I use the term "death magic" as shorthand for "the aspect of life magic that is used to reduce life, or contact / control the dead". resurrection would require "death magic" to contact the soul and life magic in its positive aspect to heal the body.
I disagree. They've already said that the Life element of both Good and Evil persuasion will be able to heal, for example, but they'll do it in different ways. To deal with spirits or souls is by no reasoning necessarily to equate with Death magic.
You could say that about any spirit, they'll all have a connection to lifeforce. Without spirits of the other 4 elements there would be no life, and a fire elemental is alive so it has a connection to the lifeforce, no one is proposig a life mage can summon elementals.
Animation or creation is not necessarily tied to Life. This is a whole new can of worms; Are golems "alive"? Does elementals have "souls"? And so on.
That point was not in any way clear. Mostly because your mixing two very diffrent points togeather:
1) Positive and Negative refer to the presense and absense of the element
2) Positive is genrally good, while negative is genrally evil.
The first point I agree with, the second point I don't, and I think I've made my reasons clear enough on why
I don't understand how I could've been any more clear. Having Death being generally percieved as evil, or negatives in general (a form of creativist nihilism) is nothing I would consider wierd at all, but quite natural. But what's important is to remember that it'd allow for the seperation of a Good vs. Evil dichotomy, that is endlessly tiresome. For example, having my "evil" Grand Inquisitor wielding the positive part of the Life Element, "Holy" or whatever it could be called, would only be natural.
Actually unless your casting negative fire magic on a lake or something Ice isn't the natural result. Ice would require negative fire and positive water, pure negative fire would freeze people but it wouldn't be able to create a wall of ice for example.
You're missing the point. None of this makes any sense if we look too close on it. This is why I said Heat and Cold, with (Fire) and (Ice) added as a general rule.
You don't just create fire either. Fire is just energy, you need Earth, Air, or even Water to create actual fire. We're dealing with psuedo-classical elements in a magic fantasy context here.
Again, there is no reason that positives will be genrally good or negatives would be genrally evil.
As a general rule, the unweaving of things, nihilism, or nothingness is considered evil. Necromancy and Death magic is, almost by definition, evil in their own right. Speaking specificly, however, magic doesn't have (or rather, shouldn't have) any inherent moral judgement. A good example of this are the post-HoMM5 Necromancers, who actually act as defenders against the birth of the Dark Messiah.
"Good, Evil? I'm the man with the gun."
It would help if you didn't keep saying that positives were "genrally good" and negatives were "genrally evil", its not really that suprising that I assumed you were implying morals with the words is it
Here we have another problem with definitions or linguisitc difficulty on your part. Generally
. This is opposed as to speaking about "Good" and "Evil" as specific
definitions & judgement values attached to the notion of positive
So yes, I'd actually be suprised if you missunderstood, if english were your first language, at least.
This is just confusing. Until now you've been saying that positive is the element and negative is its absense. Here you've flipped it around so that Life Element is negative because your playing with vampires, why? (BTW vampires would use a form of Life magic that's both positive and negative to move other people's lifeforce into themselves)
First of all, I said nothing of the sort. I'm just saying I'm playing an empire of vampires - that statement is detached from the point itself; the raising of an undead army.
Also, you say that (while the point is moot, I'd like to address it regardless) vampirism would be both positive and negative - we don't know this, since we don't know the underlying reasoning behind any potential vampirism. Second, all Life magic, the very essence of the entire life element, is about the manipulation of life. It's the application that lends it's inherent use towards things such as "Good", "Evil" or "Neutral"; in my idea throughout a spectrum of Positive vs. Negative (rather than a moral judgement based around the usage of magics own nature).
I hope they don't follow this route with the different aspects of magic schools . First of all I don't think it's very workable (what is the absence of earth, water and air? The only things I can think of are liquidity, solidity, and void - but the first two would just result in negative water = earth and negative earth = water...).
If you read up on my initial post where I started the argumentation for positive & negatives, then you'd know that I have no idea. It was a general trail of thought that arose from the arguments of Life vs. Death both being within the confines of the Life element, and how it could apply to other elements.
I would much rather the two (more?) aspects of the schools of magic not have anything to do with the presence or absence of the element, but rather just involve using the element in largely different ways.
One way of doing this is to have one aspect be mostly utility, while the other be mostly combat related. For example, one aspect of earth magic could be to ruin your enemy's crops and make your own extremely fertile, to shore up your walls, etc. The other aspect could be used to hurl boulders in combat, create earthquakes, etc. Each aspect should still have a little bit of the other aspect in it, though - but with much less variety, strength and efficiency. Likewise some spells of some elements might be very similar to spells in other elements. There are many ways to ruin somebody's crops or improve your own, for example. Plus the much desired multi-element spells - I really hope those are in.
And they needn't even follow the same mold for each element. Earth magic could be divided into utility and combat, life magic could be divided into giving life and taking it (and giving life should be capable of killing, and taking life should be capable of healing ). Fire magic could be divided into two different types of combat-oriented magic (buffing/debuffing vs. destructive spells). I think a system like this would be much more interesting than one based on the absence/presence of the element or good/evil. It allows them to make much more meaningful boundaries between the aspects of an element.
What you speak of are simply schools of magic within the elements, then. I personally wouldn't mind that at all, really. But if they go that route, they'll have to drop any and all notions of an actual spectrum, with the potential to "lock you up" in a singular trail. We're not sure how this'll work, but if it's anything like MoM or AoW, your route in terms of elements will be largely dependant on your chocies on creation. Let's say that you specialize almost entirely in Fire, and then go down the "Pyromancy" line; This has the potential to hurt you in the future.
But I entirely get your idea. This would also allow for Earth to have a bloody Bearomancy school!
Edit: I thought of this while writing, but forgot to write it down. Of course, your system could also be used to not lock up people at all, effectively allowing people to research multiple schools within their chosen element, or specialize at their leisure. I'm not sure how well this would rhyme with their supposed spectrum or "do the same things in different manners", but it doesn't mean that the idea itself is bad. /Edit/
Yeah I agree. You've been really confusing with the whole "generally good" vs. "generally evil" thing, Luckmann. It was really hard to see where you stood because you kept going back and forth... It may have been clear in your head, but based solely on your posts it wasn't so easy to tell.