So the tag was created today, and assigned to five questions. We already have (Conjuration spirited away), , , and tags, so it’s not without precedent, and I can buy that enchantments, as found in D&D, lead to a series of issues that can raise related questions and a tag may be worth grouping them. There are probably more questions deserving of the tag, but that can be worked on naturally.

However, I would stress that the precedent here is for “a type of spell,” not “something D&D calls a spell school.” The tag excerpts for and make no mention of “spell school”—they just focus on spells that deceive and spells that animate the dead in unlife, respectively. Notably the latter doesn’t actually cover the entirety of the D&D spell school Necromancy—other effects in that school should not be tagged , but rather , or in AD&D and 5e, . These terms are used because they are the natural, English-language terms for these kinds of spells, not because they are used by D&D as spell schools, and they do not necessarily match the D&D definition. (The tags and lack tag info entirely, but should be defined similarly, probably about summoning and magical information gathering, respectively.)

Which brings me to my issue with , the name. “Enchantment” is the term in WotC-era D&D for mind-affecting magic, charms and compulsions and the like. There is some narrative precedent for that, and AD&D used the term for a weird hybrid for a wizard kit (The Complete Wizard’s Handbook, TSR 1990), though that was specifically “Enchantment/Charm” and it was the charms, not the enchantments, that were used to affect people’s minds.

Basically everywhere else that isn’t directly derived from D&D seems to prefer to use “enchantment” to the process of imbuing magic into an object. Video games use it that way, other game systems use it that way, and even The Complete Wizard’s Handbook used it that way. So tagging such questions seems heavily D&D-centric.

On the other hand... this site is heavily D&D-centric. Not in any official way, certainly not in any way that should suggest other systems are unwelcome or second-class here, just by pure coincidence of the questions that get asked here, are more often D&D questions than they aren’t. And D&D players may very well be looking for this subject under the name “enchantment.” After all, that is the name chosen by the emergent folksonomy.

My point is that, no matter what this site wants an tag to mean, it’s very likely to be misused. If we decide to reject the D&D-centric definition, D&D players will misuse it thinking it means what it does in D&D. If we don’t reject the D&D-centric definition, non-D&D players (and, to be honest, some new D&D players as well, since we have had plenty of D&D players use enchant to refer to items) will misuse it, thinking it means what it does... pretty much everywhere outside of D&D.

We could instead block the tag from use altogether; blocking the tag solves the issue of misuse. But then that leaves people who search for “enchantment,” whatever they mean, unable to find the correct tag, assuming we do want to create tags that group these sorts of questions ( probably covers imbuing items with magic already; or or something could maybe be used for the mind control stuff).

Does anyone have thoughts on how this should go, or any suggestions for handling it beyond what I’ve thought of?

  • \$\begingroup\$ @Drake I saw you added this tag to several questions, so I figure this question may be of interest to you/you may have an opinion you want to share, so I wanted to bring this discussion to your attention. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 7 '18 at 18:45
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ Super valuable question to ask. Thanks for bringing this up. Importantly we're not D&D Stack Exchange; tag names have global meaning and won't mean only what they mean in D&D and will be reused in other systems. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 7 '18 at 19:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan I wrote a reply below. Enchantment is not fully the same as being Charmed as that is only a condition, other tags for spell school types already exist, not everything in Enchantment is mind-control. \$\endgroup\$ – Drake Mar 8 '18 at 10:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Drake Keep in mind that tags are for concepts that matter to this community to help manage our questions. We don't create tags just for names that matter in one or even many games. For example, fact that D&D has Charmed as a condition, and how it relates to other D&D mechanics, are totally irrelevant to how we use tags here. If we make a [mind-control] tag, it would be because "controlling minds" is a concept we care about, and the mechanical term in D&D will not dictate what it means or what questions we use it on. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 8 '18 at 16:23
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I think you might all be overthinking this. You as the senior users are very close to this issue and possibly too close to see the perspective of the average user. When I search for enchantment I want to find what I want (Whichever definition that may be); if that includes a few others it is far better than not being able to search at all. This whole conversation smacks of being a bit precious with the tagging system. \$\endgroup\$ – SeriousBri Mar 15 '18 at 12:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SeriousBri Well, I foresee problems with trying to tag questions that way (if nothing else, there’s a 5-tag limit we can’t do a thing about), but that’s a fair concern/perspective. It seems to match with doppelgreener’s answer—so you’re not alone, but unfortunately it seems I’m not either. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 15 '18 at 12:36

Yes, I share your misgivings.

