good/bad defence/offence healing

If healing is a "life" mana spell, then death wizards could be out of luck. But if its something else, hey maybe! We're not actually sure if there is a real healing spell at all yet.

I've found it kind of strange too. I mean the evil warlord is going to want healing for his legions of terror just as much as the good guys. Training new legions of terror is money better spent on slave pits!

I could imagine one side have vampiric healing (draining life from one target and putting it into another) where the other side would be straight up healing (just giving extra life-force.)

My  wonder is "is it good or evil that holds the power of resurection?"

Hopefully both. I made a post about that a while back, where I said that Death undead would be primarily offensive while Life undead would be primerily defensive, but now I'm beginning to lean towards it being the other way around....

since the form of life magic is based on good or evil, I'd say good would be more defensive, just because evil is more aggresive by nature.  

Good undead I imagine doing things like cleaning up the streets or doing labor in the fields.

I was in a very good role-playing camaign once where we managed to find a count who's bloodline provided him power over the undead.  He was actually nice though (its was a vampire hunter D setting, so this was a fairly big deal) and generally his undead were often out doing things like pulling carts, plowing fields, and mining.

O RLY?  So good guys can't go on the offensive to take out the bad guy?  The best defense isn't a good offense?

I didn't say that good guys can't go on the offensive.  I said bad guys are more aggressive by nature.  There are plenty of passive bad guys, or good guys who do things like start bar fights (though I can't think of many.  Even when I include Klingons from the 24th century Star Trek)  or kill people without provocation.   (btw, warf wouldn't start a bar fight, though he'd happily join one.  I remember him starting on when he was a bit 'influenced' to do so, and he was told it was wrong later and he felt very ashamed.  Even then he had a provocation, just very poor judgement.)

Provocation is key isn't it.  Good guys usually must be hurt (or have their friends be hurt, or know for sure that they are about to be hurt through time travel or good insight or something)  before they hurt others.  In our culture its one of the defining features of "good" vs. "evil" and in that context is never really flipped.  

Good guys might have a way to really smash their enemies (speak softly and carry a big stick) but by nature should be reluctant to use it.   So from a sheer tactics point of view, it makes more sense for them to be defensive.   While they are researching their spells, they should not already plan to take over the world with magic, but rather plan to find ways to protect those under good influence from those who have not yet been taken over.

If the subject is healing I think that the depth of the system should allow for it. In other words, there will be so many spells (hopefully) that atleast some of the nuetral ones will be healing.

That said, the good-evil thing is actually pretty realistic. Would sauron heal his orc minions? Evil is generally so anti-life that they care little for thier own men.

On the topic of the good-evil system itself, i don't think you should be forced down a certain path in the game but rather you should be able to be neutral, but over time the benefits of choosing a side becomes irresistable.I just don't like the idea of starting out in the world and saying "I have to be evil because its what I am". I would prefer a "I have to be evil to use X artifact, or train X monster" etc.

It's positive and negative, while you can't do a healing spell in a positive manner, you can steal health from something else.  I'm hoping for spells like vampirism and drain life in combination with massively powerful stat hits on the enemy.  Death magic doesn't need to be a bunch of devestating attack spells, it's the perfect place to have the best physical debuffs, which are just like buffing your own troops when it comes to survival.

I don't think its going to force anybody.   The whole evil/good thing is based on the civilization's culture rather than the channeler.  (now that I've just said that, it makes so much sense why building a library increases spell research... the lazy wizards are using his minions to look up spells for him, the lazy bum)

So the channeler might be neutral or even nice.  The origin of his magic leans one way or the other.     (at least this is how I think it is going to be) 

don't forget all those lovable death buffs like... turning all your troops into undead minions so they won't starve or freeze to death.   Causing them to live in constant pain so that when injured in battle they don't lose any productivity, since they've learned to opperate under those conditions. 

As I mentioned before... resurection is a grey spot for me.  In most games its a very holy spell/ability (MoM and HoMM both come to mind) but undead as a general rule are "evil".  So wouldn't resurrected guys, even if they arn't rotting, brain dead, or craving of living flesh, still be undead?  i.e. evil?   Its going against the natural way of things (where rapid healing is just speeding up the natural way of things >>> good)     Often evil has a counterpart that is incomplete or something similar (animate dead, for example) but just because its not doing the whole job, does that make it any less good?  

Perhaps both good and evil could have ressurection.   Because no matter which way you twist life magic, you're going to cross that line at some point.

Depends on how you define evil. If you believe that only your chosen ones are worthy and all others are inferior life forms, you probably care a great deal about your own people but have no problem crushing anybody else like bugs (since they're a lower form of life).

Yea exactly what i think:)

Which it seems the devs are *not* planning to do for this game...