Inspired by another thread.
I know why they didn't do much to correct which spells go in which schools. It really would have killed a lot of 3.5 Wizard statblocks, and those are troublesome enough already. I really do wish they had expanded on the school descriptions, but again, that would have created the need to shift spells between schools, and that's a total pain.
BUT
If you had the power to instantly warp reality — what spells would you change to what schools and why?
I'll start. I'd put healing, especially life-restoring magic, back into necromancy. Old school. "Conjuration (Healing)" my butt. Where is the Plane of Unmarred Flesh located again? And what happens to its denizens when you heal someone on the Prime Material?
Fly would be an evocation as well, as it involves Force. In fact, fully half of the spells under transmutation would be brought to other schools... and it would still be the largest school.
Your turn! Let the wishful griping commence!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If it were me, I'd throw out the schools entirely and start from scratch. I just don't see a meaningful distinction between most conjurations and most evocations. Failing that, I'd rather have the schools organized by effect (e.g., all stat bumps are transmutation spells, evocation is direct damage that bypasses SR, conjuration is strictly for summoning).
I'm not a fan of putting healing in necromancy because it's counterintutive to so many players. A good example would be your magical healing shrine. It would radiate strong necromancy - and most players will assume there are undead around. 2e had the cure spells under necromancy, and if you used a choose-your-own-spheres type system, you'd end up with these weird characters who wanted to have a portfolio focused on peace/healing but had all the nasty necromancy spells lumped in as well.
That said, conjuration is a pretty random and arbitrary place to put healing, so moving it to necromancy wouldn't kill me, but it'd still be a question of "what's the least inappropriate school" as opposed to "what's the best school." Unfortunately, there isn't a good school for healing (or teleportation for that matter) in D&D.
Heh. Maybe abjuration could get the cure spells. But I'm adamant that bringing a soul back from the dead is necromancy BY DEFINITION.
Anyway:
I'd rather have the schools organized by effect (e.g., all stat bumps are transmutation spells, evocation is direct damage that bypasses SR, conjuration is strictly for summoning).
Couldn't agree more. It would be nice if the schools were a convenient way to organize general spell rules instead of just another thing to memorize.
One interesting way to delineate Conjuration from Evocation is to have the former draw from the Outer planes and the latter draw from the Inner planes. We opted against this in my group, because we enjoy creating twisted logic to explain the nuances of existing spells (Acid Arrows come from the Abyss! They have lakes of acid there!), but it would certainly "fix" evocation while leaving conjuration as a very good school.
Teleportation as a conjuration is okay for me. If you can pluck a critter from an outer plane and move them to your current location, that seems like the school that would let you hop great distances. In my ideal, all conjurations would actually be explained as some variation on teleportation or planeshifting.
I started playing in 3.5 and always thought healing spells being in conjuration was odd. Yes, necromancy has an "evil" stigma about it, but the necromancy school is the magic of manipulating life energy.
Some spells use it to give more life energy(ie false life) some use it to take away life energy(slay living), some put energy into dead bodies to give them a semblance of life again(animate dead)
It makes perfect sense then for healing spells to be necromancy. They would increase the ammount of life force in the target, healing him. same with raise dead, its just a more powerful version of animate dead.
Arnt the inflict spells necromancy? They are the direct opposite of the cure spells, yet they are in different schools. That just seems odd.
Finaly, moving them would get rid of that strage Conjuration(healing) descriptor...
I'm not a fan of putting healing in necromancy because it's counterintutive to so many players. A good example would be your magical healing shrine. It would radiate strong necromancy - and most players will assume there are undead around. 2e had the cure spells under necromancy, and if you used a choose-your-own-spheres type system, you'd end up with these weird characters who wanted to have a portfolio focused on peace/healing but had all the nasty necromancy spells lumped in as well.
Easy fix for this: Let any check that would tell you the school also reveal the subschool. So the healing shine would radiate Necromancy (Healing), but the Lich's phylactery radiates regular necromancy.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Easy fix for this: Let any check that would tell you the school also reveal the subschool. So the healing shine would radiate Necromancy (Healing), but the Lich's phylactery radiates regular necromancy.
