Magic - A Discussion. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> [Role Playing] >> Role Playing General Discussion



Message

Sir Nicholas -> Magic - A Discussion. (4/9/2015 1:52:20)

Hello, once again. I am sure you are all familiar with the term Magic, that is, a supernatural force that coexists with, contradicts or (sometimes) is associated with Science. Now, as we all know, there are three branches of Science - Biology, Physics and Chemistry.

But, the question I put forth to you, my friends is - have we ever had a true discussion as to what it really is?

Certainly, there are differences for each RP, participant and setting, but there are some established limits, rules and other such things that are accepted by the majority of the gaming community.

For example, in many of my RP's and in many writers' works (including my own), it is a commonly accepted belief that true resurrection is impossible. Once someone has died and truly moved on, it is not possible to ever return them to the mortal coil. There are means to temporarily restore a spirit (or soul, if you will) to this world - but such an act has often been portrayed as immoral, cruel or even painful to the being in question.

Now, with (very few) exceptions aside, it is my belief that once someone has died - they should remain dead. Necromancy, that is, a Magical art associated with death and the study of it, has often been depicted as unnatural, horrific and indescribably wrong in its practice if not in concept. Originally meant as a term of divination (foretelling the future) it has now become associated with the creation and control of the Undead.

__________________________________

Another commonly accepted view is that Magic grants its users the ability to project "energy blasts" from their fingertips or palms. A relatively modern view, but still incredibly cool and (more often than not) practical form of attack.

I mention this because it is curious. Originally, Magic and the terms "Divination", "Soothsaying", "Witchcraft", "Scrying", "Fortune-Telling" and "Palm Reading" were interchangeable. Certainly, there were more malevolent uses for it - (IE, Curses, hexes, charms, enchantments, etc.) - but for the most part, the occult and esoteric circles were concerned with forbidden knowledge.

Also, while I'm on the subject, there are a number of characters (including many of my own) that are what we define as "Magically Inept Fighters". Simply put, these characters are (more-often-than-not) physically capable fighters that are formidable in close combat, but fall utterly short when it comes to more mystical aspects.

The reasons for this often vary, though it's commonly accepted that for balance reasons, Magic and close combat generally do not mix.

That is to say, there are exceptions to this as well. My main character is perfectly fine with using enchanted weapons, armor and protective spells, but no sorcery that is purely offensive.

Other times, a Magic-user (Commonly called Spellcasters) may practice close combat techniques, creating what we dub a "Kung Fu Wizard". Sometimes even, there is a hybrid of the two, giving rise to the "Magic Knight" - that is, a (usually) heavy armed and armored opponent capable of casting spells.
___________________________________


Last but not least, the sources of Magic are hotly debated, scrutinized and discussed often even within works themselves. My personal works have it as such that what we define as "Magic" is actually belief given tangible form. It is the use of an external source of energy to influence and alter the World itself. Anyone can perform it, but only those who are truly mentally disciplined and focused can hope to understand and control it.

Moreover, the fact that belief is given form means that the more people believe something, the greater influence it will have.

Correspondingly, Black Magic - that is, what my characters define as "Sorcery" - is the use of these powers to reshape the World in unnatural (often selfish, malevolent or petty) ways. It has an extremely corrupting, addictive influence. The more it is used, the more difficult it is to be truly free of its influence.

What makes Magic dangerous in my works is that almost anyone can be corrupted in this way. Only a select few individuals have the willpower, mental fortitude and resolutely moral, incorruptible core required to use it safely, without fear of corruption.


So my friends. You have my views, now what is yours? How do you define Mystical aspects of RP and storytelling? What limits do you have for it? The sky here is the limit - so feel free to discuss.



dethhollow -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/9/2015 10:18:56)

The way I see it, there really isn't any logical way to REALLY balance magic in a real-world setting unless you make it fairly impractical. Having a power like that able to be used whenever can be just too practical, even if we're just talking about fireballs and simple stuff. For example, say you have two guys with similar equipment. Say, one has the power to throw lightning and the other one has a generally better blade. That might not seem like it's too unbalanced, but that gives the first guy a pretty huge advantage because even if it's non-lethal, he can get them through armor, he's able to use it up close as a distraction, now ranging is an option, he could electrify the blade to make it more dangerous... especially in an RP setting, that's a pretty big advantage. As much as we want to think it's balanced, anyone can learn magic along with sword training, so with our modern use of magic, there's really no reason to NOT give it to your OC in some way, shape, or form.

As far as I know, there's only three ways to keep everything balanced. You either allow everyone to use magic or nobody to use magic so it balances out, introduce anti-magic weapons or items to make non-mages viable, or you make magic something more like a ritual that you can't use on the fly. Like for example, you can summon a column of fire, but first you have to spend several minutes standing still focusing hard on the specific spot or something before it happens, leaving you open to attacks.

At the end of the day, though, stuff that's effective is just going to be effective. If you have a guy in armor with a sword against an un-armored swordsman, you'd run into the same problem. But that doesn't mean we should not allow people to make armored characters, people just need to either step up to that level or find a way around armored foes. Same goes for magic, in my opinion. It's effective and practical, but it's not unbeatable if you take the right precautions (even though stuff like teleportation CAN be stupidly broken.)



Legendium -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/9/2015 10:53:30)

Magic has always confused me.
Like, really.

I've always liked to think of it as science, being a physics/chemistry student, but it gets difficult to explain.
Let's take the example of a character who can attract metal objects to himself, like Magneto. This can be explained with electric currents - the character must make a current in the air which produces a magnetic field.
But how on earth do you explain the occurrence of the electrical field in the first place? What can spontaneously cause electrons in the air to move? Or add electrons there in the first place?

