D&D (2024) Playtest 6: Spells

[Mirrorrorrim]

I don't mind it being abjuration. That works too.



I disagree. This could be in part because of the media I've consumed, where Necromancy as "control over bones" or "soul magic" has led to it being used in many positive, healing contexts. I don't like this idea that necromancy almost exclusively should have no positive connotations. Divination can be used for stalking, evocation for murder, conjuration for summoning fiends, Transmutation for human experimentation, ect.

Raising the Dead via clerical magic is... just straight necromancy. The difference is the soul, and if necromancy is soul magic then that SHOULD have positive uses, even if it is an incredibly risky and dangerous thing to mess with.



I agree here. I generally view enchantment in a negative light.... but it is mind magic, and that can also be used for things like communication and stepping into someone's mind to heal their broken psyche. Again, dangerous territory, proceed with caution, but I'm fine with it being "grey" as a tool. People studying virology and genetically altering viruses are playing with dangerous things that could wipe out humanity... but there is also good in what they do, because the most dangerous tools are sometimes the most vital to master.

I think that bringing back the dead should have negative connotations, and could be a primary reason why it is so rare. Some rich or fanatical people will still do it because they have the means to bring back people important to them, but normal folks would likely not appreciate that rich people can use their wealth to bypass the natural death process that the commoners are stuck with.

Raising the Dead is not considered "good" in my world. It is "creepy" and "grey" to society at best.

 

[Yaarel]

I disagree. For me it is the magic of life and death, the soul and how to affect it. Dangerous if misused, but if used responsibly, powerful.

And I've often been an advocate that the creation of undead does not necessarily have to be evil.

Life magic would be ... "Zoomancy". Or "Healing" as its own school of magic. In any case, it is a method for protective magic, whence "Abjuration".

With regard to "Necromancy", literally "corpse oracle", even its trafficking with devils and demons isnt necessarily Evil. Consider the Cleric class is knowledgeable about such things. But it is clearly dark-side magic.

With regard to Undead. In my view, the ki lifeforce of the soul that entangles the corpse remains in Shadowfell after death, while the mind and spirit of the soul move on separately to somewhere in the Astral Plane. A necromancer can manipulate the ki residue of the bones, while the mind and spirit remain unharmed but aware of what the necromancer is doing. Normally, the lifeforce of the corpse "sleeps", but the necromancer can awaken it.

 

[Yaarel]

I think that bringing back the dead should have negative connotations, and could be a primary reason why it is so rare. Some rich or fanatical people will still do it because they have the means to bring back people important to them, but normal folks would likely not appreciate that rich people can use their wealth to bypass the natural death process that the commoners are stuck with.

Raising the Dead is not considered "good" in my world. It is "creepy" and "grey" to society at best.

Undead is a half life, an illusion of how things used to be.

But true life, a real resurrection, a second chance to do good, is a great compassion and holy.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think that bringing back the dead should have negative connotations, and could be a primary reason why it is so rare. Some rich or fanatical people will still do it because they have the means to bring back people important to them, but normal folks would likely not appreciate that rich people can use their wealth to bypass the natural death process that the commoners are stuck with.

Raising the Dead is not considered "good" in my world. It is "creepy" and "grey" to society at best.

That may be fair for your society, but that isn't the case in like... the vast majority of fiction. Take the plot of Honor Among Thieves, the entire plot hinges on the desire to bring back a dead loved one, and the climax is doing exactly that. And it is certainly not presented as "creepy" or "grey" to do so. Nor are most resurrection stories framed that way. In fact, in many religions, coming back from the dead is seen as the an important divine act, only second to creation itself.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Undead is a half life, an illusion of how things used to be.

But true life, a real resurrection, a second chance to do good, is a great compassion and holy.

Right, this is one view. But it isn't the ONLY view.

For example, undeath can be seen as the ultimate act of service. Serving someone from beyond the grave, while your soul moves on, leaving your flesh to continue your duty. It is only an illusion when people treat the undead as though they were people, not essentially flesh golems.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Life magic would be ... "Zoomancy". Or "Healing" as its own school of magic. In any case, it is a method for protective magic, whence "Abjuration".

With regard to "Necromancy", literally "death oracle", even its trafficking with devils and demons isnt necessarily Evil. Consider the Cleric class is knowledgeable about such things. But it is clearly dark-side magic.

But it doesn't work that way, even in ancient conceptions. Death and life are forever intertwined. And look at this from a more modern lense. Healing magic would cure a disease, yes? What does that mean? That means killing the life that is causing the disease. The two can't really exist except as two sides of the same coin. It would be like claiming that ice magic has no relation to fire magic, when we know both are thermodynamics and even conceptually, the two are linked.

With regard to Undead. In my view, the ki lifeforce of the soul that entangles the corpse remains in Shadowfell after death, while the mind and spirit of the soul move on separately to somewhere in the Astral Plane. A necromancer can manipulate the ki residue of the bones, while the mind and spirit remain unharmed but aware of what the necromancer is doing. Normally, the lifeforce of the corpse "sleeps", but the necromancer can awaken it.

This basically fits with my view on it. They are manipulating the flesh and bone, to bring about an undead, but they do not touch the mind or the soul generally. But they can. Speak with Dead must touch upon the mind. Soul Jar and other soul-stealing magic must touch upon the soul.

And beyond DnD, if I were to have magic that involved manipulating the body and the soul, then "necromancy" would be it. Soul Shields, soul projection, soul nets, all of this could be done.

 

[Yaarel]

But it doesn't work that way, even in ancient conceptions. Death and life are forever intertwined.

I misspoke. I translated "nekros" as "death". But it more precisely means "corpse". Necromancy is literally "corpse oracle". The influence of the dead.

("Death" would be "thanatos".)

And look at this from a more modern lense. Healing magic would cure a disease, yes? What does that mean? That means killing the life that is causing the disease.

Viruses arent really "life". But perhaps a bacterial or fungus infection, in which case one way to cure the disease is to remove the parasite from the living body, or to create a new body that lacks the parasite, or so on. Or if the illness was genetic, a form of shapeshifting to make the body whole.

The two can't really exist except as two sides of the same coin. It would be like claiming that ice magic has no relation to fire magic, when we know both are thermodynamics and even conceptually, the two are linked.

There are different kinds ways that wellbeing can go wrong. All them need healing.

This basically fits with my view on it. They are manipulating the flesh and bone, to bring about an undead, but they do not touch the mind or the soul generally. But they can. Speak with Dead must touch upon the mind. Soul Jar and other soul-stealing magic must touch upon the soul.

In my view, the "soul" has three levels. There is the ki lifeforce aura that entangles the body, the spirit of self identity, and the mind of pure consciousness. In D&D, at death, the soul lingers for bit after death, but eventually the mind moves on, bringing the self identity with it, and leaving the lifeforce aura behind. The ki lifeforce aura still clings to the corpse, albeit dimly.

And beyond DnD, if I were to have magic that involved manipulating the body and the soul, then "necromancy" would be it. Soul Shields, soul projection, soul nets, all of this could be done.

So the necromancy does affect part of the "soul", but only the lifeforce of the corpse. The rest of the soul, namely the consciousness mind and ones self, are elsewhere.

 

[Yaarel]

No serious damage happens unless a person reaches 0 hit points. That is when sword stabs into the gut, when the dragon foot stomps, or other trauma.

So, physical healing is mainly a 0 hit points thing, tho it could also be some for kind of illness, such as a baby born with the heart outside the body.

Because much of hit point loss is the loss of morale, alertness, stamina, and so on, healing can also happen via a mind-affecting Enchantment.

Even using the tough and confident Charisma (Intimidation) Check to boost morale might restore hit points among allies at non-zero.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I misspoke. I translated "nekros" as "death". But it more precisely means "corpse". Necromancy is literally "corpse oracle". The influence of the dead.

("Death" would be "thanatos".)

Splitting hairs. The magic of the Dead is the magic of Death.

Viruses arent really "life". But perhaps a bacterial or fungus infection, in which case one way to cure the disease is to remove the parasite from the living body, or to create a new body that lacks the parasite, or so on. Or if the illness was genetic, a form of shapeshifting to make the body whole.

Viruses are weird, agreed. But yes, this is my point. You can't "remove" the disease physically, at least not as typically depicted, because it would come out as a bile or fluid. You certainly can't create a whole new body or even body parts unless you destroy the original, otherwise you just have cancer.

So, a key component of healing and cleansing is... death, destruction of that which is "unclean" within the body. You can of course make something different, but frankly that is how medicine has always worked. Drugs are poison, just in small doses. Fevers are the body trying to boil invaders alive. You'd have to be specifically twisting to avoid the healing = death connections.

There are different kinds ways that wellbeing can go wrong. All them need healing.

And the vast majority of them need some form of destruction to function.

So the necromancy does affect part of the "soul", but only the lifeforce of the corpse. The rest of the soul, namely the consciousness mind and ones self, are elsewhere.

Then what about things like Soul Jar that takes a soul out of a body and puts it into an object? Why is affecting only part of the soul, the lifeforce of the corpse, necromancy, but affecting the entire soul and placing the mind and self back in with the fully restored life force of the corpse NOT necromancy?

 

[Yaarel]

Splitting hairs. The magic of the Dead is the magic of Death.

Death is about killing.

The dead are about the influence of those who exist in a new form of nature, including those who are the corpses of dust and the breaths of wind.

Viruses are weird, agreed. But yes, this is my point. You can't "remove" the disease physically, at least not as typically depicted, because it would come out as a bile or fluid. You certainly can't create a whole new body or even body parts unless you destroy the original, otherwise you just have cancer.

True Resurrection and Clone are examples of creating a new body. For example, if the original body exists but is irretrievable, then there would be two bodies (thus two ki lifeforce aura that cling to each body), but the disembodied mind (being the consciousness and self of the soul) unites with only one of them. There is no actual need to destroy the original body.

To remove a disease by pulling it out as ooze, or simply sweating it out or via urine or feces, is fine. Maybe for the sake of the story, yuckier imagery is more visceral and fun.

So, a key component of healing and cleansing is... death, destruction of that which is "unclean" within the body.

Healing damage such as a missing limb has nothing to do with death or destruction.

You can of course make something different, but frankly that is how medicine has always worked.

Except when medicine doesnt work that way, such as by creating prosthetic limb or supplying a missing hormone, nutrient, or other chemical agent, or by supplying "good" bacteria for the healthy ecosystem of the gut.

Drugs are poison, just in small doses. Fevers are the body trying to boil invaders alive. You'd have to be specifically twisting to avoid the healing = death connections.

And the vast majority of them need some form of destruction to function.

Then what about things like Soul Jar that takes a soul out of a body and puts it into an object? Why is affecting only part of the soul, the lifeforce of the corpse, necromancy, but affecting the entire soul and placing the mind and self back in with the fully restored life force of the corpse NOT necromancy?

Killing bacteria and gaining assistance from undead souls ... are dissimilar concepts.

Neither are carnivores who eat meat the same thing as undead. Nor are Fighters who kill in combat the same thing as undead.

Necromancy is more specifically about dangerous magic, including undead, fiend, and the "Necronomicon".