(But let me say that I appreciate the good-faith desire to improve the site behind the tag's creation. That it may have problems is not anyone's fault! Its potential problems turn on really obscure parts of community site management, too.)

The D&D-centric problem is a significant problem. We have lots of D&D-derived tags, but those have been OK so far in that they either have the same meaning outside of D&D or they have no meaning at all outside of D&D.

So , used in this particular meaning, is a new thing under our sun without precedent (that I can think of, that is). It would represent favouring D&D over other games, by giving D&D exclusive claim to this generic tag name.* We haven't done that before.

My suggestion is that we should just remove the tag entirely from the site. It can never have a single correct and consistent meaning in all the uses it would get used in, and is therefore a not-useful tag. (Not blacklist it — just remove. Blacklisting is only for recurrent recreation that becomes a problem. We can just retag as normal with the correct tag(s) if/when it's ever used again.)

We already have the more generic and cross-game tag for all the difficult problems that D&D enchantment spells bring up, so we don't even really need it for D&D, except out of a misplaced sense of “completing the set” (not a tag-creation principle we use). For the other meaning of enchantment as imbuing an item with magic, we already have the (more-or-less) cross-game tag combination .

Most of the questions it's on now† are obviously appropriate for carrying the existing tag instead (i.e., 1, 2, 3), and would be sufficiently categorised by the combination of .

The remaining two questions are less obviously about the outcome of charm effects, so they should probably have no enchantment/charm–related tag because they're not singularly about charming targets or the effects of being charmed:

  • Break Enchantment v. Feeblemind is about a spell interaction situation.

    For spell interactions, a complete and completely-searchable title and tag combination is usually [game-tag][spells] + the two spell names (correctly spelled) in the title and/or body. Though some spell interactions will have general principles come in, or are in a category of spells that are particularly troublesome (, I'm looking at you), D&D enchantment spells don't seem to — as a spell class — rise to that level of unique problem-categorisation. (The charmed condition/effect/outcome itself does rise to the level of needing problem-categorisation, and we've already got a tag for that.)

    Notably it could carry as well but it doesn't really benefit from having that extra tag either. Spell interaction questions are generally easy to find so long as they have [game-tag][spells], and though there's a bit of site benefit having another problem-category tag on them, it's tiny enough to be swamped by the problems that using presents to the site.

    This question should probably have only .

  • Can a School of Enchantment Wizard use Instinctive charm against spell attacks? has the tag describing a type of wizard instead of a category of effect — again, the existing tag would be sufficient if such a thing were needed (but I don't think it's actually on-point here).

    We should be leery of tagging for sub-classes of classes. We already have a bunch of D&D-centric class-name tags, many which have no meaning outside the game — tagging for D&D-centric subclasses of D&D classes really does feel like special-casing D&D enough to represent the thin edge of the wedge of becoming or appearing to be D&D Stack Exchange.

    Instead, what this question needs and lacks is the tag.