That is what has always confused me. If we talk about aether or something, the magical substance/plane, maybe this could be explained. Maybe there's some external, second plane of existence which is parallel to our own which can influence the world around us. It would also make sense of why certain characters have more "magical affinity" than others - they have a better understanding of this second plane of beings more than the others. That would also explain why some characters only have a certain degree of magical capabilities - they only partially understand.

Well, this is just how I like to see magic. Others can say it need not make sense, but as a scientist, I like finding some way of turning it into a system of some kind.



dethhollow -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/9/2015 11:53:39)

I always see magic as the mage using their mana or some other form of life energy to amplify their will or thoughts to effect the world. For example, if someone forms a fireball, it's not just burning off of nothing, the mage is using their mana as a fuel source. Or, in the example you've listed, they would be using their mana, which I assume would be produced as a natural function like body heat or something, to influence electrons or whatever to move in a specific way in a specific location with it becoming more difficult the further away it is from the user. Rules and stuff change from universe to universe, but the general concept stays the same. Natural energy of some kind + thought = effect.



Kellehendros -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/9/2015 19:02:58)

I'm going to lay some thoughts out and elucidate my views on magic. Before I go into that, I will make a note that my views on the subject are heavily influenced by Jim Butcher's Dresden Files, one of my favorite series.

First and foremost, my conception of magic is that it is a fundamental, universal force, rather in the same vein as gravity or electromagnetism. Like these forces, magic can be understood to obey distinct natural laws and operate in a systematic and logical fashion. This means that you can't do anything with magic that would be otherwise impossible.

There is a fine distinction to be made here: Magic lets you bend the rules, it doesn't let you break them. Thus, magic allows you to take shortcuts to your desired end, but still requires significant effort. That is to say, it makes more things possible, but it cannot make the impossible possible.

I break magic into two broad spheres. The first is rational magic (I am, of course, aware of the irony inherent in the term). Rational magic is magic directed by human (elf/dwarf/etc) intelligence. This manifests itself two ways: either subconsciously or emotionally (as a spontaneous outburst or intuitive use), or consciously through an application of will and discipline on the part of the caster.

To reference D&D for the sake of clarity, a sorcerer uses magic intuitively, tapping into his power by instinct and unleashing it for his end. By contrast, a wizard uses her power by the force of will and application of hours of rigorous study. Both, however, wind up in the same place: toasting kobolds with fireballs.

Rational magic users fall, therefore, into two broad categories: savants and scholars (I'll discuss my views on the wimpy wizard in a bit). Savants don't bear much discussing, they use magic like normal people breathe. Scholars approach magic in a systematic and structure way. This can be from a religious standpoint, or philosophical one, or simply as a study of magic as an energy source and universal force.

What this means is that anyone can use magic. The ability to use magic is a learned and acquired skill, like the ability to duel with a sword, or change the oil in your car. For some, this ability comes naturally, while others require long years of study and training to attain mastery. Like any skill, the ability exists across the entire population, but is present in greater or lesser degree (Sort of like some people keep better time than others, or can sing better, or are better at math).

This goes to the idea of the mage as intellectually superior but physically weak. This conception ties tightly to the author's need to limit magic on a meta level. There has to be some sort of trade-off for the benefit of the ability to hurl fire at your enemies. Generally, it is acknowledged as physical frailty brought on by years and years of dedicated study rather than physical activity.

For me, magic exists as (in some cases) an alternative to technology. Technology and magic don't play well together (Readers of the Dresden Files will recall Harry's endless technological woes). This trade-off sits better with me than the physical limitation, and makes magic perfectly acceptable in a more modern setting. Mages will still trend towards frailty, because the mental discipline and willpower required to use magic effectively demand a lot of study and practice, but I don't see any reason a mage couldn't be as sturdy as your average person, or even be an athlete.

As for the mechanics of how magic works... That is something I don't really attempt to explain, beyond the outline above. I couldn't explain to you how electricity works, or how to fly a plane, but that doesn't cheapen or discount those things. The structure appeals to me, and I find this view to be applicable/adaptable to most RPs/game universes.

"But wait! I hear you crying, "what about the other kind of magic?" Well, yes, I rather skipped that. It will suffice to say that the other sort of magic, to my mind, is irrational magic (Please do not mistake my nomenclature for anything other than convenient reference names). Irrational magic is magic guided by non-human intelligence, like that which would be attributed to gods, demons, etc. Irrational magic is not bound by the same strictures as rational magic, and thus not really worth discussing. This is the category into which you put miracles and rule-shattering magics, the sort of thing that you use for epic villains and the like.



Sir Nicholas -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/10/2015 0:05:02)

Adding on to what Deth and Kelle have said, (Kudos to you both for such excellent posts! :) in some works, Magic has some root in genetics. That is, it's passed down through blood in a way like dominant & recessive traits. Some may have these traits, and others do not.

In these works, similar to Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's theory of Genetic Inheritance, it matters little how much you study or practice but depends on how much of what we call "The Gift" you have. In this way, only a select few individuals might possess the genetics necessary to be of exceptional magical quality. If used correctly, this goes a long way to limiting the number of people able to perform such feats. If used incorrectly, it takes away much of the "Razzle-dazzle" that comes with the territory, and it also invites the arrogant belief that those with The Gift are innately superior to those without it.

Take the Harry Potter works for example. A key point of Voldemort's evil is his belief in that "blood purity" nonsense, which leads to the discrimination, torture and murder of those seen as possessing "inferior blood".

