any elf. However, dark elves consider the human and orcish races to be little more than animals. There is no injunction against necromancy upon such remains, or on the remains of any animal, bird, or insect.

-Ancestors and the Dunmer

So unwillingly binding the spirit of any elf under any circumstance is unthinkable. Please tell me how this is incorrect.

Also, Ancestors and the Dunmer appears in ESO, so your comment about the book not being written until the third era is meaningless.

RealLifeRedguard

Kova wrote: »

Has anyone also made the point that a cultural stereotype doesn't always reflect the will and opinion of the individual? I understand that it's a useful lore mechanic, but saying that "no true dunmer" (see no true scotsman fallacy) would support such an act is brazen to say the least.

You're 100% correct. However, there's a difference between the game acknowledging these dunmer are exceptions (say they're particularly radical telvanni, or don't believe in ALMSIVI, or were born outside of Morrowind, etc) and just glossing over it like it's not a problem at all.

psychotrip

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

The dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than I think you realize. The ghost fence itself is a necromantic construct, and many of the traditional dunmer rituals are necromantic. The brothers of strife were necromantic constructs. Dunmer also freely practice necromancy on non-elves.

The thing that dunmer really seem to object to with regards to necromancy is forcing an elven spirit to remain on Nirn (and even that is something that they are sometimes willing to do as a punishment). If the spirit is willing to voluntarily remain on Nirn (usually only temporarily or partially, as in the case of the ghost fence and the various traditional ancestor worship rituals), they don't seem to have any issues with it.

I would imagine that the case of spirits which are already stuck on Nirn is a bit of a grey area. Controlling those spirits wouldn't be forcing them to remain on Nirn, as they were already unable to make it to the otherworld. This would explain why the one brother was unsure as to whether it was acceptable to bind the spirits that were already trapped on Nirn for the greater good of defending from invasion, or whether that was an abomination and it was better to risk defeat at the hands of the invaders.

The dunmer stance on necromancy is clear, even if it is hypocritical from a western standpoint: for ones ancestors to WILLINGLY aid their descendants is not necromancy to the dunmer. According to every source it's explicitly stated that binding spirits into servitude is anathema to dunmer. There is no possible way both brothers didn't know that. It's a massive oversight and poor writing.

You might want to go and re-read Ancestors and the Dunmer. You're over-simplifying and ignoring some of what's in there. Specifically the section titled Mad Spirits. Like I said, the dunmer beliefs regarding necromancy are more nuanced than you seem to think.

Even ESO calls it necromancy in the quest. Somehow the brother just didn't call it necromancy until after he felt bad about it. I don't know how much clearer you can get.

No matter how nuanced the dunmer's stance on necromancy is, they still believe that enslaving spirits to fight for you is necromancy. I mean, what else is necromancy if not that?

"Who can know the shame of the dead, the ceaseless weeping of the necromancer's thrall? Cruel enough is the ancestor's service given in love to Hearth and Kin. But ghost or guardian, bonewalker or bonelord, summoned by profane ritual and bound by force to the corpse miner's will, how may such a spirit ever find rest? How may it ever find its way back to its blood and clan?
-Blasphemous Revenants

From Ancestors and the Dunmer (bold & italics added by me - also note that this source is specifically talking about the Dunmer and their attitudes towards both their ancestors and necromancy):

Mad Spirits

Spirits that are forced to remain in our world against their will may become mad spirits, or ghosts. Some spirits are bound to this world because of some terrible circumstances of their death, or because of some powerful emotional bond to a person, place, or thing. These are called hauntings.

Some spirits are captured and bound to enchanted items by wizards. If the binding is involuntary, the spirit usually goes mad. A willing spirit may or may not retain its sanity, depending on the strength of the spirit and the wisdom of the enchanter.

Some spirits are bound against their wills to protect family shrines. This unpleasant fate is reserved for those who have not served the family faithfully in life. Dutiful and honorable ancestral spirits often aid in the capture and binding of wayward spirits.

These spirits usually go mad, and make terrifying guardians. They are ritually prevented from harming mortals of their clans, but that does not necessary discourage them from mischievous or peevish behavior. They are exceedingly dangerous for intruders. At the same time, if an intruder can penetrate the spirit's madness and play upon the spirit's resentment of his own clan, the angry spirits may be manipulated.

I think you're ignoring the context here.

"Some spirits are captured and bound to enchanted items by wizards. If the binding is involuntary, the spirit usually goes mad. A willing spirit may or may not retain its sanity, depending on the strength of the spirit and the wisdom of the enchanter."

Do you really think they book is saying it's okay to bind spirits against their will, even though they usually go mad? Clearly they're saying why some spirits go mad and why this is wrong. I'm not sure how you're reading this.

It's very clearly saying that this is a practice that goes on in dunmer society, and the fact that they usually go mad is a consequence of this. The book doesn't say anything about whether it's OK or not, just that this is something that happens in dunmer society.

RealLifeRedguard wrote: »

"Some spirits are bound against their wills to protect family shrines. This unpleasant fate is reserved for those who have not served the family faithfully in life. Dutiful and honorable ancestral spirits often aid in the capture and binding of wayward spirits."

These spirits are not the ancestors of the dunmer in question, they are not protecting family shrines, and we have no indication that have not served their families faithfully.

Again, the dunmer stance on the dead is nuanced, but it's clear: binding spirits against their will is the worst taboo of all. This quest is moronic from the ground up.

No, the dunmer stance on binding spirits against their will is clear: they're OK with it depending on the circumstances. In some circumstances it's the worst taboo of all. In other circumstances it's perfectly acceptable. The clearest example we have of a circumstance where they consider it to be perfectly acceptable is when it's to protect something that they consider to be vitally important to dunmer society/culture. How many family shrines would be destroyed if the invasion was successful? Does preventing that justify binding these spirits, or is that not an acceptable reason to do it? That's exactly the moral dilemma facing the dunmer in that quest. He's torn between deciding if the circumstances justify binding the spirits, or if it would be an abomination to do so. It's completely consistent with what we know about dunmer attitudes towards necromancy.

Where are you getting this information from? Because nothing you've source so far suggests this. What you've shown me suggests that when wizards bind spirits against their will they go insane, and that dishonored spirits are bound to guard family shrines. You've also shown me that it's perfectly find to call upon one's ancestors to WILLINGLY receive their aid. Everything I've shown you describes the practice of forcing the dead into your service as vile necromancy.

You're directly contradicting yourself there. Let's break down what you just said:

-dishonored spirits are bound to guard family shrines.
-practice of forcing the dead into your service as vile necromancy.

Those 2 statements directly contradict each other. If dishonoured spirits can be bound against their will (and wizards also bind spirits against their will often enough for it to be discussed in the source) then obviously the practice of forcing the dead into your service isn't always considered vile necromancy. It's completely 100% clear that the dunmer are fine with binding spirits against their will under the right circumstances, and if the circumstances aren't right then they consider it to be anathema. The right circumstances seem to be when it's done to protect what dunmer society considers most important.

The example that we have spelled out specifically is to protect family shrines. The lore simply doesn't tell us under what other specific circumstances it's considered to be OK, although we do know that dunmer wizards are known to bind spirits against their will to enchanted items. We don't know what specifically the circumstances are when they do that, but it's common enough to be remarked upon, so evidently it's part of dunmer society. Presumably it would only be accepted in cases where it is seen to protect dunmer society, and there are probably traditions and/or laws around that.

And that's exactly where the moral dilemma in this quest comes in. Binding the spirits would be protecting dunmer society from destruction at the hands of invaders, but given the circumstances there can be no precedent for this particular situation in dunmer tradition. That's why he's unsure of whether they should do it.

I get that you're having trouble admitting that you didn't have a solid understanding of the lore when you started this thread, but when you're directly contradicting yourself in an effort to avoid admitting you were wrong, that's when it's time to stop. It's obvious that when you started this thread you either hadn't read Ancestors and Dunmer, or you had read it some time ago and had forgotten that it clearly talks about the fact that dunmer do bind spirits against their will. It's just that they have traditions around when that's allowed and when it isn't. The quest clearly depicts a dunmer presented with what appears to him to be a grey area where tradition doesn't guide him to know whether binding these spirits for this purpose should be allowed.

They are not a contradiction.

The practice of binding the dead against their will is wrong. One's ancestors may be bound (the book doesn't say willingly or not) to guard the family shrine And I don't understand why you have to be so rude and condescending. Can you please respond to the rest of my post? It's explicitly stated in the book you sourced that even Telvanni do not openly practice necromancy (as in binding spirits against their will) on dunmer. How do you explain that? Every source we've looked at clearly states the following:

-Binding spirits against their will is necromancy
-Binding spirits unwillingly makes them go insane in most cases (I assume you agree the dunmer think this is bad)
-One's ancestors willingly helping you is fine
-One's ancestors may be bound to protect family shrines (the book doesn't state whether this is willing or not, but that these ancestors usually didn't serve the family faithfully in life).

The dark elves would never think of practicing sorcerous necromancy upon any dark elf or upon the remains of any elf. However, dark elves consider the human and orcish races to be little more than animals. There is no injunction against necromancy upon such remains, or on the remains of any animal, bird, or insect.

-Ancestors and the Dunmer

So unwillingly binding the spirit of any elf under any circumstance is unthinkable. Please tell me how this is incorrect.

Also, Ancestors and the Dunmer appears in ESO, so your comment about the book not being written until the third era is meaningless.

Look, this conversation is clearly going nowhere between you two. The other guy is nuts though. Dunmer have always been against forcing the spirits of other elves, especially dunmer, to aid them. I didn't know that thing you mentioned about the Telvanni. That's pretty crazy that even they don't stoop to necromancy on their own kind...not in public at least.

All in all, I agree with TheShadowScout and Capnphoton. These dunmer are clearly exceptions to the general rule and aren't following the typical stereotypes. The problem is less that these two dunmer are committing necromancy and more that they're doing it so openly right next to a major city. That's the only part that doesn't make sense.

starkerealm

Okay, let's put this in very simple terms: the Dunmer are hypocrites.

To pull a line from Morrowind (and yes, this is from 800 years later): "In the Empire, necromancy is a legitimate discipline, though body and spirit are protected property, and may not be used without permission of the owner. But in Morrowind, the Dunmer loathe necromancers, and put them to death. That's absurd, of course, since the Dunmer summon their OWN dead to guard tombs and defend the family. Sacred necromancy is righteous, while philosophical necromancy is evil. It's primitive superstition, that's all."

Someone else practices necromancy. You, the Worm Cult, The Withered Hand, anyone else, that's blasphemy. But, for the Dunmer, if they practice necromancy, it's a sacred act. Now, there are supposed to be specific ways in which they use it, but Stonefalls is rife with Dunmer interpreting their sacred authority to practice necromancy in ways that don't line up with the limits of how they're "supposed" to be practicing it. But, basically, they're hypocrites, and you're given enough information to see and understand that in game.

psychotrip

starkerealm wrote: »

Okay, let's put this in very simple terms: the Dunmer are hypocrites.

To pull a line from Morrowind (and yes, this is from 800 years later): "In the Empire, necromancy is a legitimate discipline, though body and spirit are protected property, and may not be used without permission of the owner. But in Morrowind, the Dunmer loathe necromancers, and put them to death. That's absurd, of course, since the Dunmer summon their OWN dead to guard tombs and defend the family. Sacred necromancy is righteous, while philosophical necromancy is evil. It's primitive superstition, that's all."

Someone else practices necromancy. You, the Worm Cult, The Withered Hand, anyone else, that's blasphemy. But, for the Dunmer, if they practice necromancy, it's a sacred act. Now, there are supposed to be specific ways in which they use it, but Stonefalls is rife with Dunmer interpreting their sacred authority to practice necromancy in ways that don't line up with the limits of how they're "supposed" to be practicing it. But, basically, they're hypocrites, and you're given enough information to see and understand that in game.

This is another thing people don't seem to "get" about the dunmer or their role in the ES universe, especially in Morrowind. They've become hypocrites in a lot of ways since the days of Veloth. Nowhere is this more obvious than the way they structure their society. They left Summerset to live an austere life far away from the decadence and settled life of the altmer. And yet by the time we meet them in the games they've settled down themselves and even organized themselves into great houses similar to the altmer kinhouse system of mainland Summerset.

Still, I do sympathize with Realliferedguard here. The quest was framed poorly and without context. It definitely does feel like a jarring oversight at first glance. Again, the only problem I have with the quest is that it happens right next to a major city and they're doing it so brazenly. Even if we can agree that dunmer are hypocrites, even their hypocritical views on necromancy make it clear that they're not supposed to forcefully bind other mer.