* Avoiding the exclusion problem could be done with [dnd-enchantment], but that tag name is so clunky that I can't even begin to like it enough to endorse it. If someone thinks it's a worthy idea to consider, I'll leave it to them to propose it directly for voter consideration. I wouldn't vote it down but I couldn't vote it up.
† At the time that sentence was written that was 5 questions; it's expanded significantly since then due to industrious users spreading it in the meantime. (Which is fine! It helps identify the set of questions that might need attention, whatever this discussion concludes.) Analysing them all now is probably not a necessary addition to this answer since the subset makes the point well enough, I think.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Does “charmed” also cover, say, “compelled”—and do people know to use it that way? For that matter, are there any problems with how other games define being charmed? I had considered just “charm” or “charms” and rejected them on the basis that Exalted uses that term for pretty much every magic ability, for example. I don’t know that Exalted would use the word “charmed” at all, but if it does I imagine it’s rather different from what our tag is used for (but that might be OK, as a rejection of an Exalted-specific term definition). Just some foods for thought. Otherwise I agree with this. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 7 '18 at 19:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan That I'm not sure of. It's a relatively new tag that seems to have caught on (I created it when I saw a categorisation need), but the edges of its application haven't really shaken out yet. I think it would cover magical compulsion (and tagging niche tags does lean more on regulars editing than on OPs getting tags right in revision 1), but even among regulars I'm not sure if people know/agree to use it that way. Regarding [charm(s)], the Exalted meaning is precisely what I was thinking of when I made it [charmed]. [charming] was/is/may be another option. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 7 '18 at 19:23
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ charmed doesn't seem like a good tag either, since it covers a small slice of a tag that ought to exist - mind-control \$\endgroup\$ – SPavel Mar 7 '18 at 19:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SPavel [mind-control] is an tag I've been wondering if we need. If we created it / it was created, I think it would make sense to make [charmed] a synonym of [mind-control]. That's another option — it may be worth writing up as an answer to see if it's liked as a way forward? \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 7 '18 at 19:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie Good idea, added an answer to that effect \$\endgroup\$ – SPavel Mar 7 '18 at 20:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ "Can a School of Enchantment Wizard use Instinctive charm against spell attacks?" : Instinctive Charm is a class feature, 'charm' here is not a spell and the wiazrd in question is a spe cialist in Enchantment spells. Reading your comment I mostly disagree with it on other things as well. \$\endgroup\$ – Drake Mar 8 '18 at 10:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie Charmed is a Condition that tag already exists, mind-control is a condition perhaps as well. Enchantment is a specific school of magic which has spells that might not add mind-control or charm conditions in certain cases. \$\endgroup\$ – Drake Mar 8 '18 at 10:38
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @Drake That is true, but why do we need a tag that covers that school? D&D schools of magic are useful ideas for grouping effects in many cases, and the obvious labels for those groupings in most cases, but not so for enchantment. Divination and illusion are types of spells, regardless of whether or not the game has spell schools. And as d7 says, “completing the set” is not a reason for a tag—in this case, those tags are really independent of the set in the first place. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 12:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Drake I tagged you also on my response to doppelgreener on the subject of SPavel’s recommendation, but just to include the info here also—look at the tag excerpts for [illusion] and [necromancy]. Neither of them mentions a “spell school,” they just talk about certain types of spells. They are being used as terms, English words, not as references to the D&D concept of spell schools. The [necromancy] tag doesn’t cover all of D&D necromancy, either—it only covers raising the dead. Other stuff in the D&D school of Necromancy should be tagged accordingly, e.g. [curses]. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 14:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan You might currently decide to just make the tag non-D&D related, but that will just mean that the problem of finding the school of magic related questions/answers remains hard. If you consider alternative tags perhaps create 'spell-school' or similar. Using 'Illusion' or 'Necromancy' tags with it together would give clarity. It would allow Enchantment to exist and used together with the new tag in combination as well. Also if the site considers a mind-related new tag it should be 'mind-affecting' instead of mindcontrol as that could include 'charmed' as well. \$\endgroup\$ – Drake Mar 8 '18 at 15:03
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Drake I’m in favor of a [spell-school] tag or something like it, for questions about spell schools or why they’re defined the way they are or why they do or don’t include certain effects. However, I am not in favor of a kind of combo situation where [spell-school][necromancy] makes question about the D&D spell school of Necromancy in a question that is about, say, curses. (A question about the D&D school of necromancy, on the other hand, would be tagged that way.) \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 15:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Drake Basically, as long as [spell-school] is there because the question is about spell school(s), it’s good. As a “modifier,” it’s not. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 15:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan Just be certain that whatever decision is made here, it will make it possible for D&D players to search for spell-school related questions on Evocation/Enchantment/etc spells and features. One specific case Seven mentions above is a question regarding the "School of Enchantment Wizard" which is the Enchantment specialist wizard in 5e, and it doesn't just use Enchantment spells, but also has special Enchantment school related class features, abilites. If such a question can be clearly tagged and easily looked up then the outcome of the decision on tags is good. \$\endgroup\$ – Drake Mar 8 '18 at 15:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Drake I would argue that extends beyond tags anyway. Such a search should probably be something like “[dnd-5e][wizard][class-feature] enchantment” rather than trying to create a separate tag for every type of wizard, or worse, every wizard class feature. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 15:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Yes, keep in mind that one reason for new tags to exist is when searching does not work for a topic. I don't think questions about the Enchantment school of spells had that problem. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 8 '18 at 16:13

Combine the related tags and into a new tag -

I completely agree with you that is very confusing. Even in D&D, it means two different things (the school of Enchantment, and magic item enchantment). The magic item part is taken care of by and but the "magic that controls someone's mind" aspect is currently only partially served by .