Another thing is that this raises the question of exactly where such a gene did come from.
______________________________________

Going back just a bit, I wholeheartedly agree that Magic only allows for you to bend the rules of Science, not break them. In point of fact, my main character's more "Superhuman" attributes are actually made possible through a very specific type of Magic, the one kind he approves of: Enhancement.

In the same way that steel might be tempered with heat treatment, his muscles and bones are mystically modified to withstand and endure far greater strain. The drawback in this is that he can only perform such Superhuman feats to a limited degree, otherwise he runs the risk of "burning out" his Mana reserve. If that were to occur, his body would be affected as normal and (likely) he would be crippled.

This also means he has to replenish that reserve by eating much more than normal. In the same vein as an athlete, using up his Mana reserve is like how the body consumes carbs for energy.
_____________________________________

As I've said, there always have to be established limits as to what can be accomplished, to which Kelle appropriately put as rational and irrational Magic.

In the case of the latter, I make a point to specifically avoid use of whenever possible. I mean, rule-shattering stuff, real miracles as we define them are the bane of any real conflict which might make the story interesting. In essence, a blatant Deus Ex Machina.

That is precisely why in every one of my works, I have created a specific set of guidelines regarding the use of Magic.


*It is completely impossible to bring back the dead once they've passed on. No if's, and's, or but's about it.

*It is impossible to create something out of nothing.

*For every spell/enchantment/charm/whatever you want to call it, there is always a counter force that will negate it and its effects. Like Newton's Third Law explains, for every force - there is an equal, opposite force that will cancel it out. Hence, "Anti-Magic".

*Magic always comes with a drawback or price of some kind. There are some that are far greater than others, and sometimes the effect will not be entirely as desired.

*When harnessing it, there comes a certain temptation to abuse your power. It's my belief that Magic is not necessarily corrupting, but is in the same way that a Martial Artist might be tempted to use their skills to intimidate, coerce, bully or even cause harm to others. Hence, it has to be regulated, controlled and kept tightly under wraps, lest the weak-willed give in to it.

*When using Divination/Prophecy/Fortune-Telling, it is key to be as cryptic as possible, and never give what the reader expects. Prophecies may or may not always be right, but it's helpful to have them have a twist or maybe even be subverted in some way, like a loophole.



Legendium -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/10/2015 12:14:19)

quote:

As for the mechanics of how magic works... That is something I don't really attempt to explain, beyond the outline above. I couldn't explain to you how electricity works, or how to fly a plane, but that doesn't cheapen or discount those things. The structure appeals to me, and I find this view to be applicable/adaptable to most RPs/game universes.


See, this is what always annoys me about scientific explanations of magic. Nobody really knows how it works, and many people who don't understand science try to explain it with science.
Let me illustrate why these explanations do not suffice, using the classic example of a fireball.

quote:

First and foremost, my conception of magic is that it is a fundamental, universal force, rather in the same vein as gravity or electromagnetism.


This is an okay assumption. I agree that we should see magic as a force. However, it doesn't explain the occurrence of fireball spells.
Fire is what happens when there is an exothermic reaction between an element and oxygen (Generally oxygen. It can be something else that creates an exothermic reaction, (Releasing energy) but in this case I will assume it is oxygen as that is readily available substance found in the air.). So for a fireball to happen, some form of flammable gas must be present. And there are no gases in the air which will react with oxygen, so the gas must come from elsewhere. Where does it come from? Nicholas just pointed out that a fundamental law of magic is that you cannot make something from nothing. So where did this gas come from? The only explanation I can think of is that the wizard must be some creature which is not human and can create a flammable gas at their fingertips which then somehow ignites and is projected forward. This cannot be the case because humans don't produce gas at their fingertips. We do produce a flammable gas at the rear of our bodies - but that gas burns blue and there's no way it would end up at the hands, which is the common conception of a fireball (Fireballs tend to burn orange, not blue, and mages shoot them out of their hands, not behinds.)
There's also the problem of how the gas would combust. I'm no expert on combustion, but it requires a quick addition of a lot of heat. There's nothing in the traditional spellcasting gesture which shows how enough heat to create a flame would be produced. They don't snap their fingers (Which wouldn't be enough friction to create enough heat in any case) and they don't channel their body heat (Because body heat just isn't hot enough. To make it hot enough, you'd have to concentrate it all somewhere, which would mean the mage would die of cold in the rest of his body, were it even possible to change where the heat in your body goes.) so there's no way enough heat can be produced.
Then there's the matter of making it move. You ever tried pushing a gas? Not much will happen. If the wizard were somehow able to ignite the gas, he would need to move it, and pushing it with his hand will probably just catch it on fire, let alone move it. The best way would be to put it in a tunnel or some kind and let make it come out in one direction, or to have a huge fan blow it towards your enemy. Humans have neither of these capabilities.
And how do these fireballs explode? There's nothing that flammable on a human body or armor, unless you're fighting the Oily Tar Knight or something. There is no logical explanation for this.
And how does one control it with their mind? Okay, maybe this is easier to explain as current technology is getting there, but how can a wizard raise his hand and shoot a fireball from it with only his mind without some apparatus connecting it to his brain? I'm no neurobiologist, so I can't really say much here, but I think you would need to change human biology for this to work, which generally doesn't happen in fantasy, because "Anyone can do magic." It's a nice idea, but if we're talking about fireballs, you either do or you don't have gas producing finger with a tunnel/fan attached to it.