Okay, but what if I want to give my bad guy a magic item that increases the DC of all his necromatic spells or I want to set up a site that has a necromatic aura. I would usually flavor those as, say, a skull or a graveyard, which isn't consistent with the healing concept. I could make the skull/graveyard only provide benefits to the non-healing spells, but then that's effectively treating them like a separate school. Or, there's the classic plot of the bad guy brewing up necromatic energies which cause zombies to rise from the graves and attack people - wouldn't healing spells function better in that aura as well?
It almost seems like if you put healing into necromancy you almost need to go with a *shudder* white necromancy/black necromancy paradigm and treat them as separate schools.
Ack. This is going to degenerate into a "necromancy isn't evil" thread, isn't it? I'm fleeing...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
One interesting way to delineate Conjuration from Evocation is to have the former draw from the Outer planes and the latter draw from the Inner planes. We opted against this in my group, because we enjoy creating twisted logic to explain the nuances of existing spells (Acid Arrows come from the Abyss! They have lakes of acid there!), but it would certainly "fix" evocation while leaving conjuration as a very good school.
That's a cool idea. I must say that, as much as I hate the school system, it does seem to provoke interesting ways of trying to have it make sense, and I like those discussions/ideas.
I preferred when the enchantment/charm school included spells that altered the inherent properties of a person/object.
A spell that makes you grow wings for you to fly should be a transmutation spell.
A spell that makes you light as a feather, levitate or allow you to *simply* fly should be an enchantment.
A spell that modifies a weapon, like keen edge should be a transmutation
A spell that give a inherent magical quality, like magic weapon, should be an enchantment.
That would give different ammo to the enchanter, and help depopulate the transmutation spells a bit.
'findel
Ack. This is going to degenerate into a "necromancy isn't evil" thread, isn't it? I'm fleeing...
Slay living doesn't kill people. 9th level clerics kill people.
That's a cool idea. I must say that, as much as I hate the school system, it does seem to provoke interesting ways of trying to have it make sense, and I like those discussions/ideas.
I think that discussion is really the missing element of Pathfinder magic. If there was a layer of explanation between the spells and the Vancian system, people would find it far more accessible. My group took it upon themselves to add that explanation, and I encourage others to do so.
To solve the Necromancy problem, there is the simple solution of two subschools :
White Necromancy (cure wounds) and Black Necromancy (cause wounds).
Some necromancers could/should specialize in one or another, but some others would be just necromancers, dealing with both life and death.
Some spells, items or sites could protect against one or another.
(i am already using that for a long time)
My guideline for transmutations:
Changes the form or intellect of a creature or object.
Animate rope, Jump, Expeditious retreat, Featherfall and Magic Weapon might all be evocations, if you take just the text and don't add any physical explanation. The first four because they deal with energy, force, and movement. Magic weapon would be evocation because, well, Weapon Enhancement bonuses radiate as evocation.
This gets really invasive really fast, though, so we do go to some lengths to "explain away" the lesser offenders.
The popular workaround at our table is to make transmutation spells that achieve these effects by transformation: Longer legs for expeditious retreat, stronger legs for jump, literally changing density and wind resistance for featherfall, etc.
I preferred when the enchantment/charm school included spells that altered the inherent properties of a person/object.
[additional enchantment blasphemies]
Uh oh - don't let SKR see this!
---
I don't have much problems with the schools as is. They could be a bit more evenly distributed but honestly, playing a transmuter, most of the transmutation aren't really "that good". There's a lot of filler with the stat boosters and such. Good school! - but take out the stats and the shapes, and there's only a few things left.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Summoning, creation, and teleportation all make sense for Conjuration because Conj takes one thing from one place and instantly puts it in another place, whether that's gating in a balor, making a *poof* wall of iron or fog cloud, or porting the caster and his allies to another plane. I think that's pretty internally consistent. Orb spells should totally be Evoc, except for [acid orb], which shouldn't exist. Acid spells should be as fundamentally different from energy Evocations as poison is from lightning bolt.
I hear you on the healing stuff. Cure and inflict spells and the like work by channeling positive/negative energy. Spells dealing with energy are Evocation. Blowing dudes up with fireballs and putting them back together again seem opposed, but the principles are the same. Inflict spells should totally be Necromancy since everything else dealing with negative energy is Necro. OTOH, if curative magic was just about knitting tissue and mending bone, without any positive energy hullabaloo, I'd call that Transmutation, since Trans deals with non-instantaneous movement, among other things.
