What IS Necromancy?

[GalacticAxekick]

One of my ongoing projects is to expand each school of magic, so that it's possible and practical to play a character who only uses one school. I finished my expansion of Divination (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?622676-The-Complete-Arcane-Divination-PEACH), and I'm nearly done my expansion of Illusion (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?639319-The-Complete-Arcane-Illusion-(PEACH)). But the next school I want to work on—Necromancy—is giving my serious problems.

What IS Necromancy? Divination reveals information (nothing more, nothing less). Illusion produces hallucinations (nothing more, nothing less). Transmutation reshapes matter (nothing more, nothing less). Enchantment changes minds (nothing more, nothing less).

But Necromancy seems to do EVERYTHING, as long as it's vaguely "life and death" themed.
It's the school that rots and restores, with spells that harm/kill living things and revive/restore dead things!
It's the school of magically imitating life, with spells that let the dead move without muscles and see without eyes, and that let the living shrug off their injuries.
It's the school of reaching out to the afterlife, with spells that speak with the dead, cage souls, and astral project

If we were consistent with these powers, Necromancy would encompass a lot more than it does.
As the school of "rot and restoration", it would include healing spells like Cure Wounds, Healing Word and Aura of Life
As the school of "magically imitating life", it would include spells like Animate Objects and Awaken and Create Homunculus.
As the school of reaching out to the afterlife, it would include spells like Contact Other Plane

So how I reconcile these as one thing? I'm willing to move certain spells to other schools (for example, Speak With Dead would fit perfectly in the school of Divination). But I can't just gut the whole school.

EDIT: After talking to a few people, the definition I'm coming to is "necromancy manipulates the soul"
At a high level, this means raising the dead by calling their souls into their bodies, or killing creatures instantly by ripping their souls from their bodies
At a low level, this means inching creatures closer to death by loosening the souls grip on the body, or keeping injured creatures alive by fastening the souls grip.
At a mid level, this means creating artificial souls to animate corpses and objects.
This does NOT involve inflicting or healing physical wounds, which has nothing to do with the soul.
This does NOT involve communicating with the souls of the dead, which is Divination.


This definition includes all of necromancys most famous abilities. But the exclusion of inflicting harm and healing wounds is a shame. Is there a thematically consistent way to include those?

[Glorthindel]

I would probably go with "manipulation of life energy", as that covers healing and animation through insertion of life energy, and such things as energy draining and death spells through the siphoning (I don't know how much you are expanding the schools, but there is definitely room for including both extracting and injecting in the same spell). I would definitely assign any "communicating with spirits" to Divination.

As an aside, I believe Necromancy used to be simply just another term for Divination, and more modern interpretations have shifted things into the walking dead angle. Perhaps retire the name entirely, and go with something else (maybe "Animism") for the manipulation of life energy, and use necromancy more as a slur for those dealing with the living dead in general (much as "Demonologist" is less a school and more a term for those playing with demons).

[Damon_Tor]

Almost anything that manipulates souls is "necromancy"

[Loek]

I always see necromancy as messing with both positive and negative energy (I miss the 3.5 era planes). And healing spells should very much be necromantic (and have been in the past). Just not wizard necromantic, it's instead cleric necromantic.

Healing, harming, giving energy, taking energy, animating and destroying the animated.
Though I'd leave things like animate object out of this, as that feels more like creating something that moves (your magic and will is what gives it the ability to do so) as opposed to the undead "inject energy, and maybe some sense of life".

The next fun question becomes if radiant energy (extreme positive energy) is suited to a necromancer.
Which is where it really starts deviating from the expected norm. That said, necromancers doing good and healing/reviving things is a fun twist. Instead of the results, maybe they are "bad people" for the methods instead?

I'd stick to the heal/harm, give/take energy and messing about with "reanimation" type spells.
Some odd ball radiant spells might be fun, but shouldn't be the bread and butter. While darkness/cold/necrotic can probably make up the bulk of the theme.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll say that the current schools of magic are...ill thought out. And the placement of the spells within them is pretty darn arbitrary. Oh, and they only matter for wizard-type casting[1]. I vote for throwing them away and starting over.

[1] ok, and a couple of Tasha's sorcerer sub-classes. Not much else cares.

[GalacticAxekick]

I'll say that the current schools of magic are...ill thought out. And the placement of the spells within them is pretty darn arbitrary. [...] I vote for throwing them away and starting over.I think 6 out of 8 schools of magic are fantastic! Illusion (false knowledge), Divination (real knowledge), Transmutation (changing matter), Enchantment (changing minds), Evocation (creating/destroying energy) and Conjuration (messing with space) are all clearly defined and interesting schools of magic that encompass almost everything a magician could do.

I agree that the placement of spells within these schools of often arbitrary, but the schools themselves are great in concept!

The only schools I have issues with are Necromancy and Abjuration, which both do a huge variety of tenuously related things.


Oh, and they only matter for wizard-type casting. OK, and a couple of Tasha's sorcerer sub-classes. Not much else cares.Yes. Your point?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think 6 out of 8 schools of magic are fantastic! Illusion (false knowledge), Divination (real knowledge), Transmutation (changing matter), Enchantment (changing minds), Evocation (creating/destroying energy) and Conjuration (messing with space) are all clearly defined and interesting schools of magic that encompass almost everything a magician could do.

I agree that the placement of spells within these schools of often arbitrary, but the schools themselves are great in concept!

The only schools I have issues with are Necromancy and Abjuration, which both do a huge variety of tenuously related things.


The problem is that when you try to actually apply those, you find that just about everything has heavy overlap. So it will always be arbitrary what fits where.



Yes. Your point?

Meaning it doesn't really need to exist as a core "this is how magic is" thing and can be just one way wizards categorize magical effects. No need to clutter up everyone else's model for something that is an arbitrary slicing of the whole space.

[GalacticAxekick]

The problem is that when you try to actually apply those, you find that just about everything has heavy overlap. So it will always be arbitrary what fits where.Again, I see very little overlap with the 6 schools I mentioned. I'd say 95% of spells outside Abjuration and Necromancy it squarely in one school (even if that's not the school where WotC put them)


Meaning it doesn't really need to exist as a core "this is how magic is" thing and can be just one way wizards categorize magical effects. No need to clutter up everyone else's model for something that is an arbitrary slicing of the whole space.Yes. And I'm not making it "how magic is". I'm not cluttering anyone's model. I'm writing new spells so that a wizard specializing in X school can function using only X spells.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes. And I'm not making it "how magic is". I'm not cluttering anyone's model. I'm writing new spells so that a wizard specializing in X school can function using only X spells.

Then what you're doing is obliterating the distinction and making it just a "color of effect". Because if you can do everything using just one school, then the schools have 100% overlap.

But to each their own.

[GalacticAxekick]

Then what you're doing is obliterating the distinction and making it just a "color of effect". Because if you can do everything using just one school, then the schools have 100% overlap.

But to each their own.Well, no. I'm not saying "make it so wizards can do everything with just one school". I'm saying "make it so wizards can stay relevant with just one school". Stay relevant in combat, exploration and interaction.

For instance, Mage Armor (abjuration) and Mirror Image (illusion) both defend the caster, but in different ways representing the different approaches of different schools. I want every school to have its own defensive options. And it's own offensive options. And it's own options for a variety of non-combat situations.

