by Vastarie

All mages know the tale of the old rivalry between Vanus Galerion and Mannimarco. From their legendary quarrel arose both the Order of the Black Worm and the Mages Guild, societies that have dominated the practice of magic across Tamriel for centuries now. Yet before that, these two enemies were friends, Psijic students who excelled at Artaeum. Their brilliance illuminated the deepest secrets of our art and marked the way for countless mages who have followed since.

When they first met, Mannimarco and Galerion quickly realized that they understood things none of their fellows did. Out of mutual respect friendship grew, at least for a time. Their good-natured debates on the secrets of magic were the wonder of Artaeum, drawing scores of spectators and setting forth principles that are still studied today.

This is a record of a debate now known as their Second Dialogue. It began as a discussion about whether the Consecrations of Arkay apply to soul magic.

* * *
Vanus Galerion: Some things are forbidden, my friend, even to the most powerful of us—especially to the most powerful of us. I can slay with a mere word or gesture, but that does not give me permission to murder whenever I find it convenient to do so.

Mannimarco: I do not make that argument. Of course casual murder is wrong. Only those sick in the mind inflict pain without purpose.

Vanus Galerion: Your distinction about "purpose" would seem to excuse some cases of murder or torture. Or, to return to our initial question, the imprisonment of another being's soul.

Mannimarco: Imprisonment? I speak of borrowing a soul's power for a task measured in hours or days, when it will soon enough have the rest of eternity to go about its business, whatever that is. Since I am asking only for a little of something the soul now possesses an infinite abundance of—time, eternity!—the cost to the soul is nothing. It is hardly slavery.

Vanus Galerion: You would exact labor and pay nothing in return. Hours and days have a way of turning into years and centuries, I suspect. Because necromancy does not secure consent before binding the soul or using its power, it compels service that should be freely given or exchanged for something of worth.

Mannimarco: Ah, so it is the lack of consent that troubles you.

Vanus Galerion: Does it not trouble you?

Mannimarco: Many healing spells manipulate the recipient's animus. The soul, if you like. No one suggests that using magicka to reshape the animus for healing is wrong. But if the person we are trying to help is unconscious, they can hardly give their consent. Should we not aid them?

Vanus Galerion: If reason dictates that the injured party would desire aid, we can take their consent for granted.

Mannimarco: What if reason dictates that a soul might be willing to perform some service other than helping to heal itself? Imagine a warrior slain on the field of battle. His comrades are still in great danger; he would aid them if he could. The necromancer can give him that chance.

Vanus Galerion: A slippery slope. Necromancers have demonstrated again and again that Arkay's Blessing can be circumvented by underhanded means of securing consent. Or ignoring it, under the right conditions. That does not make it permissible.

Mannimarco: So your argument is that mages unconstrained by conscience can do things you find repugnant. Which is just as true for casual murder with a lightning bolt or a blast of frost as it is for binding souls. I submit there is nothing innately immoral about necromancy. A mage either chooses to wield his magic in a manner society deems acceptable, or he does not. The form hardly matters.

Vanus Galerion: This sounds familiar. You argued before that power has no morality.

Mannimarco: So I did.