I think it would be interesting if Evoc subtypes had some minor side effects attached. Like [Fire] spells all have a chance to set you on fire, with a small amount of damage over time that scales with spell level (also the DC to put it out should scale). XPH psionic energy types kind of had something like this, where [Sonic] always ignored hardness and [Cold] always required a Fort save instead of Reflex (and was therefore more useful against foes with evasion). That would help offset the Evoc nerf inherent in hit point creep.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That's a cool idea. I must say that, as much as I hate the school system, it does seem to provoke interesting ways of trying to have it make sense, and I like those discussions/ideas.I think that discussion is really the missing element of Pathfinder magic. If there was a layer of explanation between the spells and the Vancian system, people would find it far more accessible. My group took it upon themselves to add that explanation, and I encourage others to do so.
I completely agree. Maybe when Paizo releases their version of the Tome of Magic/Spell Compendium it will have those guidelines and flavor text.
Personally I think 8 schools is too much, I'd like a simpler approach.
I like the way World of Warcraft RPG splits a wizard in 3 specializations
Mage (elemental wizard)
Warlock (conjuring creatures and fell magic from the Twisting Nether)
Necromancer (Magic of Life and Death and curses)
Each is a kind of subclass and all spells not part of their specific spell list is universal magic they can all use equally.
The 8 school philosopy feels a bit too bland and unimaginative to me
Personally I think 8 schools is too much, I'd like a simpler approach.
I like the way World of Warcraft RPG splits a wizard in 3 specializations
Personally? *yawn*
I want a big, literally arcane magic system with lots of quirks and eccentricities, and Pathfinder is now the ONLY place I can get it. Oversimplification would ruin it for me entirely. I think the existing system could have a little more internal consistency, but I gotta have my eight schools.
A thought to explain why healing is in conjuration...
I've always believed that you are drawing/conjuring positive energy from elsewhere to the material plane. Thus why it is conjuration.
Or from the Positive Material Plane...A thought to explain why healing is in conjuration...
I've always believed that you are drawing/conjuring positive energy from elsewhere to the material plane. Thus why it is conjuration.
I.E. - "Elsewhere" ... heh the existence of a "Positive Material" or "Positive Energy" plane changes depending on what campaign world you might be running in. In Eberron for example they combined elemental air and positive energy.
That's exactly why healing is conjuration. What I don't get, though, is why necromancy isn't then a subschool of conjuration? After all, you are doing the same thing, just with negative energy.
OTOH, necromancy in the real world is considered a form of divination... necromancers are those who supposedly summon the spirits of the dead to ask questions of them.
I think transmutation should be split up into two schools - those that give an item a property, and those that change the item (essentially making the polymorph subschool a full school). Based on the word, that should be the transmutation school, so I guess the other would be... what? Enhancement? Perhaps depending on how it imparts the changes it could be conjuration or evocation, but that seems a little off to me.
Illusion is also redundant. Some are mind affecting, and should be enchantments, some deal with the plane of shadow, and should be conjuration. Some create things from nothing that aren't real, those should be evocation.
So, my changes? Get rid of the necromancy school entirely, putting most of it into conjuration and divination. Get rid of illusion, putting most of it into enchantment, conjuration, and evocation. Break up the transmutation school.
Other than that, most of it seems pretty reasonable to me. Conjuration moves things between locations, enchantment messes with minds, divination gives you information, evocation creates energy from nothing, transmutation changes one thing into another, abjuration provides protection.
Interesting ideas Derek. I don't like ditching necromancy and illusion altogether, just out of respect for tradition (and the Arcane schools are pretty important in Pathfinder).
How about this, for definitions: Necromancy in general is the magic of life and death — it draws from the positive and negative energy planes. Evil and Good descriptors, as well as the actual positive/negative distinction, should be enough to delineate "White" necromancers from "black" necromancers. I just have no sympathy for the camp that thinks "Necromancy = spooky skulls".
As for illusion, you could define it as any spell that controls Light and Vision and deception — so yes, light and also darkvision, as well as the shadow spells and your iconic image and invisibility. Seems like an okay definition to me, but I agree that Phantasms are almost more like Enchantments than Illusions.