[GalacticAxekick]

I always see necromancy as messing with both positive and negative energy (I miss the 3.5 era planes). [...] The next fun question becomes if radiant energy (extreme positive energy) is suited to a necromancer. [...] Some odd ball radiant spells might be fun, but shouldn't be the bread and butter. While darkness/cold/necrotic can probably make up the bulk of the theme.I dont want to bake setting-specific concepts like positive and negative energy into spell schools. These concepts knit unrelated concepts together, which is fine in the given setting, but restrictive to DMs and players in other settings.

Radiant damage is damage dealt by light. Blinding flashes, searing lasers, burning radiation, etc. It's totally unrelated to life, except in a setting that knits them together. Its clearly in the domain of Evocation.

Likewise, darkness and cold are unrelated to death. Sure, dead things are cold, and being cold can kill you. But if being deadly made something necromancy, every commoner would be casting Knife In Your Chest. Darkness and cold are clearly in the domain of Evocation.


And healing spells should very much be necromantic (and have been in the past). Just not wizard necromantic, it's instead cleric necromantic.Agreed! I'll transfer them over!


Though I'd leave things like animate object out of this, as that feels more like creating something that moves (your magic and will is what gives it the ability to do so) as opposed to the undead "inject energy, and maybe some sense of life".When you animate the dead, your magic and will is what gives them the ability to move.

When you animate objects, you inject energy and a sense of life into them.

I dont see the distinction you're making.

[Loek]

When you animate the dead, your magic and will is what gives them the ability to move.

When you animate objects, you inject energy and a sense of life into them.

I dont see the distinction you're making.

The main difference (in my mind) is that you actual create a semblance of life for most undead (aka: no concentration to keep them going), while most of the more item based ones are really just extensions of yourself (needs concentration and you thinking for them)

Though the other 2 examples you cite are a bit different:
Awaken is taking something already there and changing it to be more intelligent instead of actually giving it "life"
The Homunculus is very much caught between the creation of a construct and something "alive". And is really close to necromancy (Though transmutation still describes the effect quite well, I might be convinced that the process is, at least in part, necromantic)

[Kane0]

Yeah its hard to summarize nicely as you have with divination, transmutation etc, but Necromancy deals with the soul. It restores souls to bodily life, separates them in death and shunts it around in unlife. Not always evil and nasty, but very susceptible to it.

Abjuration is also pretty murky, it overlaps with other schools a lot and really only carries a theme of 'protection'. Perhaps you can redefine it into magic that doesnt require a caster after initial creation like glyphs, alarms, wards and other autononous effects?

[GalacticAxekick]

Yeah its hard to summarize nicely as you have with divination, transmutation etc, but Necromancy deals with the soul. It restores souls to bodily life, separates them in death and shunts it around in unlife. Not always evil and nasty, but very susceptible to it.I think that's the consensus! Most people seem to agree that necromancy manipulates souls.

In which case, should the flesh-rotting and flesh-restoring spells be given to other schools?

[GalacticAxekick]

The main difference (in my mind) is that you actual create a semblance of life for most undead (aka: no concentration to keep them going), while most of the more item based ones are really just extensions of yourself (needs concentration and you thinking for them) Animated objects have their own intelligence, wisdom and charisma scores. They are loyal to you, but they think for themselves.

While animated objects require concentration, other constructs (such as Animated Armor and Golems) clearly do not, and are not explicitly loyal to their creators.

So if "thinking for itself" is the semblance of life, animated objects have that. And if "existing without the creator's concentration" is the semblance of life, animated objects lack it, but other constructs possess it.

What is the difference between raising a skeleton and raising a suit of armor? Why isnt the latter necromancy?

[Kane0]

I think that's the consensus! Most people seem to agree that necromancy manipulates souls.

In which case, should the flesh-rotting and flesh-restoring spells be given to other schools?

I suppose transmutation, unless its something like a death ray?

[Breccia]

But Necromancy seems to do EVERYTHING, as long as it's vaguely "life and death" themed

Back in my day, when I had to walk 17 miles through the snow uphill both ways to play D&D, magic schools were invented basically as flavor. And necromancy had basically nothing.

Then later editions came out where specializing in a school was a thing. And nobody wanted to specialize into the schools with, like, four spells. So necromancy had more added and its concept spread thinner to cover more ground. What you're seeing is a result of that.

For every necomancy spell, there's a loophole you can use to defend that depiction. It gets easier if you walk away from the biology classroom and remember there are "four" elements.

If it bothers you, renaming a few spells will help, but I'm guessing changing cause light wounds *cough* inflict wounds to "soul-crushing grip" or something feels to you like paining over dry rot. (Note that it does do necromatic, not slashing/bludgeoning/piercing, damage, so "physical wounds" is already suspect)

You can also imagine some attack spells as "turning small parts of your enemy into undead" which should be horrifying. Like, seriously, imagine watching that happen to your ally. Or imagine watching it happen to yourself.

Or, you can reschool spells. The only ones affected adversely by this will be School of Necromancy Wizards, whose combat abilities and gold you'll nerf. Most of that school is about classic necromancy anyhow. But again, spells were created and classified simply to keep the schools at some level of equality. If you just take away spells, you either break that balance, or you have to replace them. If combat effectiveness is the issue, a spell that creates a five-second undead, or a spell that mimics an undead's ability, should do just fine.

I will disagree with you on speak with dead though. At first glance, it does seem to read like a divination spell turned necromancy, by looking at a spirit echo rather than the original soul and requiring a mouth on the corpse. But the truth is, a low-level spell like speak with dead shouldn't be able to contact an Outer Plane anyhow. Speak with dead is a classic spell, but it was never high level. Making it work the way it does, making it necromatic, is the only way to preserve its use as it is currently intended. If you want to make a divination spell that basically transports the caster's mind back in time to just before the target died, I won't stop you, there are existing and previously existing spells that kind of do that.

I would mostly advise just not overthinking this too much. If you did, every spell would be alteration, because every spell changes things. Causing the Frightened condition? A change. Air erupts in a ball of fire? A change. Your soul put back in your body? A change. There's going to be overlap. D&D has decided that, when there's overlap, the smaller school gets it to even things out.

In the end, what you're describing is bringing logic into game balance. Yes, a katana should do less damage than a great axe against chain mail. Yes, plate mail in a lightning bolt spell should be instant death. Yes, the average person shouldn't pick up 100 pounds and still move at full speed. In your game, it's up to you to house-rule whatever you think needs to change to a system you both like the feel of and also can make the dice roll when needed. I don't think what you're describing is a problem to the point of being worth fixing, so in my campaign, I won't. But if you do, there are options that you're not just allowed, but encouraged, to use.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

This definition includes all of necromancy's most famous abilities. But the exclusion of inflicting harm and healing wounds is a shame. Is there a thematically consistent way to include those?

To include these thematically expand the definition of Necromancy to include manipulation of the soul in the material and immaterial aspects. If something more of a formal definition perhaps: "Necromancy is a school of magic focused on the manipulation of the soul, impacting the metaphysical and material realms. Those who study Necromancy learn magics of using the soul to manipulate the flesh and bone or to use or the souls of any living and departed creature as they desire. At its core, Necromancy focuses on the cycles of life and death regardless if the uses are for good or ill."