Not only is "charmed" a game-specific term, but it also doesn't fully cover the landscape of spells that enchant. A creature that is enchanted might be charmed, or fascinated, or dominated. A tag will cover all of that, as well as cross-genre implementations (such as being Mind Tricked by a Jedi, or hypnotized by a KGB secret agent, or shot with a mind control ray by a mad scientist).

So we should get rid of , and make a synonym of .

  • \$\begingroup\$ I like mind-control, but by “combine” do you mean we should create a tag synonym for them? Because I’m not sure I buy that we should treat “enchantment” as synonymous with “mind-control” when it might refer to items. (Synonymizing “charmed” with “mind-control,” on the other hand, seems like a no-brainer if we go the “mind-control” route, so there I completely agree.) \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 7 '18 at 20:10
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan Sorry, clarified - get rid of enchantment entirely, and make charm synonymous with mind-control \$\endgroup\$ – SPavel Mar 7 '18 at 20:34
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This has the benefits that I think [mind-control] (mostly) covers all five questions that I looked at in my answer (it appears there are many more than 5 now), and can be done easily with the tag rename/merge/synonym mod tool's options. +1 \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 7 '18 at 20:55
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ mind-control is exactly the tag I searched for when editing a question earlier today. I was surprised not to find it. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Mar 8 '18 at 2:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ This really doesn't seem appropriate — charmed isn't universally mind control, so we shouldn't have synonym links. How D&D needs to get curated is one matter, but that shouldn't determine what other games don't get to use. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 8 '18 at 9:10
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener How is magically charming someone ever not a form of mind-control? It do you want to keep that tag to also be used for not-magical charming? I can buy that argument, perhaps—there might be games that apply the same condition whether it’s achieved magically or not. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 12:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan Correct, I want to keep that tag available for not-magical charming in games that are not D&D. There's no compelling reason to take that tag away on account of one game. One game's interpretation of them as being the same thing shouldn't affect our taxonomy this way. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 8 '18 at 13:01
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener Out of curiosity, are there any games that use a condition called “charmed” for the result of a successful attempt to non-magically influence someone’s opinion? It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to imagine it, but I’m also not particularly aware of any. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 13:53
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener Exactly—we aren’t tagging spell schools. Why would we? What purpose does that serve? The [illusion] tag excerpt makes zero mention of anything known as a spell school, it just focuses on, you know, producing illusions. And [conjuration] and [divination] have no excerpt or wiki to begin with, but should be likewise. Which is why there should simply not be any tag called [enchantment]. That is a confusing term with two major, mutually-exclusive definitions, and there is no reason to group questions about those two definitions together. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 14:25
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ And as I’ve said to @Drake, there isn’t even really a compelling reason to group questions about all the things that are in the school of enchantment in WotC-era D&D together, either. Yes, mind-control doesn’t cover everything in the enchantment school—but why should questions about magically controlling someone be grouped with questions about magically inspiring them or assuaging their fear in the first place? Because D&D groups that way? No—that’s a bad reason, and I don’t think there’s any significant overlap between questions on those two subjects, so we should not do that. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 14:27
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener Meant to also mention, [necromancy] also doesn’t mention a spell school—just raising the dead. Because “necromancy” is the obvious term to use for that kind of thing. Just because D&D uses it too, and goes further and codifies those effects as belonging to a “spell school,” isn’t relevant to us. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 14:34
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan So it seems like an acceptable resolution might just be "remove the tag because we don't need to tag that way", but "and keep it gone until kingdom come" doesn't need to happen alongside that (someone might one day ask about enchantment school stuff or, I don't know, a fate variant's enchanting, and we can work out tagging then if it's needed)? \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 8 '18 at 14:43
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ (OK, wtf? I have twice been shoved into a chat room I do not want to create. This is meta, deal with it SE. Taking control of my browser like that is not OK.) \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 14:54
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan See how it goes, fix the problem only after there demonstrably is one, see if mindful retagging is enough, see if we need more specific tags at the time. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 8 '18 at 15:02
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Charm means charisma to me before it means mind control. \$\endgroup\$ – SeriousBri Mar 15 '18 at 12:30

Do nothing, everything is fine. Keep the tags as they are.

Here's my thinking:

No one game gets to lay claim to a tag and say “this tag represents only this exact concept; no other game with a marginally different concept by the same name can use this tag.” Different games can have different concepts sharing the same name: more than just Fate can have something called aspects, and they may not mean the same thing, for example. (They're usually very similar, so we can label them and summarise them quite easily.)