And what's the biggest problem with all of this? There's no way that a phenomena similar to electromagnetism or gravity can create a flame. Your definition of magic as a phenomena (Emphasis on that. Gravity isn't a force. Weight is the force, gravity is the phenomena.) cannot explain the occurrence of fireballs. You may argue that electricity can cause heat to be produced, but let me tell you something - electrons don't cause heat in a wire. Electrons in a wire heat the wire up due to internal resistance. The electrons move through the wire, but they do occasionally bump into the positive nuclei of the atoms in the wire. This causes friction, which causes the loss of energy in the form of heat energy. So no, your phenomena explanation does not explain fireballs.

I will also admit that I am only a high-school Physics/Chem student and I do not have a full knowledge of these areas. But I know enough to show you that it isn't a physical phenomena - or if it is, that it isn't responsible for one of the most common magic spells.

To another one of your points:
quote:

What this means is that anyone can use magic. The ability to use magic is a learned and acquired skill, like the ability to duel with a sword, or change the oil in your car. For some, this ability comes naturally, while others require long years of study and training to attain mastery. Like any skill, the ability exists across the entire population, but is present in greater or lesser degree (Sort of like some people keep better time than others, or can sing better, or are better at math).


This is more of a technicality, but not everyone can sing. People who have permanently lost their voice (Take Stephen Hawking for example) will never be able to sing. Some people will never be able to fight with a sword because they were born with a deformity which caused them to have tiny little fingers at the shoulder rather than arms. Some people are born with mental issues, some people are born blind, the list goes on and on. Does that mean some people will be born with magical impairments completely hindering them from ever performing magical acts?

quote:

For me, magic exists as (in some cases) an alternative to technology. Technology and magic don't play well together (Readers of the Dresden Files will recall Harry's endless technological woes).


What's the explanation for this? I get that it balances things nicely in modern settings from a gameplay/story outlook, but from a scientific standpoint, I don't see the reasoning. Sure, there are some physical phenomena which interfere with technology (None that I can think of off the top of my head tho') but there are probably ways of working around that. And whoever it was who specialized in magic and technology in the history of the setting in which this magic exists probably saw magic develop alongside technology. They must have thought of ways to get around things and created technology which could cope with the presence of magic.

I hate to be the kind of guy who (Hopefully objectively and not in a harmful way) criticizes everything, but when it comes to the scientific, my school has trained me to be this rigorous. I'll move on to the other posts.

quote:

I always see magic as the mage using their mana or some other form of life energy to amplify their will or thoughts to effect the world. For example, if someone forms a fireball, it's not just burning off of nothing, the mage is using their mana as a fuel source. Or, in the example you've listed, they would be using their mana, which I assume would be produced as a natural function like body heat or something, to influence electrons or whatever to move in a specific way in a specific location with it becoming more difficult the further away it is from the user. Rules and stuff change from universe to universe, but the general concept stays the same. Natural energy of some kind + thought = effect.


But what is mana then? If the fireball is burning off of mana, it seems to be some form of flammable gas. Then I fail to see how anyone can control it. Thoughts (As far as I understand) are just sequences of electrical pulses (Again, I'm no neurobiologist and know almost nothing about the brain). And if mana is a flammable material, how on earth can it be used to create an electrical current in a non-conductor like air?


Moving on to Nicholas' Post.

quote:

This also means he has to replenish that reserve by eating much more than normal. In the same vein as an athlete, using up his Mana reserve is like how the body consumes carbs for energy.


Ooh! Something tangible! Mana must come from the same elements in food. Which means lots of carbon. And can explain how it can be a flammable gas... And I have no idea how bones and muscles strengthen because I don't take bio, so I can't tell you if that makes sense or not.

quote:

*It is completely impossible to bring back the dead once they've passed on. No if's, and's, or but's about it.

Oh, but there could be an if depending on what the definition of dead is. I'm not sure how heart attacks work, but I'm fairly certain that the heart stops beating. Which is most of our definition of "dead." Hmm... That's a good question. What qualifies as dead? At any rate, if we define death as the heart no longer beating, I'm afraid you can bring people back from the dead with a defibrillator. Not in every case (If their heart is torn apart, it's torn apart and nothing will change that) but still, enough to disprove it. Sort of.

quote:

*It is impossible to create something out of nothing.

Yeah, I can agree with that.

quote:

*For every spell/enchantment/charm/whatever you want to call it, there is always a counter force that will negate it and its effects. Like Newton's Third Law explains, for every force - there is an equal, opposite force that will cancel it out. Hence, "Anti-Magic".


I think you've misunderstood the third law. "For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction." There's no mention of anything cancelling anything out. It just means that if a tire exerts a force on a road, the road exerts a force on the tire. I'll let a Physics tutorial site explain it better:

"Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim."

See? There's no cancelling of forces. That would happen if there were equal and opposite forces acting on the same system. But it's happening on two different systems, the fish and the water in this case. Besides, cancelling of forces would make magic useless because nothing would happen. Maybe I misunderstood your point, but using the Third Law of Motion is hardly a good way to prove this point.

quote:

*Magic always comes with a drawback or price of some kind. There are some that are far greater than others, and sometimes the effect will not be entirely as desired.

I can understand this. Sort of. Like with energy. By lighting a lamp, you lose some light energy in the form of heat energy. It sort of works.

quote:

*When harnessing it, there comes a certain temptation to abuse your power. It's my belief that Magic is not necessarily corrupting, but is in the same way that a Martial Artist might be tempted to use their skills to intimidate, coerce, bully or even cause harm to others. Hence, it has to be regulated, controlled and kept tightly under wraps, lest the weak-willed give in to it.

I agree with you on human nature. People are corrupt. I don't see why magic is more corrupting than anything else, but okay.

quote:

*When using Divination/Prophecy/Fortune-Telling, it is key to be as cryptic as possible, and never give what the reader expects. Prophecies may or may not always be right, but it's helpful to have them have a twist or maybe even be subverted in some way, like a loophole.