I'm in the camp of the more old school D&D view where healing spells were under Necromancy, but anyways one idea.

[MrStabby]

Well, no. I'm not saying "make it so wizards can do everything with just one school". I'm saying "make it so wizards can stay relevant with just one school". Stay relevant in combat, exploration and interaction.

For instance, Mage Armor (abjuration) and Mirror Image (illusion) both defend the caster, but in different ways representing the different approaches of different schools. I want every school to have its own defensive options. And it's own offensive options. And it's own options for a variety of non-combat situations.

I think an issue with this is that some enemies have pretty much immunity to some schools of magic. True Sight makes a lot of illusion stuff pointless, charm/fear immunity severely neuters a lot of enchantment spells (obviously not a total wash with things like bless or bane as well in the school)... If you want to have just one school then you are in for a bad time...

Necromancy is one of the better ones for this. Lots of options for necrotic damage. Animate dead opens up other damage types. Blindness/deafness is a good debuff. Speak with dead is useful out of combat ability. Raise dead is a niche but great spell to have.

[GalacticAxekick]

I think an issue with this is that some enemies have pretty much immunity to some schools of magic. True Sight makes a lot of illusion stuff pointless, charm/fear immunity severely neuters a lot of enchantment spells (obviously not a total wash with things like bless or bane as well in the school)... If you want to have just one school then you are in for a bad time...have.And I'm fine with this! I think its fine if some niche situations make a character feel weak and other situations make a character feel powerful. Strengths and weaknesses make for good story and interesting party dynamics.

The key is that these are niche situations. For example, the pure illusionist should struggle "in combat against a foe with truesight", and not "in combat".

[Kane0]

And under the proposal it wouldnt be against any mage with truesight, it would be against a diviner specifically, right?

[GalacticAxekick]

And under the proposal it wouldnt be against any mage with truesight, it would be against a diviner specifically, right?No, an illusionist will have issues facing ANY mage with truesight.

That said, True Seeing is a 6th level spell that costs 25 gp to cast and that lasts 1 hour. When you learn it at 11th level, you can only have it in active for 1 hour a day, and it will cost you 25 gp a day. By 20th level, you can spend all your slots of 6th level and above, and soend 150 gp a day, to have it active for 6 hours a day.

An illusionist only has to catch you at the right time to fight you at full effectiveness. And whenever they find you, youll be low on both cash and spell slots.

This is what I mean when I say "strengths and weaknesses make for good story".

[oogaboogagoblin]

yeah wizards kinda half-assed necromancy and abjuration, they kinda just exist for balance im pretty sure so other schools dont get too many abilities, but since youre adding spells you might as well delete both and spread their spells around other schools that fit

[GalacticAxekick]

yeah wizards kinda half-assed necromancy and abjuration, they kinda just exist for balance im pretty sure so other schools dont get too many abilitiesI wouldn't say that. Other schools are LACKING many abilities and could have them without becoming overpowered.

I think they exist so that "death themed" spells and "protection themed" spells can be grouped together, and so that subclasses/features can be built around them.


but since youre adding spells you might as well delete both and spread their spells around other schools that fitI'm almost certainly going to delete Abjuration. Almost everything it does belongs to another school. Alarm is Divination. Arcane Lock is Transmutation. Sanctuary is Enchantment. Banishment is Conjuration. Pass Without Trace is Illusion. Etc.

But Necromancy has a FEW spells which clearly stand out: Animate Dead, Raise Dead, and all their cousins. So even if I give away most of what Necromancy does, it has to exist as "the school that deals with souls".

I think I need to massively expand the "Animate" family of spells. Animate non-humanoids. Create intelligent undead. Deal more with ghosts instead of skeletons and zombies. Become a lich.

[oogaboogagoblin]

honestly all those spells could go to conjuration,enchantment, or transmutation

[GalacticAxekick]

honestly all those spells could go to conjuration,enchantment, or transmutationI dont see how.

Conjuration messes with space (either creating extradimensional space or moving things across space). Neither Animate Dead nor Raise Dead does that.

Enchantment alters thoughts and behaviour. Neither Animate Dead nor Raise Dead does that.

Transmutation alters physical shapes and properties. Neither Animate Dead nor Raise Dead does that.

[Devils_Advocate]

I don't think that Abjuration is all that hard to generalize. "Proper" Abjuration spells all prevent, although what they prevent varies greatly. Slightly more specifically, they generally prevent changes of various sorts. Abjuration can also undo magical changes due to the "no ontological inertia" thing that magic has going on.

That leaves out "trap" spells, which should be classified according to their effects, and maybe also Divination for detecting triggers.


I dont want to bake setting-specific concepts like positive and negative energy into spell schools. These concepts knit unrelated concepts together, which is fine in the given setting, but restrictive to DMs and players in other settings.

Radiant damage is damage dealt by light. Blinding flashes, searing lasers, burning radiation, etc. It's totally unrelated to life, except in a setting that knits them together. Its clearly in the domain of Evocation.
I hate to break it to you, but, well, you're wrong. "Radiant damage", despite what the name might suggest, is not a normal physical property of light. Damaging things by heating them up is fire damage, not radiant damage. This is why the Light domain, which deals more with physical light, is full of fire spells and only has one radiant damage effect. Radiant and necrotic damage attack are holy and unholy respectively, and attack the body by way of the soul, which is why they interact differently with undead. (Compare psychic damage, which attacks by way of the mind.)


But the exclusion of inflicting harm and healing wounds is a shame. Is there a thematically consistent way to include those?

should the flesh-rotting and flesh-restoring spells be given to other schools?
Well, what else even would they be? Transmutation? But magical transformation replaces bodies wholesale in a no-ontological-inertia way. The effects that you're talking about here aren't temporary.

It gets to what descriptions you want to attach to hit points. Is gaining and losing them fundamentally a physical change? Does leveling up transform characters' bodies so that they're physically resistant to change (wounds and healing*)? If so, bringing someone back from the dead probably involves two different spells: one to heal the body, and another to bring back the soul. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- raising the dead is arguably way too easy in D&D in general -- but it is a change.

But I think that the fluff is generally more "life force" than "physical resilience". Really, though, marrying "how hit points work" with "what makes sense" is basically something that you're supposed to not try to do.

*Note that, without changing anything, high level characters do require more healing to restore to full health. And this goes beyond the realm of mechanics. Why would a god be missing an eye, for example, if he can trivially remedy such an injury? I speculate that such a thing is as difficult to reverse as it is to achieve, and for much the same reasons.


Enchantment alters thoughts and behaviour. Neither Animate Dead nor Raise Dead does that.
Well, sure they do. They stick mental properties back into a body. A zombie and a living person both behave quite differently from an inanimate corpse.

If nothing else, the line between "minds" and "souls" seems somewhat less than one hundred percent super clear.

[GalacticAxekick]

I don't think that Abjuration is all that hard to generalize. "Proper" Abjuration spells all prevent, although what they prevent varies greatly. Slightly more specifically, they generally prevent changes of various sorts. Abjuration can also undo magical changes due to the "no ontological inertia" thing that magic has going on.