This means tags can be contextual to the game. Tags don't have absolute universal meaning in a void, they have meaning connoted to the game the question is about. This is fine, we are not attempting to provide 100% bulletproof universal definitions of what every term means, and shouldn't try because games don't use terminology in such a way we could — terms mean different things in different games.

Tag usage guidance (the tag wiki excerpts) and tag wikis are not for us to rigidly define a concept. They're to guide people on how to use the tag, and to provide some more information where it applies. Notably I rejected a suggested edit for the tag wiki & excerpt that defined it as only referring to the D&D school of magic, and replaced it with the following tag wiki excerpt:

for questions related to enchantments as a game concept, such as enchantment magic in the D&D line of games

... which is just another way to say “use this tag for the thing in your game called enchantments.”

If we're asking about a game concept, we use a tag by the name of that concept. Usually most games will share the same general concept in a way we can summarise it in a few words. Sometimes there's going to be small variations between what that thing means in two different games; sometimes there will be larger ones. That's fine, we don't care. Our tag system can accommodate that because it's not there to define these tag names to mean any one exact concept, they're just trying to group stuff.

No tags should be removed.

If you want to suggest that two games having a variation in what a tag means, means we cannot have the tag for any games at all, that's destructive to our tagging system. I don't want that precedent set. It's flexible enough to accommodate this situation.

No tag synonyms should be created.

This also means: the charmed, enchantment, and mind-control tags should not be merged or synonymised in any way.

Simply: charmed doesn't mean mind-control. Neither one means "enchantment".

They only mean approximately a similar thing in one game... and this isn't D&D Stack Exchange, so that one game doesn't get to solely control our tagging taxonomy and take useful words away from other games where "charmed", "enchantment", and "mind control" are entirely different things.

(Consider that I could make someone charmed in James Bond: The Ballroom RPG, an entirely theoretical micro-RPG I'm making up on the spot, by flirting with them. That's charmed in the English sense of flattered, not in the magical mind-control sense. This is different to Mind Control, which only the villainous Dr Mortner's latest invention can do.)

If the name-sharing is intolerable, find a more specific, unambiguous name.

The other day I renamed to , because it was about arcane foci and not just the general concept of, y'know, focusing.

If D&D's is somehow incompatible with the general concept of enchantments, give it a different tag name.

Let's re-evaluate this if/when we find a tagging name clash that cannot work.

My core point above might not always work. Right now across our entire body of tags and asked-about games, I think we can accommodate different games sharing a tag for similar (but possibly different) concepts which share a name.

Maybe that won't stand the test of time, at which point we can and should re-evaluate it for whatever specific tags need it. (See the previous section.)

But right now, if we define our tags or boot them out just because of D&D's weird concept of enchantments, ironically I think we will be more "D&D Stack Exchange" than if we do nothing and just accommodate variances.