Um, why? Like, really why? I get it from a writer's perspective, but if you consider the people in the world you've created should act like real people, it would make much more sense to be clear. Like I said, I get it from a writer's view, and even in the story, you could have a large group of diviners follow the "vagueness" set of rules, but certainly there will be freelancers who like to be direct?

Anyways, I've spent enough time on this. Sorry for only pointing out flaws and not offering any solutions, but it's just who I am. Personally, I say leave magic unexplained because it never will make sense scientifically. But that's just my opinion. Keep trying if you want.



dethhollow -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/10/2015 12:34:14)

quote:

*It is completely impossible to bring back the dead once they've passed on. No if's, and's, or but's about it.

*It is impossible to create something out of nothing.

*For every spell/enchantment/charm/whatever you want to call it, there is always a counter force that will negate it and its effects. Like Newton's Third Law explains, for every force - there is an equal, opposite force that will cancel it out. Hence, "Anti-Magic".

*Magic always comes with a drawback or price of some kind. There are some that are far greater than others, and sometimes the effect will not be entirely as desired.


This sounds surprisingly a lot like FMA, but without putting it in as catchy of a way as just saying "Equivalent Exchange" or whatever, lol. Anyways, I wouldn't say it's impossible to bring back the dead with magic given the right circumstances, enough time, and a good enough mage who doesn't have a problem breaking a few moral boundaries if they have to. In real life, people can be brought back after their heart stops and they're technically dead if you can get to them in time and the circumstances are good enough for their body to continue to function. With magic, stuff like necromancy allows a mage to capture a person's soul. Enchantment could allow them to essentially bind it back to the original body. Healing/regeneration can repair any major damage and make the body capable of working again. And, if life force or mana or whatever is required, somebody else can be captured and have their life/mana transferred into the dead person like how someone could transfer blood. It wouldn't be an easy accomplishment by any means, but magic does allow the possibility of reviving someone.

Also, I feel like mentioning that I really don't care for the whole "magic can be stronger/weaker depending on your genes" thing to a fault. In some special cases, like comparing a dwarf to an elf, of course the elf is going to have a better capacity for magic than the dwarf. It's just the way things are. But, most of the time, I prefer to think more along the lines of whoever practices or focuses on magic more is the person who has more control over it. Like for example, some people are stronger and taller than others naturally, but regardless of genes if one guy is eating McDonnalds every day and another guy is going to the gym frequently, it makes sense that the guy who works out would be stronger. So if you're comparing magic, the person who practices control and mana use more will almost always have better control and more efficient use of their spells. I feel like, generally speaking, that's a pretty fair thing to look at instead of who's born from what clan or whatever.

In fact, I made a character for an RP here a while back that kind-of goes by that. The character is basically a half-dragon who's obsessed with his powerful dragon father and stuff, so, normally, you might expect him to just rely on OP dragon magic and stuff. But because he never learned proper magic, he ended up being more of a physical rogue type of thing that just eventually figured out how to use fire to enhance his attacks sometimes, even though it wasn't a super reliable method of attacking. And then instead of his heritage being this OP Mary Sue thing like how most people would handle it, it was made out to be more of a burden than anything else. He had kind-of awkward proportions because of his mixed race, he was easy to spot in a crowd, had a tail that was easy to grab but couldn't really do anything with it, because he was brought up in the environment he was he grew a self-centered attitude where he was quick to tell people how special and valuable he was, so it wouldn't be hard for people to think to kidnap him.... Stuff like that. He had a tough hide and could smell the air like a snake, but that was really the end of his advantages given by his genetics. When all was said and done, he would have been better off if he was just a normal guy who trained as a thief instead of an obvious half-dragon self-entitled person who wasn't satisfied unless he was the center of attention.



Legendium -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/10/2015 15:59:03)

quote:

In real life, people can be brought back after their heart stops and they're technically dead if you can get to them in time and the circumstances are good enough for their body to continue to function.


I just said that. But then again, no one really wants to read a huge post like the one I just made.



dethhollow -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/10/2015 16:29:00)

No, I just happened to be working on my post when you made yours so I had no way of knowing what you were going to say. Speaking of, I should probably take a moment to respond to that now.

quote:

But what is mana then? If the fireball is burning off of mana, it seems to be some form of flammable gas. Then I fail to see how anyone can control it. Thoughts (As far as I understand) are just sequences of electrical pulses (Again, I'm no neurobiologist and know almost nothing about the brain). And if mana is a flammable material, how on earth can it be used to create an electrical current in a non-conductor like air?


As I mentioned, what mana exactly is differs from universe to universe.
quote:

Rules and stuff change from universe to universe, but the general concept stays the same.
Just wanted to throw that quote in there to show that I actually did say that. Anyways, sometimes mana is just a general Force that can just generally move objects, sometimes it's a sentient being that people can just harness. It can be an extension of the soul, something completely unexplained by science, or even just a natural energy people can control with specific machines with pre-programmed paths and effects. At times it's pretty reasonable, like you can't manipulate fire without an existing source of fire. And, in other settings, mana is basically a personification of willpower and fighting spirit capable of throwing around galaxies and ripping apart the fabric of space-time itself, literally doing the impossible. And then in other settings, it's something so specific that you can't even access it without a magic circle, wooden staff from a magic tree, and the stereotypical black cat and cauldron to do stuff. It can keep you from lifting a sword or hammer, or just be used to transport weapons. If you look at 100 different series and ask "what is mana/magic and how does it work" you'll end up getting 100 different answers. Some series don't even have magic as something obtainable by humans unless they have a special object or are part demon or something.

There really is just no absolute consistency for it. But, traditionally, mana, chi, life force, chakra, aura, mental energy, and stuff like that are the same general thing. It's an invisible force, usually linked to life or the user's soul in some way, with the ability to take specific forms or effect the world around the user through an unseen connection to their mind. Usually going off of the speed of thought or physical or verbal commands of some sort. Asking how it works beyond that is usually like asking how a ghost could move something. There's not really any way to explain it other than it just happens and a set level of suspension of disbelief goes into that because, otherwise, your story simply can't work. A ghost story without a ghost is just listening to a tale about a family that lived a normal life and a mage without magic is just a guy in robes who can't defend himself. I really wish there was more to it than that, but it's just what magic is. It's a thing that doesn't exist in the real world that works because it has to. Like how a dragon can breathe fire even though no known animals are remotely able to do something like that. At the end of the day, it is what it is, magic.



Kellehendros -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/10/2015 20:41:11)

quote:

See, this is what always annoys me about scientific explanations of magic. Nobody really knows how it works, and many people who don't understand science try to explain it with science.


Without wishing to be rude, I will simply reply that nobody knew how a lot of things worked until someone sat down and explained them. I do not claim to be a scientist of any sort, I am simply giving my views on the matter. Also, a lot of people try to use science to explain real life things they don't understand, which is just as aggravating.

I will, however, apologize that I made my original post in haste. I really should have made more full explanations on several points.

Since you've brought up the fireball, we'll use that for the sake of consistency. To refer to my earlier post, I conceive of magic as a shortcut or alternative path to an end. For example, you can light a fire by rubbing two sticks together to the point where you create enough heat that the wood combusts. The mage thus uses magic to concentrate the heat energy of the surrounding area to a point where the object in question ignites. Oxygen does burn, and rather vigorously (though I grant you pure oxygen will kill a fire). Thus a fireball could be understood to be a ball of burning oxygen maintained by the will of the caster. The "spark" to ignite the fire, as noted, is the concentration of heat energy from the surrounding area. Depending on the size of the conflagration you want to create, you would have an equal drop in the surrounding ambient temperature as the fire is kindled.

The main thing I want to stress here is that magic lets you start the fire, but the fire isn't magic. Once you start the fire it acts in the way a normal fire would. Because of this, I'm not big on fireballs. I prefer cones or blasts, rather along the lines of a flamethrower. In that case, the mage is evoking both wind and fire, igniting the flame, fanning it, and directing it at a target.

quote:

... Does that mean some people will be born with magical impairments completely hindering them from ever performing magical acts?


Yes, actually, it does. My post refers to "normal" people. Before anyone gets up in arms about that, by normal I mean a person capable of independent thought and motion in possession of a fully-functioning body. If the body or mind is damaged the ability to use magic would be impaired in much the same way any other skill or ability would be.

Insofar as magic interfering with or being at odds with technology. This is a largely setting specific question. Perhaps it is some sort of electromagnetic interference from a mage's "aura" (a commonly used field of magical energy that hangs around a mage, or is even produced by her). The energy around the caster interferes with the electronics of common household objects like TVs, radios, or computers. Frankly, this comes down to author preference. I like the idea, so I've adopted it.

quote:

I get it from a writer's perspective, but if you consider the people in the world you've created should act like real people, it would make much more sense to be clear.


My two cents on the issue of divination and foretelling (again, borrowing from Dresden Files): The reason that forecasts of the future are vague is because telling the future changes the future (The butterfly effect of Chaos Theory, if you will.).

For the sake of argument, let's say I can see the future. I look into the future, and I see that your car is going to be stolen. Now, I would really prefer you don't lose your car. So what do I do? I could tell you that your car will be stolen at five o'clock next Tuesday. Well, since you'd really like to keep your car, you're there with it at the appointed hour. Only, it turns out the thief has a gun. Now you're dead, and the murderer is getting away in your car. Okay, so I can't tell you that clearly.

What if I tell you your car is going to get stolen? Okay, so you take extra precautions to make sure your car is locked and in a place where someone can keep an eye on it. Now the car never gets stolen. But if the car never gets stolen, how could I have known to tell you to be on the lookout? Seems like telling you this specifically doesn't work either.

The reason that foretelling is vague is not because fortunetellers can't get a point across, but rather because there are so many possibilities. Seers can be vague for two reasons: either they can't get more than an impression of the way things are going to happen, or they can see the future clearly, and their warnings/prophecies are designed to guide events as lightly as possible down a path that is desirous to them. Pushing too hard would invoke a Butterfly Effect backlash of unintended consequences.

quote:

I'm no neurobiologist, so I can't really say much here, but I think you would need to change human biology for this to work, which generally doesn't happen in fantasy, because "Anyone can do magic."


quote:

And what's the biggest problem with all of this? There's no way that a phenomena similar to electromagnetism or gravity can create a flame.


quote:

Sorry for only pointing out flaws and not offering any solutions, but it's just who I am.


quote:

Personally, I say leave magic unexplained because it never will make sense scientifically.


The only thing I'm going to say about these is that you're never going to be satisfied by any explanation that we can offer you. None of us are scientists, and what you're asking for, near as I can tell, is an exhaustive explanation of what magic is and how it works. The problem is that at some point you hit a wall where magic is magic, no matter how reductive your arguments and explanations get. You won't find an equation that explains magic the way the various equations explain gravity because there is nothing like that. (As an aside, science doesn't always do a great job of explaining things either.)