That leaves out "trap" spells, which should be classified according to their effects, and maybe also Divination for detecting triggers.I can think of a small number of Abjurations that fit this description. Mage Armor, Shield, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, etc.

The rest clearly DO something, rather than merely undoing it. Banishment prevents and undoes nothing, but kicks your target out of the plane. Alarm prevents and undoes nothing, but gives you extrasensory perception. Armor of Agathys freezes others. Warding Bond deflects damage. Beacon of Hope enhances healing.

And even among those that only prevent/undo, many clearly overlap with other schools. There's no reason why a creature immune to Enchantments should fall victim to Santuary, for instance.


Well, what else even would they be? Transmutation? But magical transformation replaces bodies wholesale in a no-ontological-inertia way. The effects that you're talking about here aren't temporary. True Polymorph is permanent. Alter Self, Draconic Transformation and Shapechange all preserve ontological inertia. Healing and wounding magically sounds precisely like transmutation.

Which is probably why Regenerate is a Transmutation spell!


It gets to what descriptions you want to attach to hit points. Is gaining and losing them fundamentally a physical change? Does leveling up transform characters' bodies so that they're physically resistant to change (wounds and healing*)? [...] But I think that the fluff is generally more "life force" than "physical resilience". Really, though, marrying "how hit points work" with "what makes sense" is basically something that you're supposed to not try to do. This is an excellent point. In my mind, hit points are an abstraction of a creature's ability to avoid a life-threatening injury. Every "hit" that fails to reduce you to 0 hit points is a scratch, bruise, surface burn, pulled muscle, or even a exhausting defensive maneuver that brings you closer to failing to evade or withstand a REAL clean hit.

Likeiwisw healing, in my mind, physically restores the target. Most sources of healing are very minor, but powerful healing can restore a lost limb or eye.


If so, bringing someone back from the dead probably involves two different spells: one to heal the body, and another to bring back the soul. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- raising the dead is arguably way too easy in D&D in general -- but it is a change.I was thinking the same thing!


Well, sure they do. They stick mental properties back into a body. A zombie and a living person both behave quite differently from an inanimate corpse.

If nothing else, the line between "minds" and "souls" seems somewhat less than one hundred percent super clear.I'd say there is no line between minds and souls. Enchantment alters minds/souls. Animate Dead creates one. Raise Dead calls one from the hereafter.

Animate Dead is to Enchantment what Create Water is to Shape Water.

[Devils_Advocate]

I can think of a small number of Abjurations that fit this description. Mage Armor, Shield, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, etc.
Looking through them, most seem preventative to me, but a lot aren't purely preventative, so as written they wouldn't be in a school of magic that only prevents in a Each School Only Does One Thing model. But... it's not like only Abjuration fares poorly by that standard! Plenty of Illusion spells do things other than create false perceptions, for example.

Making each of D&D's schools of magic into a specific type of magic that only does one specific type of thing could be great for a novel fantasy game system; possibly a more freeform one where there are only the different schools instead of a huge honkin' list of defined specific spells. But reclassifying the existing spells into 8 categories that narrow, especially based on the existing schools, seems... dubiously workable.

I'll admit that I haven't yet read your linked posts.


Banishment prevents and undoes nothing, but kicks your target out of the plane.
It undoes the magic by which an extraplanar creature was relocated to the plane you're on, and that used to be all that it did. But the uses of various spells have been broadened for 5E, and this one now allow a different effect that doesn't work through the power of NOPE. So where before it was legit Abjuration where it worked by noping and if there was nothing to nope you were out of luck, now it's really Conjuration.


Alarm prevents and undoes nothing, but gives you extrasensory perception.
Yeah, that falls into the broad category of "trap spells", although it doesn't do anything to the target... "Triggered spells" is probably a better term for what I meant.


Armor of Agathys freezes others. Warding Bond deflects damage. Beacon of Hope enhances healing.
Yes, but each is also a defense buff. So not strictly preventative, but, again, I don't see making the schools that narrow working out.


And even among those that only prevent/undo, many clearly overlap with other schools. There's no reason why a creature immune to Enchantments should fall victim to Santuary, for instance.
That's fair. It may be that moving everything to a different school is the more satisfying arrangement. It will require a few dubious choices, like saying that "magic is a type of energy" to justify putting antimagic in Evocation, but you've basically got to make some dubious choices somewhere.


True Polymorph is permanent.
Only potentially. Even then, it can be dispelled.


Alter Self, Draconic Transformation and Shapechange all preserve ontological inertia
Huh? Those have limited durations. They're temporary effects that reverse when the magic ends.

Upon review, Alter Self does seem more like it modifies rather than replaces a body, though, unlike e.g. Polymorph. So I was the one trying to force an incorrect generalization there. Still, temporary.


In my mind, hit points are an abstraction of a creature's ability to avoid a life-threatening injury. Every "hit" that fails to reduce you to 0 hit points is a scratch, bruise, surface burn, pulled muscle, or even a exhausting defensive maneuver that brings you closer to failing to evade or withstand a REAL clean hit.

Likeiwisw healing, in my mind, physically restores the target. Most sources of healing are very minor, but powerful healing can restore a lost limb or eye.
Other systems have "death spirals" where characters become less capable as they take damage, but D&D doesn't do that. Being low on hit points by itself does not cover a state of "like, seriously injured, for real, but still capable of walking, if poorly". Instead, D&D characters keep on truckin' at full force until their life force is exhausted. Exactly what that life force is is super open to interpretation, but it's not a thing that real people actually have in the real world.

When taking arbitrarily high amounts of damage doesn't necessarily mean that a character is meaningfully injured, then "seriously physically messes someone up for real" is right out as the fluff for any damage-dealing spell. Like, Inflict Wounds turning you into a mangled version of yourself is incompatible with no mangling occurring. That's science!


I'd say there is no line between minds and souls. Enchantment alters minds/souls. Animate Dead creates one.
I'd sooner say that it calls forth an animating spirit than that it creates one. Mortal spellcasters just making souls seems a bit off to me...


Raise Dead calls one from the hereafter.
So, it... conjures a soul, one might say. ;)

[GalacticAxekick]

Looking through them, most seem preventative to me, but a lot aren't purely preventative, so as written they wouldn't be in a school of magic that only prevents in a Each School Only Does One Thing model. But... it's not like only Abjuration fares poorly by that standard! Plenty of Illusion spells do things other than create false perceptions, for example.The only illusions I can think of that do so are Mislead and Simulacrum. And I found that it was quite easy to expand the school of Illusion without introducing anything that creates false perceptions.


Making each of D&D's schools of magic into a specific type of magic that only does one specific type of thing could be great for a novel fantasy game system; possibly a more freeform one where there are only the different schools instead of a huge honkin' list of defined specific spells. But reclassifying the existing spells into 8 categories that narrow, especially based on the existing schools, seems... dubiously workable.With the exceptions of Abjuration and Necromancy, I think the schools of magic are as already neatly classified into narrow "schools of effect". I honestly dont see much work to do besides those two schools.


I'll admit that I haven't yet read your linked posts.Please do!


Huh? Those have limited durations. They're temporary effects that reverse when the magic ends.I didn't say they were permanent. I said they preserve ontological inertia.

EDIT: I think I misunderstood what you meant by ontological inertia. What I mean is that these spells do not instantaneously swap the target's body for a fresh one, but instead change the body they already have.

Between this, Regenerate, and the transmutations that do have permanent effects (most of which admittedly target objects instead of creatures, such as Mending and Fabricate), I think its reasonable to consider healing a form of transmutation



When taking arbitrarily high amounts of damage doesn't necessarily mean that a character is meaningfully injured, then "seriously physically messes someone up for real" is right out as the fluff for any damage-dealing spell. Like, Inflict Wounds turning you into a mangled version of yourself is incompatible with no mangling occurring.Yes!

Every greataxe "hit" that doesnt reduce you to 0 hit points is a shallow scratch from the axe's blade, a bruising blow from axe on an armored part of your body, or an exhausting defense on your part. The hit that reduces you to 0 hit points is a clean hit in a major artery. You're dying.

Likewise, every Inflict Wounds "hit" that doesnt reduce you to 0 hit points is a near-touch of the casters's flesh-rotting hand, which sores your skin, creates arthritic aches in your joints, or aggravates your existing injuries. The hot that reduces you to 0 hot points is a direct touch which opens a mangled wound in your chest. You're dying.


I'd sooner say that it calls forth an animating spirit than that it creates one. Mortal spellcasters just making souls seems a bit off to me...If a soul is just another word for a mind, think of it as a mortal spellcaster making artificial intelligence.


So, it... conjures a soul, one might say. ;)XD that crossed my mind! And that would be dictionary definition Conjuration.

But 5e Conjuration seems totally concerned with moving matter through space (or messing with space itself) and not ethereal with shapeless spirits or souls.

[Devils_Advocate]

The only illusions I can think of that do so are Mislead and Simulacrum.
For starters, there's the whole general "disbelieve an illusion to see through it" thing. Changing that from saving throw to skill check does make it seem more mundane, and doesn't seem to carry the attendant implication that someone who fails can't even doubt the illusion's reality, but it still makes illusions something other than just sense impressions that don't care about your opinions of them, which would instead give "Pretty sure this thing's not real, but it didn't turn translucent so as to totally confirm that suspicion and also no longer block my line of sight, which sure would be almost absurdly convenient."

Beyond that, let's see... Fear, Phantasmal Killer, and Weird cause fear by creating an illusion of what the target fears, which gets around "Producing a specific emotional response is obviously Enchantment" by instead going with "Well, pulling that info from the target's mind is clearly Divination". The caster can sense through the illusory copy created by Project Image, which also seems Divinationy.

Magical invisibility and silence technically prevent stuff from being sensed, but they still change what is sensed, which is the broader point. More dubious is that some versions of invisibility end when the invisible creature attacks, at which point they feel rather like a Sanctuary-style Abjuration.

Phantom Steed and Creation are obviously actually Conjuration or maybe Evocation.

Other than that, the additional effects seem explicable as results of false perceptions, and "one type of cause, many types of effects" seems to be what you're going for, so I guess that those are all good. So, other than the whole illusion-disbelieving = illusion-dispelling thing, I will admit that on review there don't seem to be as many exceptions as I was imagining. And certainly it's possible to deal with that by saying "It doesn't work that way, because that's dumb".

But that means changing how spells work, which is what I was touching on with "the existing spells". But it seems like rewriting existing spells is part of your project anyway. And looking at the Illusion school has led me to conclude that sometimes far greater consistency is only a few tweaks away, so that's actually pretty promising.


And I found that it was quite easy to expand the school of Illusion without introducing anything that creates false perceptions.
You meant "without introducing anything that doesn't work by creating false perceptions", presumably.


With the exceptions of Abjuration and Necromancy, I think the schools of magic are as already neatly classified into narrow "schools of effect". I honestly dont see much work to do besides those two schools.
Lots of spells have multiple different effects. We've already talked about a few: Resurrection both healing the body and recalling the soul, various Abjurations enhancing defense and doing something else. Of course, those can be rewritten, or alternately just belong to multiple schools, or even varying school depending on chosen effect. The Wish spell is probably the most obvious candidate for not having a fixed school, because, well, come on.


Please do!
I've only glanced at them so far, but since you asked nicely, I will probably examine them more thoroughly later.


Between this, Regenerate, and the transmutations that do have permanent effects (most of which admittedly target objects instead of creatures, such as Mending and Fabricate), I think its reasonable to consider healing a form of transmutation
Well, Regenerate works by temporarily enhancing a body's natural healing... and if Cure Wounds also does that, but faster, that would explain why it only works on living things I guess? In which case Inflict Wounds could work by reversing that and making a body unheal itself... Yeah, I suppose that that all makes enough sense.

Mending and Fabricate should be Evocation, though, if they can't be dispelled. What magic directly does only lasts as long as the magic does. So you can simply rearrange existing matter by temporarily manifesting energy that does the rearranging, but lead turned into gold will always "really" be lead. At least, that's one of my ideas for enforcing a certain level of consistency on magic as a whole. But internal consistency of schools also suffers if you say "Some transmutations can be dispelled, but others can't, because... well, no reason, really". So that's something to bear in mind during the tweaking process.


If a soul is just another word for a mind, think of it as a mortal spellcaster making artificial intelligence.
If the soul is a being's thoughts, emotions, perceptions, and so on rather than the thing that's doing the thinking, feeling, perceiving, etc... then what is doing those things? The brain? I don't think that that's how animated skeletons work. I also don't think that they use muscles to move around. How does a mind even travel to another plane of existence after death without something to carry it there? Generally speaking, the word "soul" is a hint that there's some sort of mind/body dualism going on. And, what do you know, turns out that things make a lot more sense under that assumption.

On the other hand, D&D also has brain-eating psychic monsters, so it doesn't make much sense to say that that particular organ has nothing to do with mental phenomena either. So it seems like the soul anatomy (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnatomyOfTheSoul) here is at least somewhat multifaceted.


But 5e Conjuration seems totally concerned with moving matter through space (or messing with space itself) and not ethereal with shapeless spirits or souls.
There's Spirit Guardians and Guardian of Faith. More generally, if you could only conjure creatures' bodies and their souls were left behind where you got them from, they wouldn't be very useful.

Oh, hey, all of the Conjure [Creature(s)] spells summon creatures friendly to you and your companions that obey your verbal commands! Sounds a lot like a Charm effect, doesn't it? ;)

[Tvtyrant]

One of my ongoing projects is to expand each school of magic, so that it's possible and practical to play a character who only uses one school. I finished my expansion of Divination (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?622676-The-Complete-Arcane-Divination-PEACH), and I'm nearly done my expansion of Illusion (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?639319-The-Complete-Arcane-Illusion-(PEACH)). But the next school I want to work on—Necromancy—is giving my serious problems.

What IS Necromancy? Divination reveals information (nothing more, nothing less). Illusion produces hallucinations (nothing more, nothing less). Transmutation reshapes matter (nothing more, nothing less). Enchantment changes minds (nothing more, nothing less).