Which leads me to another notion I once had: like most of this thread, highly impractical, but couldn't a spell tap into more than one school? Especially if the schools have such rigid definitions as above? Right, it could get complicated, but if schools are made into groupings of similar spell mechanics, I don't see why a spell couldn't tap into multiple categories.
*snip*
Which leads me to another notion I once had: like most of this thread, highly impractical, but couldn't a spell tap into more than one school? Especially if the schools have such rigid definitions as above? Right, it could get complicated, but if schools are made into groupings of similar spell mechanics, I don't see why a spell couldn't tap into multiple categories.
Actually, PHB2 started that trend, with dual-school spells. One I remember was a fiery orb that blended conjuration and evocation. If it hit, the target got spell resistance. But even if the resistance was successful against the evocation part (as that was created by magic) the conjured part was mundane enough that they still took some damage.
I'd have loved to see that idea take flight, but then 4th edition came out...
I also wanted them to do more with the Shadowcaster, but that also was not to be.
However, I'd make abjuration almost entirely skill based (knowledge: arcane, perhaps) so that non-casters can have some magical defenses which scale with their class level. Abjuration spells which don't fit well into the skill based model generally do fit well into other schools of magic (stoneskin -> transmutation, for example)
Ooh, I like that. So I'm guessing instead of Protection from Evil being a spell, it would just be a ritual ward of sorts that anyone could perform if they made an appropriate skill check?
I'm not entirely convinced that would be hugely balanced in practice, but I really, really like the basic idea.
*snip*
Which leads me to another notion I once had: like most of this thread, highly impractical, but couldn't a spell tap into more than one school? Especially if the schools have such rigid definitions as above? Right, it could get complicated, but if schools are made into groupings of similar spell mechanics, I don't see why a spell couldn't tap into multiple categories.Actually, PHB2 started that trend, with dual-school spells. One I remember was a fiery orb that blended conjuration and evocation. If it hit, the target got spell resistance. But even if the resistance was successful against the evocation part (as that was created by magic) the conjured part was mundane enough that they still took some damage.
I'd have loved to see that idea take flight, but then 4th edition came out...
I also wanted them to do more with the Shadowcaster, but that also was not to be.
If I remember right, many spells in AD&D 2ed belonged to two, sometimes three schools of magic.
If I remember right, many spells in AD&D 2ed belonged to two, sometimes three schools of magic.
Thank you! I was afraid I was the only one who remembered this. Single-school spells were/are the only thing I disliked about the change from 2E to 3.0. Phantasmal killer is an enchantment/illusion spell, dammit! Every time someone mentions how PHB2 invented this idea my eyeballs bleed.
However, I'd make abjuration almost entirely skill based (knowledge: arcane, perhaps) so that non-casters can have some magical defenses which scale with their class level. Abjuration spells which don't fit well into the skill based model generally do fit well into other schools of magic (stoneskin -> transmutation, for example)Ooh, I like that. So I'm guessing instead of Protection from Evil being a spell, it would just be a ritual ward of sorts that anyone could perform if they made an appropriate skill check?
I'm not entirely convinced that would be hugely balanced in practice, but I really, really like the basic idea.
Anyone?
Its a nice idea but my gut feeling is that it would be really unbalancing.Yep, 1ed had spells in multiple schools and I think doing it again might not be a bad thing.
I'm interested as to how you think it'd affect balance.
I've been trying to reason out if it would make spell casters too powerful (esp sorcerers) since they no longer have to use up spell slots to take abjuration spells or make them too weak since many other classes would then have access to abjuration.
I suppose the "balance" would be fine actually. All clerics gain access to Dispel and decent abjurations.
My player who controls an Abjurer would be none too happy, though. GOod house rule for you maybe, but I don't think it sits will with the larger game — you'll have to pull up roots from a lot of places.
I'm interested as to how you think it'd affect balance. I've been trying to reason out if it would make spell casters too powerful (esp sorcerers) since they no longer have to use up spell slots to take abjuration spells or make them too weak since many other classes would then have access to abjuration.
I can't seem to reason my way through that, so other peoples' opinions would be helpful.
Well, my thought was that it might give some classes that usually have to find some way of dealing with limited defenses a few too many options for upping their AC. Monks, for example, really shouldn't have easy access to Shield, Protection from Evil, Stoneskin and the like.
Depending on what you allow, it gets even worse with spells like Globe of Invulnerability, Dismissal, and Break Enchantment.
I think it could work, but it might work better if it was restricted to a subset of abjuration and the full list of spells was still the sole purview of casters.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but if you read back you'll see that I did specifically mention that not all spells would make the transition to be skill based. I specifically identified stoneskin being turned into a transmutation spell as an example.
Fair enough on Stoneskin, even with the spells removed that fit easily into other schools, there are still some very powerful effects remaining though (for example, Globe of Invulnerability).
You know what might be good? Remove necromancy utterly, add Profane and Sacred as schools (and maybe lump two other schools)
Spells that do nicey-nice things are Sacred, spells that do really twisted stuff are Profane. Some subset of these spells are actually Good or Evil, but many aren't.
I would just make Necromancy a rare subtype of Divination, like it's SUPPOSED TO BE. (IE: Speak with Dead)
I'd just like to go back to the gaming tradition.
You can control death with either positive or negative energy. Whether a spell is good or evil is up to the spell descriptors... that's what they are there for.
I've disliked Necromancy being the school of unlife for a while, because that's NOT WHAT IT MEANS.
Necromancy is divination.
Necromancy is divination.
Sort of, yes. But not in a broad sense. It is "communicating with the dead" often for the purpose of divination, but I suppose you could just have a nice chat.
If you're hoping to reverse the connotation it has picked up, I'm sorry. Never, ever going to happen. The "death magic" meaning is now vastly more widely used than the correct meaning is.
Okay, how's this one?
From an "game" perspective, the spells are what their schools say they are, but ever since reading some of Ed Greenwood's thoughts on spells and how similar formulas might vary between individual casters, I've thought that "in world" there may be many different versions of the same spell.
In other words, a Fireball spell might be 99% the same across the board, but the spell varies a bit based on what tradition was associated with the person that wrote the spell. It might just be a minor variation, and because of that, you don't have different stats for each "type" of Fireball spell.
However, when you look at things from that perspective, I could actually envision a situation where the exact same spell could actually be different schools.
How so?
Let's take the standard Fireball spell. The spell converts magical energy to fire in an explosive burst, using standard "evocation" magic. However, what if some caster manages to actually create a version of the spell that, instead of shooting out a small bead that explodes, actually opens up a small aperture to a volatile region of the Plane of Fire that explodes in the exact same manner.
Now, for game balance purposes, I wouldn't do too much with this idea, but if, in roleplaying, theories of magic came up, I'd love to throw in ideas like this.
Take another idea along these lines . . . healing spells. Lots of people tend to think that healing spells should be necromancy spells, because they affect health. Its possible that there are spells that are necromantic that would work this way, however I think that the reason that divine versions of the spell are conjuration is due to the fact that the caster is actually "conjuring" a packet of positive energy that is just powerful enough to cure a subject without burning them with the overwhelming force of the Positive Engery Plane, but that's just the most common version of the spell, and another version of the spell might be one that directly manipulates the humors of the body to cause rapid healing (i.e. necromancy).
Now, if you use this logic, it might make perfect sense for the cleric version of Cure Light Wounds to be conjuration, while, say, the Witch actually casts a necromancy version of the spell.
While it makes sense, it probably complicates the system in a way that does more harm than good, or at least confuses things more than it opens up. Still, I think its a fun way of thinking of how to vary spells within the existing system.
This is the system I use for determining what should go where:
-Evocation: Spells that create temporary magical forces to manipulate the environment. These spells cannot create anything permanent by themselves, but instead work as triggers that can then cascade through natural means. Nothing these spells do can change the properties of something beyond from what they could naturally do (so they can make a man fly by holding him aloft with force, but not grant him wings nor the innate ability to levitate; they can move air to create a storm, but not *create* a storm out of nowhere).
-Conjuration: Spells that bring things from somewhere else. Everything these spells do involves picking something from one place and putting it in another. Sometimes they directly move things between physical locations (such as in Teleportation or Calling spells), while others they draw from "idealized planes" -as per the Platonic thought of a "world of shapes" where everything comes from- (such as with Creation or Summoning spells).
-Necromancy: Spells that manipulate Positive and Negative energy. These spells are about life and death (which are manifestations of Positive and Negative energies), both giving them or taking them away. Since true healing can only be done through positive energy, healing spells go here (you could potentially "heal" a wound through Transmutation, but it would only be a temporary modification of the body, not actually healing).
-Transmutation: Spells that grant things properties that they could not naturally have. Turning/changing things through states they can naturally experience (such as turning a stone into dust) are not Transmutation, but Evocations (in the case of the stone, you use magical force to grind it, thus being an Evocation. If you changed the stone into gold, now that would be Transmutation, since that stone would not be able to naturally become that -all this using medieval understanding of sciences, of course. In the real world, it is theoretically possible to change the properties of matter in such a way-). So making a man grow wings, water taste like wine or making fire unable to burn, would all be Transmutation effects.
-Illusion: Spells that manipulate the senses and create physical manifestations of perception. This school is the one I have most complications with, since it effectively does two things: Play with perception and create things. I keep both in the same school mostly because of tradition and to avoid confusion, but in reality I think Illusion should only play with senses (making people believe they are seeing/feeling something), while the creation of physical manifestations (ironically, actual illusions) should fall under Conjuration. Even moreso, I'm almost inclined to think Illusion could be completely taken out, with the "make believe" aspect folded into Enchantment and turned into a subschool.
-Enchantment: Spells that create momentary mental forces to alter thoughts and emotions. The spells themselves are always temporary, but the effects they have can be permanent (in some way, they work like Evocation spells, but affecting thoughts and emotions rather than physical things).
-Divination: Spells that bring thoughts and emotions from one place to another. Just like Enchantment is the "mental version" of Evocation, I see Divination as the "mental version" of Conjuration.
-Abjuration: Spells that provoke interference with magic. Under my conceptualization of the schools, Abjuration spells are not universal means of protection, but instead spells that play with magic itself; the wards and shields they create are in fact disturbances and interference of the magical currents.
While this conceptualization has some holes, it tends to work pretty well for me and my group.
Quality stuff Klaus. Not what what I would use exactly, but close. Very much the type of thing I have wanted to see in this thread!
|
Heh. Maybe abjuration could get the cure spells. But I'm adamant that bringing a soul back from the dead is necromancy BY DEFINITION.
I always thought the only other school that could get healing spells would be Transmutation. However, I have always been happy with them residing in Necromancy. Why does Necromancy have to be all bad?
|
|
Heh. Maybe abjuration could get the cure spells. But I'm adamant that bringing a soul back from the dead is necromancy BY DEFINITION.
By definition it would be NecroURGY. Necromancy is about divinatory magics having to do with the dead and Necrourgy is about working with or by the means of the dead.
Necromancy is a misnomer for most of the school. =)
Evil Lincoln: Never going to happen, sure, but neither is the rest of this. ;)
If we're going to write-up pipedreams of ideal reorganization of magic, though, may as well go for broke.
Evil Lincoln: Never going to happen, sure, but neither is the rest of this. ;)
Oh, yes, right. Carry on.
Is there a more all encompassing term for "Life and Death magic" that would serve as a replacement? Sadly, the suffix "-mancy" is now taken to mean magic in general.
I would probably get around this misnomer by having it exist in the setting. Speak with Dead is a low level "Necromancy" and one of the only spells of the school which would see regular use in civilized settlements. A commoner might actually petition a spellcaster to cast speak with dead, so amongst the laymen the whole school of magic dealing with death has become "necromancy."
A wizard, especially a specialist necromancer, would likely be infuriated by this misnomer, correcting it at every chance they get. "White" necromancers may be especially irritated (although their benevolent castings of the spell likely perpetuated the misunderstanding).
So what's a good name for a school of Positive and Negative energy? They are, after all the schools of Order and Entropy. Positive energy is creative force, ordering force — and negative energy is destructive and chaotic. Now, "Necromancy" is a school because both the "white" and "black" aspects of the school aim to assist or subvert the natural process of spiritual entropy. Raise dead subverts entropy, as does animate dead, but death effects and undeath to death both preserve the natural, unidirectional course of life energy.
I'd like a term to address the scope of such a school, and let the laymen continue to call it "Necromancy" in their unbridled ignorance.
The above suggestion of "Necro-urgy" is a good start, with urgy meaning "work". Suggestions?
It's all in the name I think... maybe if you just renamed Necromancy things would look less bleak (all those nice folks raising the dead could obviously still be called necromancers). How about Vitamancy? or maybe someone can come up with a better name