Regardless of what word you use to define magic (force, energy, phenomena, etc), your argument boils down to the fact that you believe magic can't be dealt with in a scientific way because science as you know it says there is no such thing as magic. That's fine. I may have a different opinion, but both are equally valid when dealing with something that (so far as we can tell) does not exist.


Um, why? Like, really why? I get it from a writer's perspective, but if you consider the people in the world you've created should act like real people, it would make much more sense to be clear. Like I said, I get it from a writer's view, and even in the story, you could have a large group of diviners follow the "vagueness" set of rules, but certainly there will be freelancers who like to be direct?



Legendium -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/11/2015 3:33:13)

First I'd like to apologize if I came across as rude. I generally do not try to, but, well, it happens. Really, I am sorry. But, moving on, this is basically the only point I'd like to make:

quote:

The problem is that at some point you hit a wall where magic is magic,


This is the point I was trying to make all along. Magic is just going to be magic no matter how much you try to explain it, so why bother? Yes, it's nice to have it seem like a rational system in order to make limits to it seem rational, but at the end of the day, magic is irrational, so why bother making the limits rational?

That's the only argument I wish to make, but there are a few things I'd also like to clear up:

quote:

Oxygen does burn, and rather vigorously (though I grant you pure oxygen will kill a fire)


No it doesn't. Burning is the result of a fuel being oxidized. That means something is there -> it reacts with oxygen exothermically -> you see flames. Oxygen cannot burn on it's own, and it doesn't react exothermically with any other elements in air, so you cannot make oxygen burn off of itself.
But yes, adding oxygen to a fire increases the intensity. And no, pure oxygen will not kill a fire. Because oxygen is what reacts in a fire. If you do an electrolysis experiment on water, you will produce oxygen and hydrogen at the separate electrical terminals. Put tubes over these to catch the gases. Put a flame over the one where oxygen is produced. It won't kill the flame - it'll make it burn brighter.

Not that this has anything to do with anything, really.

quote:

None of us are scientists,

Well, that's the career path I'm going to take. I said I'm no biologist - that doesn't mean I'm no scientist. I'm going to go into chemistry or engineering, not medicine, that's all.

quote:

(As an aside, science doesn't always do a great job of explaining things either.)

That's true. But we're constantly improving our knowledge, and one day we may yet have a clear understanding of our universe and everything in it. The sun will probably die before then, but hey, we can still try.

And I know this contradicts what I just said about "Since magic doesn't make sense and we will never understand it, why bother?" but before you get on my case, it's the difference between what really matters for the world in the end. Fiction is fiction. Don't try to make sense of it, just enjoy it as it is and don't ask too many questions or you'll ruin the effect (Like I did). But that's just my opinion. If you want to make sense of it, go ahead. I just don't (Unless demonstrating how it completely unravels if you inquire too much) do that because it ruins the effect of playing a fantasy game or reading a book, for me personally.

And for the record, your argument on the future seeing thing now has me completely convinced. Well argued.

quote:

Also, a lot of people try to use science to explain real life things they don't understand, which is just as aggravating.

Now that's something I can certainly agree with.



Sir Nicholas -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/11/2015 21:38:47)

While I'm very glad that this discussion has been kept civil, you misunderstand what I mean when I say someone cannot be brought back when they have died. I'm not talking about when they are in cardiac arrest and have a few minutes before it's too late to resuscitate them. (Referred to as "Only Mostly Dead" in Trope Terms)

I'm talking about after that.

What I mean is, you see all the time in comic books that characters can be brought back with ease.

https://vdocuments.mx//perturabo-hammer-of-olympia-2019-10-17-tallarn-executioner-john-french-tallarn?page=95

What I mean when I say that someone can't come back is, when they've died and all heart & brain activity has ceased, there is no coming back. In my works, it is neither scientifically, nor magically possible to resurrect someone that's really, truly dead. It is possible to prolong someone's life, or to stop them from dying in the first place, but it's absolutely final once they've passed on.


As I mentioned before, through Necromancy, it's possible to temporarily bring their soul back from the afterlife - but that's not resurrection. It's just temporarily returning them (as what we define as) a ghost - a spirit. An intangible being that cannot affect the physical world.



dethhollow -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/11/2015 22:03:15)

No, I mean that, theoretically, there's no reason you couldn't revive someone if you could undo all the damage. If you can get their soul, repair all damage done to the body, bond the soul and body back together, and then re-start their heart and whatever else, then there's no reason they wouldn't be revived. It wouldn't be easy, but if you can undo the damage and put everything back where it needs to be then there's really no reason why it couldn't be done other than the writer simply not wanting it to happen for plot purposes. Which is an entirely different thing than it being impossible in the world all-together.



Sir Nicholas -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/12/2015 13:17:13)

The reason I'm so against it is because the very thought is horrific. How anyone can even consider dragging a person back from the afterlife is beyond me. In my view, death is not an end but a graduation to something greater than we can imagine. To take someone away from that is just wrong. Moreover, it messes with the natural order.

Birth -> Life -> Death. That is the way of it, and to disrupt that order is (in my works and in my mind) a foul act.
________________________________

Moving on, why I'm so careful with divination and fortune telling is because it ruins the plot. If the reader knows what's going to happen before it does, what's the point? You can't be too obvious with it, otherwise they'll figure it out and that will ruin the surprise.

I'm a great fan of prophecy twists for that very reason, especially when that twist is self-fulfilled.



dethhollow -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/12/2015 14:34:06)

Well, yeah, Nich, it really is just a dark thing to do. But not everyone really has the same level of morality when it comes to death and there might even be cases where the characters might not have a choice but to try and bring back _____. I forget where, but somewhere on these forums in the past there was a big discussion about how moral necromancy and reviving people actually was because on one hand, you're giving them new life, they could tell people stuff that could help them beat a foe or figure something out, and stuff like that as well as actually being able to fight. But on the other hand, their time had come and you're kind-of playing god at that point and you really don't know how that will effect them when they finally do move on.

But morality aside, I could see using magic to revive a character as being a good tool to move a plot forward. For example, the leader of a group of villains dies and the rest of them escape and start looking for a healer to bring their boss back. Now, the heroes wouldn't just have to find them for normal reasons, there's also a big ticking clock element where they're limited in how long they can take and specific clues for what the villains want and where they could probably find them. And now they have an excuse to stop the entire group because it's clear that even if they stop their plans, the villains can just revive their leader and keep going.
Then, on the other end of the spectrum, there's the stuff that would come from someone in the hero's group dying and reviving the dead being a possibility in that world. There's a lot that can be done with that, too, especially with the group dynamic to work off of. Say, one guy wants to bring them back and it's not a popular idea, how far will he go to do that? How does this effect how the rest of them view him as a person? If the villains are capable of reviving ____, that's a very strong temptation because they can rationalize the switch as their friends don't care and won't save them but these people will. And that's something an audience could actually get behind because they, too, might have liked that character and could want to see them come back even if it's through immoral means like this. Especially if you have strong, well-written, characters the stories that can come from something like this just write themselves and naturally have very real stakes for how they effect everyone in the grand scheme of things.

But that's just my two cents as someone who would be willing to go to that plot and follow it through to it's logical conclusion in an attempt to further justify killing _____ off in the first place.



Sir Nicholas -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/12/2015 18:25:27)

We should never put morality aside! Never!

(Turns off his dramatis persona)

I've only used the revival technique to show how unnatural and immoral it is. In the case of Villains, it only serves to enhance their evilness.

Besides, you should never kill a character unless you are certain their death will move the plot along, or if you have too many and need to get rid of a few, or you need to show how serious the situation has become by showing anyone can die.

______________________________________

Well, when we're dealing with something as powerful as Magic, the lines between reality and fiction become even more blurred than usual. However, as we've established that no one is all-powerful, and neither should such a force as this. That's why I wholeheartedly believe that the mystical method only allows you to bend the rules of nature - not break them.



dethhollow -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/12/2015 19:52:15)

Again, whether or not you believe something should be done, not everyone shares the same morals and sometimes situations need people to do things that they wouldn't normally want to do out of necessity. Say the kind of someplace was killed by the next person in line to the throne and he ends up being the type of person who's going to, for example, break a treaty and start a massive war for more power. You know what happened and what's going to happen, but the people are on his side and simply not listening to reason. Because of this if you kill the new leader, it's going to cause a lot of problems, there will be a power struggle on top of the coming war, people would riot in the streets, stuff like that. The only way to save thousands of lives and stop the conflict peacefully is to revive the old king, let him explain to people what happened, and then have him re-take the throne and keep the treaties in effect. You're still messing with life and death, but it's the only moral way to really resolve the situation short of hoping this guy is SO stupid he somehow reveals himself like a complete idiot and then just assuming the destabilized kingdom won't tear itself apart and lead to a power vacuum which will cost a lot of people their lives.

Also, I get your point about not wanting to kill off characters for no reason and I pretty much agree with it, if you do something like that there has to be some purpose because whenever a character is killed off that's one less person you can do stuff with later. I feel like a good example of this is like in One Piece where they don't kill off ____ and then they come back hundreds of episodes later with a new purpose to them and stuff. But if you are going to kill off a character and make it a big deal, the possibility of reviving them, in itself, is a chance for character development and a potential plot that's relevant to the main group. It should never be a casual thing that any one person just does, but there's no reason for it to not be possible and opens up a lot of possibilities.



Starstruck -> RE: Magic - A Discussion. (4/30/2015 10:55:45)

As for me, my views of magic is that it is created by human imagination and is the direct influence of imagination and creativity on reality. Establishing it as a skill vastly expands the scope and intensity of magic by allowing individuals to have individual strengths and weaknesses. Everyone has their own unique view on magic which shapes the way it develops and the way it is used. Even two people who have the same view of magic could still be incredibly different on how the magic works just based on tiny differences in their personalities - as with any other skill, mind you.

I do, however, fundamentally disagree with the idea that mages sacrifice physical skill or durability in order to be better spellcasters. While that could be said of some kind of arch-mage who devotes her entire life to the study of magic and doesn't care for anything else, it cannot be said for your average mage, especially for an adventurer-mage. Most people have a wide skillset - for instance, despite being a fairly good writer, I spend a lot of time studying programming, working out, hiking, talking with friends, hunting, and drawing. While there are many common threads that pull me together into one single unified concept (I'm just social, smart, and adventurous), a character based on me would probably be rejected.

I simply find it silly that no mages ever could possibly be bothered to train with any kind of weapon or in unarmed combat. I suppose the power of magic as a self-defense tool WOULD add an incentive not to, but still! I had a boxer mage I wanted to play for Rise of Domrius (stupid university getting in the way of my fun punching times D:), and I had absolutely no problem considering him able to develop magic and learn martial arts at the same time.

So essentially, to recap, I think magic is the influence of imagination and should be treated as such. I take most of my inspiration for magic from things like drawing, dancing, writing, music, etc. because of this. The most interesting consequence of thinking about magic in this way is that if you look at drawing, it takes a really long time for someone to be good at copying real life down on paper. Most people, if pressured, could probably produce goofy MS paint drawings or maybe a T-Rex, but those who take some time to improve their drawings can produce some amazing work, even if it's just a hobby for them.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.171875