But Necromancy seems to do EVERYTHING, as long as it's vaguely "life and death" themed.
It's the school that rots and restores, with spells that harm/kill living things and revive/restore dead things!
It's the school of magically imitating life, with spells that let the dead move without muscles and see without eyes, and that let the living shrug off their injuries.
It's the school of reaching out to the afterlife, with spells that speak with the dead, cage souls, and astral project

If we were consistent with these powers, Necromancy would encompass a lot more than it does.
As the school of "rot and restoration", it would include healing spells like Cure Wounds, Healing Word and Aura of Life
As the school of "magically imitating life", it would include spells like Animate Objects and Awaken and Create Homunculus.
As the school of reaching out to the afterlife, it would include spells like Contact Other Plane

So how I reconcile these as one thing? I'm willing to move certain spells to other schools (for example, Speak With Dead would fit perfectly in the school of Divination). But I can't just gut the whole school.

EDIT: After talking to a few people, the definition I'm coming to is "necromancy manipulates the soul"
At a high level, this means raising the dead by calling their souls into their bodies, or killing creatures instantly by ripping their souls from their bodies
At a low level, this means inching creatures closer to death by loosening the souls grip on the body, or keeping injured creatures alive by fastening the souls grip.
At a mid level, this means creating artificial souls to animate corpses and objects.
This does NOT involve inflicting or healing physical wounds, which has nothing to do with the soul.
This does NOT involve communicating with the souls of the dead, which is Divination.


This definition includes all of necromancys most famous abilities. But the exclusion of inflicting harm and healing wounds is a shame. Is there a thematically consistent way to include those?
Why wouldn't healing or harming have anything to do with the soul? What exactly is healing or harming in your setting? What's a soul? How does it interact with the body?

Maybe the souls get more or less juice based on how much the Necromancer is feeding into it. Healing is feeding more soul juice into a living soul, harming is taking soul juice out. Reanimating a skeleton is a really weakly infused soul, reanimating a vampire is a strongly infused soul.

In 4E they split the Soul and the Spirit up. Spirit is Animus, or movement, and the Soul is Intention. Necromancers take or infuse Animus into things, undead are Animus and Body but not Intention.

[GalacticAxekick]

Why wouldn't healing or harming have anything to do with the soul? What exactly is healing or harming in your setting? What's a soul? How does it interact with the body?Healing and harming means repairing or damaging the body.

The soul is the immaterial conscience which inhabits and commands the body.

Healing and harming the body can make it more or less fit to contain a soul and do the souls bidding. But neither affects the soul directly.


Maybe the souls get more or less juice based on how much the Necromancer is feeding into it. Healing is feeding more soul juice into a living soul, harming is taking soul juice out.Giving the soul juice shouldn't affect the body. Maybe it can help the soul remain attached to and in control of a deteriorating body. But it shouldn't repair the body itself.

Likewise, sapping the souls juice shouldn't damage the body. Maybe it can sever the souls connection to or control over the body, but it shouldn't damage the body itself.

[GalacticAxekick]

For starters, there's the whole general "disbelieve an illusion to see through it" thing [...] makes illusions something other than just sense impressions that don't care about your opinions of themNot really. I'd compare it the phenomenon where a pane a glass is simultaneously transparent and reflective. You can look AT the window and see nothing but the glare of the sun, the reflected scene, or even the smudges on the glass. But upon adjusting your eyes, you can look THROUGH the window and see the scene behind it.

More broadly, I'd compare this to optical illusions.

In both cases, the sense impression forced upon you never disappears. The reflections and smudges in the window are still visible. The optical illusion is still visible. But you've learned to see what it had previously concealed.


Beyond that, let's see... Fear, Phantasmal Killer, and Weird cause fear by creating an illusion of what the target fears, which gets around "Producing a specific emotional response is obviously Enchantment" by instead going with "Well, pulling that info from the target's mind is clearly Divination". The caster can sense through the illusory copy created by Project Image, which also seems Divinationy.Great observation! Project Image, Phantasmal Killer and Weird are unsalvageably Divinatory. I'll probably just leave them the way they are (because I don't want to cut content that a player might enjoy), but I'm not thrilled with that.

Fear makes significantly more sense as an Enchantment than as a Divination-Illusion, and accordingly, it was the first spell I cut from the school of Illusion in my Illusion project!


Magical invisibility and silence technically prevent stuff from being sensed, but they still change what is sensed, which is the broader point. More dubious is that some versions of invisibility end when the invisible creature attacks, at which point they feel rather like a Sanctuary-style Abjuration.Invisibility ends when the invisible creature attacks OR casts a spell. It seems like any sudden movement or magical exertion ends the effect (maybe because it's hard to hide your appearance as quickly as you are changing it when you move suddenly, or maybe because casting magic or engaging it battle threatens your delicate concentration on this particular spell).

Whatever the case, it's not a Sanctuary-style defensive spell that ends when you act aggressively. You could cast Comprehend Languages and lose your invisibility.


Phantom Steed and Creation are obviously actually Conjuration or maybe Evocation.Agreed! I removed these spells from the school in my Illusion project, and honestly forgot they were ever there.


But that means changing how spells work, which is what I was touching on with "the existing spells". But it seems like rewriting existing spells is part of your project anyway. And looking at the Illusion school has led me to conclude that sometimes far greater consistency is only a few tweaks away, so that's actually pretty promising.I'm glad you agree!


You meant "without introducing anything that doesn't work by creating false perceptions", presumably.Correct. Thanks for understanding


Lots of spells have multiple different effects. We've already talked about a few: Resurrection both healing the body and recalling the soul, various Abjurations enhancing defense and doing something else. Of course, those can be rewritten, or alternately just belong to multiple schools, or even varying school depending on chosen effect. The Wish spell is probably the most obvious candidate for not having a fixed school, because, well, come on.Definitely! Some spells like Wish and Prestidigitation should probably be considered "universal" rather than belonging to one school or another. Some spells like Resurrection (Necromancy-Transmutation) and Project Image (Divination-Illusion) clearly dabble in multiple schools. And yet other spells are simply misplaced (Sanctuary should be Enchantment.)

I'm just saying that in most schools, these spells are so few in number that most can be edited or sorted away. Only Abjuration and Necromancy have a SERIOUS problem with ambiguous or misplaced spells.


If the soul is a being's thoughts, emotions, perceptions, and so on rather than the thing that's doing the thinking, feeling, perceiving, etc... then what is doing those things?Again the soul IS the mind. The soul IS the thing doing the thinking/feeling/perceiving.


Generally speaking, the word "soul" is a hint that there's some sort of mind/body dualism going on. And, what do you know, turns out that things make a lot more sense under that assumption.Yes. That's why its exactly the assumption I proposed when I said " a soul is just another word for a mind" and "Animate Dead is a mortal spellcaster making a soul/making a mind/making artificial intelligence."


There's Spirit Guardians and Guardian of Faith.Excellent counterpoint! I honestly have no rebuttal.


More generally, if you could only conjure creatures' bodies and their souls were left behind where you got them from, they wouldn't be very useful.My line of thinking is that souls cannot be "left behind". Souls don't have a location in space. They are "attached to" or "contained by" a body in the sense that they experience through it and control it, but they aren't objects you can point to on a map.

Using a hardware-software analogy, I could say that souls are not contained in the hardware, but interface with it remotely. A soul working through a body is like a website, program or file being accessed by a computer. It follows the computer wherever it goes, though it is not stored within the computer.

...that said, spells like Soul Jar throw a wrench in all of this.