  • \$\begingroup\$ It seems like you are suggesting that [enchantment] in [dnd-5e][enchantment] would mean something entirely different from [enchantment] in [dnd-2e][enchantment]? I don’t think I can support that. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 7 '18 at 23:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan I've updated a little bit (second to last section) but yes. I suggest that, and I do so because it's far better than letting D&D or any other game dictate what enchantment must mean to another game's exclusion of being able to use a tag by that name, or letting D&D having a weird definition of "enchantment" mean we cannot have a tag at all. I would consider blacklisting enchantment on D&D's account to be absurdly destructive to every other game's capacity to be categorised on this site, for instance. Right now I don't think this poses us any actual problems (last section). \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 7 '18 at 23:25
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Like, here's a parallel: in D&D 3.5e, [necromancy] is a dark & evil art of raising zombies. In D&D 5e and AD&D 2e, [necromancy] just messes with life energy and is the school of healing. We already have situations where the same tag in different games means something entirely different and nobody's batted an eye at it. It's also a situation where a single game's concept bucks the popular culture trend of what that name indicates -- most sources wouldn't agree with the D&D 5e definition. That isn't a problem in that tag. Why would this be a problem for this tag? \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 7 '18 at 23:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan I agree with doppelgreener on that various schools of magic already differ in certain D&D editions compared to each other. I hope I'm mistaken but I start to feel like the criticism about my new tag is only happening because I myself am a new user on the site. \$\endgroup\$ – Drake Mar 8 '18 at 10:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Drake It could also be that previous tags were accepted & not analysed because they were already there and we didn't think about it (some of the others like necromancy were defined in the first 1-2 years of the site), and new tags prompt us to think about them and ask these questions. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 8 '18 at 10:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener Perhaps, but then the question here shouldn't be only about the future of the Enchantment tag, but about all tags for magic schools. \$\endgroup\$ – Drake Mar 8 '18 at 11:00
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Drake I disagree with doppelgreener’s analysis of the existing situation; the [necromancy] tag is not substantially different based on what system it goes with. A question aging about healing in AD&D should not have that tag. A question about why AD&D puts healing in that school, on the other hand, should—to square the idea of healing with the more broadly-accepted definition of Necromancy (which really isn’t hard). Likewise teleportation and [conjuration]. Enchantment is a very different situation, with two mutually exclusive definitions, and that is why I am questioning it. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 12:47
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Revisiting this, the [necromancy] specifically says it is about raising the dead—which I think is right. It certainly doesn’t reference anything called a “spell school.” Other things that D&D (or any other game) may put in a “school” it calls Necromancy, should be labeled appropriately, e.g. [curses] or, in AD&D or 5e’s case, [healing]. A question about why healing is in the D&D school of Necromancy should more properly, to my mind, be tagged [spell-school] or something than [necromancy], though I could still see applying it in that corner case. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 14:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ +1 because I 100% agree with this. \$\endgroup\$ – SeriousBri Mar 15 '18 at 12:29
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I wish you were right, but the Stack Exchange engine's handling of tags does not really play nicely with tags having different meanings depending on the context of other tags. \$\endgroup\$ – mattdm Mar 15 '18 at 14:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mattdm They already do that, where tags are context dependent on the game. Pathfinder's [attack] has no relationship to Fate's [attack]. They do at least connect back to the same general concept of inflicting some form of harm on others somehow. I'm inclined to figure that if D&D disagrees with almost every other source about what "enchantment" means, and it's a problem enough it needs a separate tag, it can go find its own tag to describe that unique concept (like [dnd-enchantment]). \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 15 '18 at 14:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener Yeah, Stack Exchange just poorly handles the mixing of things which are only related at the very high level. On the photography site, we don't have an issue of "exposure" meaning something entirely different for Canon vs Fujifilm. \$\endgroup\$ – mattdm Mar 15 '18 at 15:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mattdm I agree with you there. Things like context-sensitivity in tags are one of its points of failure. (That and elegantly handling question versioning, on sites where that's needed, like when dealing with software libraries or versioned programming languages where the correct answer can change over time.) \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 15 '18 at 15:53

I created originally the Enchantment tag because I noticed other schools of spells like Necromancy, Divination, Conjuration, or Illusion also exist as tags already.

  • Charmed should not go into 'mind-control' as not everyone being charmed is mind-controlled (at least not in 5th Edition D&D)
  • Mind-affecting is a condition which includes mind-control as well
  • Charmed could be included into Enchantment tag, but the overlap is not full
  • Enchantment school of magic includes Bless and the Power Words, it is not all about mind-control or charmed condition
  • If you want to combine some tags consider Conditions, and include Charmed into that instead

What I can consider as best alternative is to make clear that certain schools of magic are D&D related. Create or rename as such the tags to D&D:Necromancy, D&D:Abjuration, D&D:Illusion, D&D:Evocation, D&D:Enchantment, etc.

There exist other system-specific tags already, like for VTM, and the many schools of spells in all the D&D editions should justify the existence of these, and would also make it much easier to browse for specific questions and answers related to a single school of magic.

More than 5 editions have these schools of magic (do we calculate 3 and 3.5 as two editions?) if you add the ones like Pathfinder even more. Can you imagine how much easier it would be browsing for a School of Magic by these tags than currently? From personal experience when I looked for an answer I found that it is currently hard to find such school-specific answers for a D&D edition. That's what made me decide to create Enchantment as tag and to expand the use of the other tags like Conjuration in the future as well. You know 5th Edition won't be the last edition for D&D, the use and importance of these school of magic tags will only become more important in the future.

The only problem I see with keeping Enchantment as it is that it can be mistaken for being related to magic item creation.

  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ I do not think those tags were ever intended or used as representatives of D&D’s schools of magic, but rather as groupings of certain effects that many—not just D&D—think go together. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 12:50
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Since they seemed to be causing confusion—and, in part, because you were concerned that you and/or your work was being unfairly singled out—I have also started a discussion about conjuration and necromancy. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 8 '18 at 15:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .