Felarya
Felarya forum |
| | |
| Author | Message |
|---|
gwadahunter2222
Hero
Age : 24
Joined : 08 Dec 2007
Posts : 1074
 |  Subject: Re: On magic  Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:46 pm | |
| | Quote: | | Priests in Warcraft (non-night elves, anyways) don't draw power from their followers, they draw power from the Holy Light. Which is more or less a connection between themselves and the Universe, which makes it Living magic and not Theurgy. Night elf priests do worship the goddess Elune, though. Guess who used to spend way too much time playing WoW? Wink |
It has been proved is not completely true with Paladin Blood Elf with the help of the archmage they take the power from a naaru (a holy creature) contrary to the classical paladin who serves the light. This fact shows the holy light is nothing more like the arcane.
The priest can pretend his power comes from his god is not completely true the rule of the spell is written by the god. If the spell fails it doesn't always evolve the god. The god gives some rule the priest can use.
In reality Theurgy is copyrighted ruled-base magic,in clear you can not say it's your power because but in clase you do not respect the contract I remove your power. But it's the case for any ruled based mage why because the great authority of magic can seal the power as the god dead.
| Quote: | I disagree, but it is mostly an issue of wording. A shaman is not drawing anything from a law, unless it is the act of following the law itself that grants the power, and not active intervention by the spirits.
Spirit A says, "You humans are pretty cool. Here's a blessing, from now on anybody who flaps their arms like a bird can fly. Oh, but if you sneeze, you fall. Catch you all later."
Spirit B says, "I think I'll give you guys a chance. As long as you keep me happy, you can fly. You make me angry, you better have brought a parachute."
|
In that case the spirit "A" can come to save the shaman from B why it's not spirit "B" who allow the shamans to fly not B
Sorry guy it's not like shamanism because Omnyodou and the voodoo are a form of shamanism. The shamanism is a teaching from a spiritual spirits. He learned to use magic in a different ways.
| Quote: |
In the first case, the power is in the law itself; something happens when people do a certain thing, and if they break the rule it enforces itself. Sure, a spirit is responsible for it, but that's the extent to which it is involved; it isn't actively watching for people to sneeze, since that's a condition for the "law".
In the second case, the decisive factor is the spirit itself. It is actively using its power on the shaman's behalf, which means that it's directly involved. "Keep me happy or else" isn't a law so much as a very "strongly worded suggestion". If the shaman goes against it, there isn't going to be an automated set of checks and balances kicking in. It will be the spirit personally taking action and making him wish he had kept up his end of the bargain. |
In that case we are in the wild magic system 
| Quote: | See, I am talking strictly in regards to magic as portrayed in works of fiction. As a writer, those are mainly the portrayals I am concerned about, aside from the influences of real world elements (culture, mythology, religious beliefs) involved. In terms of fiction, nearly all magic you encounter will fall into those categories I laid out (which I did not invent myself, I should add. I am just trying to explain them as best I can), simply because they play off of tropes long-established by writers.
It becomes very obvious when you take a detailed look at pretty much any fantasy novel, anime, comic book, or movie; unless a writer goes out of his or her way to avoid it, there are some elements which will almost always be present in a work of fiction. If you have a hero or a group of heroes, they will almost always make a journey and have adventures along the way to their main goal. It doesn't matter if it's the Epic of Gilgamesh, or Harry Potter, there's some themes that frequently reoccur in fiction (including cultural myths, for that matter).
|
Sorry but when a writer create a magic system, it comes from the myth,or many form of paganism or shamanism. Copy an existing systems without knowing where the authors find their idea it's not
The three categories as Ruled-base magic, Theurgy and ley are reality the same system. You like the ruled because the mage looks like more a scientist etc... But the Theurgy to contact a divinity you need to know how to contact so you follow rule, and to comme to the ley system in reality it's the most advanced why because the goal to a mage when he learns magic
In reality your charactegorization of magic is a description of shamanism, and the magic in general.
1)The fact the magic is living, in the shamanism the world is living
2)The rule-base, to use the force of nature you need to follow the rule
3)Innate magic, the shaman is born with an affinity to the spirit, and the spirit are magical creature
4)alchemy, the shaman knows different potion and poison from the different plants and beast to cure his people medecine man, withc doctor
5)artefact, the shaman can create.
6)Theurgy, a shaman can call spirits to help him
7)Ley, when the shaman enter in Transe or when he dies he become a spirits
There is no real difference between the systems, as there are not non-functionnal, semi-functionnal and functionnal magic, in reality it's how magic appears in book and the point of view of the writer. If the writer doesn't know what is really magic it will look non-functionnal, if he tries to explain it will become semi-functionnal but if the writers try to describe a complete system to explain how it's magic work it will become functionnal.
In reality there is no real difference except to The wild and The ruled based. The others are sub-category from the ruled. In the previous example you did, the ruled-mage open a portal to Erebus to send another mage but he can open a portal to allow a Succubus to come in his world etc...
Edit: We will stop here, my point is kust no matter the system of magic you use you can easily pas from a category to another in clear there is no system who is better than another. It will depend on the experience of the magic users and the point of view of the writer.
And I will add there is no real difference between the category except wild and ruled because all forms of magic used by someone follow rules.
_________________
I can call the snows, and wind, and lightning. The trees may bend to me when I ask. The rivers may flow where I ask them to.
But I am granted these things because I ask , with respect in my heart, and I am willing to offer something in return. I request only the barest needs for myself and my people. |
|   | | TheQuantumMechanic
Temple scourge
Age : 30
Joined : 25 Jun 2008
Posts : 646
Location : Fresno, California, USA
| | Subject: Re: On magic Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:40 pm | |
| | gwadahunter2222 wrote: | | It has been proved is not completely true with Paladin Blood Elf with the help of the archmage they take the power from a naaru (a holy creature) contrary to the classical paladin who serves the light. This fact shows the holy light is nothing more like the arcane. |
Actually, that example doesn't prove anything in regards to Priests (the sentence you quoted), since it's based on flawed reasoning. Priests do not equal Paladins, and Paladins do not equal Priests under the Warcraft framework. This is not the case in other fictional frameworks, and there are very well situations in which a "Paladin" is nothing more than a militant Priest. Warcraft is not one of them. This is not my opinion, it's a fact stated by Blizzard themselves. Priests and Paladins do both derive their power from a connection to "The Light", but the way in which they connect to it is totally different, and so are the powers they get from it as a result. They may be able to do similar things at some times, but the mechanism involved is completely different.
Again, your example kind of makes my point for me. The Naaru weren't even around originally, Rob Pardo retconned them in as a way to explain why Blood Elves suddenly became Paladins when the Burning Crusade expansion came out. According to the storyline he laid out, the Naaru are a race of non-material beings that have a strong connection to the Holy Light. They instructed Draenei and taught them how to connect to the Holy Light as well (Humans were able to instinctively develop the connection on their own).
The Naaru are connected to the Light in a similiar fashion as a Draenei Paladin, Human Paladin, Draenei Priest, or Human Priest are; the main thing that is different is the strength of the connection. The Naaru are ancient beings who have been connected to the Universe (which is basically what the "Holy Light" is, according to Blizzard) for a very long time, and have developed a stronger connection than any mortal possibly could.
Things changed when Blood Elves came into the mix, because they figured out how, through their knowledge of arcane magic and research on the Naaru they captured, to "hijack" that Naaru's connection to the Light and use it themselves. The magic they used to do that was arcane; the magic the Blood Elf Paladins and Priests are able to use as a result of it is not. The captive Naaru (M'uru) is not the true source of their power, the Light is; the Naaru is just the gateway through which they are (artificially) able to access that power. Blood Elves have no natural connection to the Light, and never will; but even without the Naaru, there are other options for them to forge an artificial connection, which is why Blood Knights are able to use their powers even after they "lose" M'uru. This is all clearly stated in Blizzard's lore, and I can pull up the link if you'd like evidence.
| gwadahunter2222 wrote: | The priest can pretend his power comes from his god is not completely true the rule of the spell is written by the god. If the spell fails it doesn't always evolve the god. The god gives some rule the priest can use.
In reality Theurgy is copyrighted ruled-base magic,in clear you can not say it's your power because but in clase you do not respect the contract I remove your power. But it's the case for any ruled based mage why because the great authority of magic can seal the power as the god dead. |
I agree in principle. What we keep going around in circles on is mainly the "nature" of the contract involved. That, and the assertion that Thamaturgy/Theurgy is or is not the same as Rule-based magic. It really isn't, but I don't know how to get the point across other than saying "Just because a type of magic has rules, does not make it Rule-based magic" again. 
| gwadahunter2222 wrote: | | In that case the spirit "A" can come to save the shaman from B why it's not spirit "B" who allow the shamans to fly not B |
First off, the two cases were completely seperate examples, just for comparison. But theoretically, following your example, if Spirit "A" came to save the shaman from Spirit "B", the magic becomes primarily Thaumaturgy in nature, regardless of whatever else is true. Because it involves active intervention on the shaman's behalf. In the stand-alone case, Spirit A made a ruling (everyone who flaps their arms like a bird can fly, but if you sneeze, you start falling), and is no longer actively involved.
Yes, the spirit has power, and yes, that power is responsible for what the shaman can do. But it is the contract itself that is the direct source of the shaman's ability to fly, and if he violates the contract, he suffers an automatic penalty. The spirit doesn't have to look over his shoulder and punish him for breaking its rule, because the contract will do that by itself. That is why the first case is a Rule-based example, and the second case is an example of Thaumaturgy. It doesn't matter that both spirits are laying down rules, the deciding factor is whether or not the contract itself has been empowered, or if it is just working off the honor system and the spirit itself is actively doing all the work behind the scenes. Overall, both situations are similiar, but they are not the same thing in terms of cause and effect.
| gwadahunter2222 wrote: | | Sorry guy it's not like shamanism because Omnyodou and the voodoo are a form of shamanism. The shamanism is a teaching from a spiritual spirits. He learned to use magic in a different ways. |
Uh, Onmyoudou is not a form of shamanism. It was influenced by animistic beliefs centuries after it developed, but it was also influenced by Buddhism and Taoism. Hermeticism is also not a form of shamanism, although certain Hermetic orders practice rituals involving contacting spirits and learning from them. Two things being similar does not necessarily make them the same, even if the only difference is an underlying cause.
99.9 percent of any given human's DNA is identical to any other human's DNA; this doesn't mean that the two people are anything alike (even when external influences are factored out). Identical twins are genetically identical (according to some studies, more recent findings are in contention); this doesn't make them the same person, even if you raised them in a laboratory and treated them both exactly the same, without any factors that could interfere.
| gwadahunter2222 wrote: | | In that case we are in the wild magic system |
No, we aren't. You're focusing exclusively on similarities and disregarding the differences between them, despite the fact that the differences are the defining factor.  A reasoning example:
"A, B, C" and "A, B, D" are different sequences. You are insisting that they are both the same class, and I am insisting that they are both different class. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong; I'm saying that which of us is right depends on the defining factors of the sequence. That's what I'm trying to get across. Just because "A" and "B" are identical in both sequences does not mean that they are the same, but just because "C" and "D" are different does not mean the sequences are not the same, either. If "A" and "B" are the defining factors of the sequences and "C" and "D" are incidental, then both sequences are of the same class. Subtly different, yes, but of the same basic type. If "C" is the defining factor of the first, and "D" is the defining factor of the second, and "A" and "B" are besides the point, then both sequences are of different types. You can say that they are the same, but that doesn't change the fact that they are not.
| gwadahunter2222 wrote: | | Sorry but when a writer create a magic system, it comes from the myth,or many form of paganism or shamanism. Copy an existing systems without knowing where the authors find their idea it's not |
Sorta cut off there, so I'm not sure what you meant to say. But the first part of the statement is just not true. I know it is something of a copout to just say that and not explain it, but we are getting off-topic. There are cultures who have never had any contact at all with one another or any common third-party, yet their mythologies have startling similarities. This is because there are elements in any kind of story which commonly reoccur, regardless of cultural (or any other) influences, and all myths are a type of story. These elements are called tropes, and if you deconstruct any story ever told or written, you will find a number of tropes that can be easily identified. This is a fact, and has been proven true by thousands of years of human history, not just because I believe it to be true.
<Continued in another post, the message was too big>
_________________
"Common Sense tells us, 'If it isn't broken, don't fix it!'."
"Scientific Method tells us, 'If it isn't broken, break it and figure out how it works!'."
"Quantum Mechanics tells us, 'If it can be fixed, it isn't really broken!'."
-------------------------------------------
For a larger version of my avatar, see http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9602/quantummechanicsxn2.jpg |
| | | | TheQuantumMechanic
Temple scourge
Age : 30
Joined : 25 Jun 2008
Posts : 646
Location : Fresno, California, USA
| | Subject: Re: On magic Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:41 pm | |
| | gwadahunter2222 wrote: | | The three categories as Ruled-base magic, Theurgy and ley are reality the same system. You like the ruled because the mage looks like more a scientist etc... But the Theurgy to contact a divinity you need to know how to contact so you follow rule, and to comme to the ley system in reality it's the most advanced why because the goal to a mage when he learns magic |
Incorrect. Again, the division between the three, or any other category, lies in the differences and not the similiarities, and not just because they all "have rules". If the nature of the rules and similiarities are incidental, then they are not the same; if it is the differences that are incidental, then they are the same. That is all that matters; looking any further beyond the defining factors of each is pointless because at the highest level of existence all magic is the same. Just like all matter is composed of molecules, which are composed of atoms, which are composed of subatomic particles. The fact that you and a car are both composed of the same base "stuff" (very untechnical, I know) not only does not make you a car, but it is completely irrelevant in a comparison of how you and the car are different. 
| gwadahunter2222 wrote: | In reality your charactegorization of magic is a description of shamanism, and the magic in general.
1)The fact the magic is living, in the shamanism the world is living
2)The rule-base, to use the force of nature you need to follow the rule
3)Innate magic, the shaman is born with an affinity to the spirit, and the spirit are magical creature
4)alchemy, the shaman knows different potion and poison from the different plants and beast to cure his people medecine man, withc doctor
5)artefact, the shaman can create.
6)Theurgy, a shaman can call spirits to help him
7)Ley, when the shaman enter in Transe or when he dies he become a spirits |
You are still missing the point I'm trying to make, so I'll just let it go for now. I'm not mad or anything; in fact, this has been a very interesting conversation, and given me a lot to think about. You are just focusing on a different part of the equation than I am, and it really doesn't have much bearing on what I'm trying to point out. I'll have to think about it more, but maybe it would be better to start another topic. I was kinda hoping more people would weigh in and present some contrasting viewpoints, but I don't want to hijack the topic.
A particular system of magic (shamanism) for instance can be any one of #1-7, or a mixture of any number of them, or heck, it can be a mixture of all of them. But in general, a particular system of magic will derive its power directly from a single source, or a single type of source. Whichever that direct source is, that is the factor that determines primarily what type of magic it is.
I'll say it again, this is only a framework, a tool that people can and do use to create their own systems of magic in fiction, that also applies to "real world" instances of magical beliefs and practices. Whether you consciously use it or not, virtually any instance of magic in fiction can be categorized under this framework. It doesn't matter if it's a myth from a culture you just discovered yesterday, or the latest popular fantasy novel, or a story you're planning on writing in a year; if you take a deconstructive look at the work, and break it down into its most common themes, you'll find startling similiarities between these classes of magic and the work you are studying.
| gwadahunter2222 wrote: | | There is no real difference between the systems, as there are not non-functionnal, semi-functionnal and functionnal magic, in reality it's how magic appears in book and the point of view of the writer. If the writer doesn't know what is really magic it will look non-functionnal, if he tries to explain it will become semi-functionnal but if the writers try to describe a complete system to explain how it's magic work it will become functionnal. |
 Yes! That is exactly the point I have been trying to make! These categories aren't a strict interpetation of "magic only works like this, or like this, or like this". If you are writing a story, and you have magic in it but don't explain it at all or state that magic can NOT be explained rationally, ever... you are using Non-Functional magic. That is Non-Functional magic by definition. If you give it a lot more consideration, and actually go into explanation on what it can and can not do, and how it works, that is Functional magic by definition. Whatever rules you establish are just part of the system you are creating; the mechanism by which that magic system derives its power will determine what "class" of Functional magic it is primarily, from a design standpoint. 
| gwadahunter2222 wrote: | | In reality there is no real difference except to The wild and The ruled based. The others are sub-category from the ruled. In the previous example you did, the ruled-mage open a portal to Erebus to send another mage but he can open a portal to allow a Succubus to come in his world etc... |
In reality, there is a very real difference between all of them, which is what determines the "class" of Functional magic a particular magic system uses. But I mostly agree with what you are saying now, which is very close to the point I've been trying to get across since the beginning. It's mostly the semantics we disagree on. You say "The others are sub-category from the ruled (Rule-Based magic)", I say "The others are sub-categories of Functional magic, which includes Rule-Based magic (which may be, or may not be distinct from the others depending on the circumstances)."
| gwadahunter2222 wrote: | Edit: We will stop here, my point is kust no matter the system of magic you use you can easily pas from a category to another in clear there is no system who is better than another. It will depend on the experience of the magic users and the point of view of the writer.
And I will add there is no real difference between the category except wild and ruled because all forms of magic used by someone follow rules. |
I agree, mostly. These categories aren't intended to be strict, uncrossable lines by which types of magic are divided. Instead, they're more general guidelines to use if and when you decide to try and create a magic system of your own. Regardless of whether or not you try to use them, the end result you come up with will fall into one or more of these categories, just by virtue of identification of the themes involved.
It was not my intention to say that one system was any better than the other, or that they are totally incompatible; these tropes are nothing more than devices a writer can use to create elements of a story. You may have a Hermetic mage who can ritually summon spirits- If the main focus on his magic is calling up spirits and gaining power from them, the underlying nature of the magic would be Thaumaturgy with elements of Rule-Based magic.
That doesn't mean that it is strictly how all Hermetic magic works, just that those are the general categories that particular mage's magic fall into. If the emphasis on his power is more due to the inherent power of the spells and rituals his is conducting, and the spirits are just servants or a mechanism by which he can improve his abilities, the underlying nature of the magic is Rule-Based with elements of Thaumaturgy. I was never trying to make the argument that a shaman who mainly practices Thaumaturgy could never create artifacts, for example. It's just that if his power doesn't derive directly from those artifacts, the Artifact-based element of the magic is secondary to the Thaumaturgy.
It really seems like you understand the basics of what I'm trying to say, you just keep getting caught up on "the rules" as meaning "Rule-based magic", when it really means "Functional magic". Rule-based magic is a specific type of Functional magic, not a broader category under which all the others fall.
Addendum: I made edits to some of my earlier posts, but it was just to correct misspellings or misused terms, not to change the content of the post itself. I can’t believe we’ve hit over 20,000 words on this discussion!  Come on, it's time for some of you lurkers to weigh in on this. 
_________________
"Common Sense tells us, 'If it isn't broken, don't fix it!'."
"Scientific Method tells us, 'If it isn't broken, break it and figure out how it works!'."
"Quantum Mechanics tells us, 'If it can be fixed, it isn't really broken!'."
-------------------------------------------
For a larger version of my avatar, see http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9602/quantummechanicsxn2.jpg |
| | | | gwadahunter2222
Hero
Age : 24
Joined : 08 Dec 2007
Posts : 1074
| | Subject: Re: On magic Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:21 pm | |
| | Quote: | | In reality, there is a very real difference between all of them, which is what determines the "class" of Functional magic a particular magic system uses. But I mostly agree with what you are saying now, which is very close to the point I've been trying to get across since the beginning. It's mostly the semantics we disagree on. You say "The others are sub-category from the ruled (Rule-Based magic)", I say "The others are sub-categories of Functional magic, which includes Rule-Based magic (which may be, or may not be distinct from the others depending on the circumstances)." |
Thanks to understand me
| Quote: | | It really seems like you understand the basics of what I'm trying to say, you just keep getting caught up on "the rules" as meaning "Rule-based magic", when it really means "Functional magic". Rule-based magic is a specific type of Functional magic, not a broader category under which all the others fall. |
I want just to understand this point because the Ruled-based magic seems to be superior when we look the others.
_________________
I can call the snows, and wind, and lightning. The trees may bend to me when I ask. The rivers may flow where I ask them to.
But I am granted these things because I ask , with respect in my heart, and I am willing to offer something in return. I request only the barest needs for myself and my people. |
| | | | TheQuantumMechanic
Temple scourge
Age : 30
Joined : 25 Jun 2008
Posts : 646
Location : Fresno, California, USA
| | Subject: Re: On magic Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:04 pm | |
| Thanks to understand me | Quote: |
No problem.