Oh, hey, all of the Conjure [Creature(s)] spells summon creatures friendly to you and your companions that obey your verbal commands! Sounds a lot like a Charm effect, doesn't it? ;)I agree completely! In my revision and expansion of the school of Conjuration, I will remove that effect from every summoning spells! Spellcasters will need to protect themselves from their summons with spells like Magic Circle, Animal Friendship, and Charm Monster, or simply summon creatures they have an established relationship with.

On one hand, you'll have desperate, defeated spellcasters who Conjure Woodland Beings they know they cannot control, praying that a CHANCE at help is better than certain defeat. On the other hand, you'll have spellcasters who Conjure Woodland Beings in a private place, in a Magic Circle, or with enchantments on hand, so that they can negotiate a deal with the fey creatures they conjure. "I want you to beat up the other guys. In exchange, I'll find X or do Y or let you Z"

The Wizard's Conjuration subclass will probably focus overcoming this flaw. Maybe Conjurers will have the power to cast a Conjuration spell and Magic Circle with the same spell slot. Maybe they'll have an "arcane leash" which allows them to teleport or banish any creature they have conjured even when it is not their turn, preventing it from running amok. Maybe they'll have the unique ability to summon creatures by name, so that they can use a generic summon spell like Conjure Woodland Beings to get the same faerie every time—a faerie they have a trusting relationship with.

[Devils_Advocate]

The possibility that a soul is just a mind contrasts to the possibility that a soul is not just a mind, i.e. the possibility that the soul is also something else. I don't know what the purpose of the word "just" is supposed to be in this context if it's not to imply that some connotation of the word "soul" isn't applicable. So if magically animating the dead imbues bodies with software and hardware and an animating force, then what's left that it doesn't do? What is it that you think souls/minds aren't? I guessed hardware, since it makes more sense to me to use "mind" for the software, but it seems like that's not it. So what is it?

Your comparison to artificial intelligence just adds to the confusion. I'll admit that I'm not an expert, but it seems to me like autonomous robots are fairly advanced technology. Not the sort of thing that one can typically put together IN A CAVE, WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS! So "Oh, it's just artificial intelligence, no big deal" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Creating artificial intelligence is significant, not trivial.

[GalacticAxekick]

The possibility that a soul is just a mind contrasts to the possibility that a soul is not just a mind, i.e. the possibility that the soul is also something else. I don't know what the purpose of the word "just" is supposed to be in this context if it's not to imply that some connotation of the word "soul" isn't applicable. So if magically animating the dead imbues bodies with software and hardware and an animating force, then what's left that it doesn't do? What is it that you think souls/minds aren't? I guessed hardware, since it makes more sense to me to use "mind" for the software, but it seems like that's not it. So what is it?A soul is just a mind. Just software. Nothing more.

Animating the dead imbues bodies with minds. Software. Nothing more.


Your comparison to artificial intelligence just adds to the confusion. I'll admit that I'm not an expert, but it seems to me like autonomous robots are fairly advanced technology. Not the sort of thing that one can typically put together IN A CAVE, WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS! So "Oh, it's just artificial intelligence, no big deal" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Creating artificial intelligence is significant, not trivial.So are teleportation, invisibility, antigravity and the slowing/speeding up of time. But all of these things are feasible with 3rd level or lower spells.

When I say "just" artificial intelligence, i don't mean that ccreating a soul (an intelligence) is insignificant. I mean that its within the realm of things an extraordinary mortal could do.

[Devils_Advocate]

A soul is just a mind. Just software. Nothing more.

Animating the dead imbues bodies with minds. Software. Nothing more.
What hardware does that software run on, then? Is it the corpse's brain, perhaps meaning that the spell doesn't work if the brain is too decomposed? But that doesn't seem to fit with your "not contained in the hardware". Also, what powers these undead? How do they move?

Something has to engage in a process for the process even to occur. It nothing does anything, then no event takes place. And even if effects can potentially happen without causes, it's preposterous to suggest that a particular type of effect, like a zombie following someone's orders, can reliably be made to occur without anything causing it.

[Squire Doodad]

There's a quote from somewhere that goes "The mind is the operating system of the soul".
May be relevant here.


With that said, I personally prefer to take the route of nonsentient undead being completely separate from the soul; they're animated by magical energies and are otherwise just corpses. In that sense, they're closer to golems than, say, vampires.
Naturally, this also supports a world that both has reanimation being a neutral action and also no actual resurrection, as putting the soul into the body and revitalizing their body is a whole other ball game from wiring a skeleton with magic so it can do the hokey pokey.

[GalacticAxekick]

What hardware does that software run on, then? Is it the corpse's brain, perhaps meaning that the spell doesn't work if the brain is too decomposed? But that doesn't seem to fit with your "not contained in the hardware".The whole idea of a soul is that software (the mind, the soul) can run on nothing at all.

A ghost is software with no hardware.

A skeleton or zombie is software interfacing with broken hardware.

A living person is software interfacing with perfect hardware.


Also, what powers these undead? How do they move?

Something has to engage in a process for the process even to occur.The same way a ghost (which is literally just a soul) can use magic to perceive and interact with its surroundings, Id say a lot skeleton or zombie uses magic to replaces it's missing senses and muscles.

In short:
- the necromancer gives a corpse an artificial mind
- the artificial mind is programmed to be capable of very limited spellcasting: just enough to move the body it is anchored to and perceive its surrounding

[Squire Doodad]

In short:
- the necromancer gives a corpse an artificial mind
- the artificial mind is programmed to be capable of very limited spellcasting: just enough to move the body it is anchored to and perceive its surrounding

Yeah that makes sense.
So, I suppose from a vulnerabilities standpoint, the main distinction between a flesh golem and a similarly powerful zombie is a result of the creation process?

[GalacticAxekick]

Yeah that makes sense.
So, I suppose from a vulnerabilities standpoint, the main distinction between a flesh golem and a similarly powerful zombie is a result of the creation process?One one hand, YES, I see a flesh golem as a zombie made from pieces of multiple corpses instead of one whole corpse, and I think that every legitimate distinction between a flesh golem and a zombie is a result of this creation process. While an ordinary zombie (made from a single mangled corpse) has a reduced walking speed, -2 Dexterity, -2 Perception poor intelligence (even by undead standards) the flesh golem (stitched from the best pieces of multiple corpses) has normal humanoid walking speed, -1 Dex, normal humanoid Perception, and normal undead intelligence.

On the other hand, NO, the difference in vulnerabilities has NOTHING to do with the creation process.

Aversion to Fire, Lightning Absorption and lightning immunity exist purely as Frankenstein references.

Immutable Form, Magic Resistance, Magic Weapons, the condition immunities, and the immunity to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from non-adamantine weapons are just features 5e smacks on every golem. They have nothing to do with the flesh golem thematically (and little to do with the other golems for that matter).

The only flesh golem feature grounded in its themes is Berserk. It represents the creator's tenuous control over their artificial servant, which becomes focused on self preservation when badly injured.

[Devils_Advocate]

The whole idea of a soul is that software (the mind, the soul) can run on nothing at all.
Citation needed. I've never heard that before. Also, it not only fails to make any sense, it actively makes anti-sense.

Any event is some sort of change in some sort of stuff. Any condition is some sort of state of some sort of stuff. No stuff, no events, no conditions, no nothin'. Without stuff, literally nothing happens. The stuff may not be ordinary matter at all, but it does need to exist.


A ghost is software with no hardware.
Ghosts have bodies. Their bodies aren't made of meat, but they're not formless presences.

If the soul has the brain's role in your setting, it's hardware. From what I can tell, you think of souls being objects by normal standards, but also consider them to "not count".

I could say that my physical body "doesn't actually have a location in space, but does exclusively interact with things at one location" and that would be exactly as nonsensical as saying the same thing about a soul. It's literally a distinction without a difference.

(In a similar vein, I'm curious what the difference between "soul" and "magical energies animating a body" is supposed to be. Again, what specifically is being left out?)

[GalacticAxekick]

Citation needed. I've never heard that before. You've never heard of a disembodied soul? You've never heard of haunted houses filled with formless, intangible, invisible ghosts? You've never heard of people being possessed by formless, intangible, invisible demons? You've never heard the omnipresence of a formless, intangible, invisible God?

All of these are examples of disembodied souls: minds without bodies, which can only interact with the world magically.


Also, it not only fails to make any sense, it actively makes anti-sense.Yeah. That's why its magic.


Any event is some sort of change in some sort of stuff. Any condition is some sort of state of some sort of stuff. No stuff, no events, no conditions, no nothin'. Without stuff, literally nothing happens. The stuff may not be ordinary matter at all, but it does need to exist.And I'm saying the soul is stuff! It is a thing! But not matter. Not material.

The soul cannot be interacted with by physical means, but only by metaphysical means. You cant touch it, but you can cast a spell on it. You cant see it, but you can detect it magically. And vice versa.


Ghosts have bodies. Their bodies aren't made of meat, but they're not formless presences.Monster Manual ghosts have bodies, for some reason. But ghosts in folklore and popular culture are often (I'd even say USUALLY) formless presences. Minds with no bodies that interact with the world via magic.


If the soul has the brain's role in your setting, it's hardware.No. Because the defining trait of hardware is that it's hard. Tangible. Physically observable.



From what I can tell, you think of souls being objects by normal standards, but also consider them to "not count".Maybe it would help you if I said

"All objects are things, but not all things are objects. Non-object things do not respond to physical forces, but respond to metaphysical/magical forces.

"The soul is a non-object thing, which usually magically commands a single object called a body.

"Spellcasters are souls that have learned to extend their magical authority beyond their bodies to other objects and even to other souls.

"Ghosts, demons and the like are spellcasters that have no bodies. They rely entirely on extending their magical authority to foreign objects and souls to interact with the world".


(In a similar vein, I'm curious what the difference between "soul" and "magical energies animating a body" is supposed to be. Again, what specifically is being left out?)The soul is the source of those energies, just like a spellcaster is the source of the spells they cast.

In fact, exactly like that. Because it's literally that.

The same way that a spellcaster can move objects using her mind alone, the artificial mind created by a spellcaster can move its body using its mind alone.

[Devils_Advocate]

The issue is that the word "thing" is already quite busy filling the vitally important role of fully generic noun. In the normal sense of the word, there are no non-things. Phenomena and traits are things. But then, "stuff" has the same issue! The only difference is that it's a mass noun instead of a count noun; it's still fully generic. I used it, relying on italics and context to attempt to get my meaning across, because there's not a lot of good vocabulary to employ here. But if we really want to clarify the distinction that we're trying to make, we need to do better.

Phrases like "immaterial object" and "immaterial substance" seem like they come about as close as possible to succinctly specifying the nature of what we're talking about. Better than "thing" and "stuff", at any rate. And the very phrase "substance dualism" certainly seems to imply the concept of some sort of non-physical or otherwise "other" "substance", so there's precedent.


No. Because the defining trait of hardware is that it's hard. Tangible. Physically observable.
I'm sorry, are you seriously implying that we were using "hardware" and "software" literally instead of metaphorically? Like, you're just chucking the context of this conversation straight out the window? Come on now.

Software is a set of instructions. Hardware is the stuff that executes the instructions. If the soul is the thing doing the activities, it's in the hardware role. I.e. the soul is metaphorical hardware. Or is it firmware? Firmware needs hardware too! Turtles all the way down just fall in unison. There needs to be some sort of foundation.

[GalacticAxekick]

Phrases like "immaterial object" and "immaterial substance" seem like they come about as close as possible to succinctly specifying the nature of what we're talking about. Better than "thing" and "stuff", at any rate. And the very phrase "substance dualism" certainly seems to imply the concept of some sort of non-physical or otherwise "other" "substance", so there's precedent.Sure. You could say the soul/mind is an immaterial object/substance.


I'm sorry, are you seriously implying that we were using "hardware" and "software" literally instead of metaphorically? Like, you're just chucking the context of this conversation straight out the window? Come on now.

Software is a set of instructions. Hardware is the stuff that executes the instructions. If the soul is the thing doing the activities, it's in the hardware role. I.e. the soul is metaphorical hardware. Or is it firmware? Firmware needs hardware too! Turtles all the way down just fall in unison. There needs to be some sort of foundation.Software is that which produces instructions.

Hardware is that which executes instructions.

A soul/mind is metaphorical software because it produces instructions.

The body is metaphorical hardware because it executes instructions.

Spellcasting is the logic-defying act of a soul/mind executing instructions without a body. In other words, spellcasting is the logic-defying act of software executing instructions without hardware.

Yes, its physically impossible for software to execute. Yes, its unnatural for software to execute.

That's why spellcasting is metaphysical. Supernatural. Miraculous.

[Devils_Advocate]

The entirety of a robot is hardware in the general sense of the term, but it's not all computer hardware, which is what "hardware" implicitly means in the context of a discussion of hardware and software. The computer hardware is the data-processing part. So a body is only hardware in the relevant sense if it's processing data (e.g. in the brain).

Software doesn't do anything "on its own" without hardware. If you think that the internet is an ethereal realm of pure energy, I'm sorry to break it to you, but it does not in fact work that way. Data remotely accessed by a computer just comes from another computer.

Programmers produce instructions. Software is instructions. Hardware executes the instructions. (It seems that we agree on the last point.)

If hardware is that which executes instructions, and "the mind/soul" indeed executes instructions during spellcasting, then "the mind/soul" is hardware for spellcasting. But I don't particularly imagine that that's telling you anything that you don't already realize. Calling this "logic-defying" indicates that you know you're contradicting yourself.

Now, I realize that this is a weird thing to say to the original poster, but... that really seems out of keeping with the spirit of the thread. I thought that you were trying to make how magic works more consistent. If you're okay with outright contradictions so long as they're about magic, why not say "An illusion can totally incinerate something for real, even though illusions are only false sensations. It's magic, baby, internal consistency is optional!" Like, I really don't see the point of this project if that's your attitude.

And I certainly hope that it isn't. Incoherent worldbuilding doesn't stop being bad just because you use the word "magic". "Magic" can mean a lot of things, but if it means "the part of the setting that's allowed to be badly written", then, well, that's going to lead to bad writing. ... Like, obviously. This doesn't seem like something that should need to be spelled out, but a lot of people seem to need to be told this, so here we are.