[quote="gwadahunter2222"]I want just to understand this point because the Ruled-based magic seems to be superior when we look the others. |
Hmm. I wouldn't call it superior, necessarily. It might be stronger in some cases, but weaker in others. The important thing to remember is that under a Rule-based magic system, the strengths and limitations are much more strictly defined, and built into the rules of the system itself. You might be able to find some loopholes if you are creative, but you can't really "break the rules" (at least, not without something bad happening to you). As a hypothetical example, a rule-based Fire mage and a Thaumaturgy-based shaman are thrown into the same situation.
The Fire mage's magic system has a strict rule that none of his fire spells can affect water elementals. They just fizzle out.
The Shaman's patron spirit has a mutual truce with the water elementals, so has made it clear to the Shaman not to use his magic against them.
Both spellcasters are then attacked by completely identical (for the purposes of this example) water elementals.
The Fire mage is pretty much hosed- his magic just does not work against the water elemental, because it is a built-in limitation of the magic system he is using. He might be able to come up with a way to save his butt by being really creative, but it is not going to involve blasting the elemental with a spell, because the rule governing his magic's use can't be broken. Taking it further, if the rule was "If you use fire attacks against a water elemental, you spontaneously combust" instead, he's still in the same boat.
Sure, now he can use his magic to defend himself, the only problem is instead of it fizzling out and him getting eaten by a water elemental, now he'll blow up as soon as he tries. The mystical backlash is not coming from the water elemental, or some higher being watching the whole situation with amusement, it is coming directly from the violation of the rules that his magic operates on.
The Shaman may or may not be in the same boat, depending on how good his relationship with his patron spirit is, and how strictly the spirit enforces the rules. His magic might fizzle out as soon as he tries to attack the elemental (because the patron spirit severs the connection over the shaman doing something she doesn't like). Or maybe his magic will work, and he manages to drive off the water elemental... and then has to deal with an angry spirit wanting to know why he's going around breaking a truce she worked so hard to establish.
If he's convincing enough, and/or the spirit is understanding, then the shaman might not even face any kind of punishment. He could just get a smack on the wrist and a stern, "Don't do that again!". On the other hand, if he totally fails to be convincing, or if the spirit doesn't care that he was just defending himself, he might face the spirit's wrath.
In a situation like this, the Thaumaturgy caster has a better chance than the Rule-based caster. He at least has the option of negotiating the details of his contract, or making an appeal and hoping for the best. Under strictly Rule-based system, you don't get that option; if you do something you're not supposed to, something else happens automatically. You can't avoid the penalties associated with your magic, unless you go to extreme lengths (which usually fall under the category of another type of magic; cutting a deal with the Devil, for example- Thaumaturgy).
Heck, a Thaumaturgist could lack the ability to cast any sort of offensive, defensive, or support magic at all. Maybe the only thing they can do is cast summoning spells and talk to spirits. If they are in a fight with an archmage whose magic is Rule-based, they are at a clear disadvantage. I mean, the archmage might be able to nuke them with a fireball with just as much effort as it takes to flex his pinky finger.
But if the only spell that Thaumaturgist casts summons up a hungry Elder God... well, the archmage stops being the superior spellcaster and starts being lunch.  Again, it's all about relative strengths and weaknesses, and how you make the most of them.
_________________
"Common Sense tells us, 'If it isn't broken, don't fix it!'."
"Scientific Method tells us, 'If it isn't broken, break it and figure out how it works!'."
"Quantum Mechanics tells us, 'If it can be fixed, it isn't really broken!'."
-------------------------------------------
For a larger version of my avatar, see http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9602/quantummechanicsxn2.jpg |
| | | | gwadahunter2222
Hero
Age : 24
Joined : 08 Dec 2007
Posts : 1074
| | Subject: Re: On magic Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:33 pm | |
| I like this explanation, thanks
_________________
I can call the snows, and wind, and lightning. The trees may bend to me when I ask. The rivers may flow where I ask them to.
But I am granted these things because I ask , with respect in my heart, and I am willing to offer something in return. I request only the barest needs for myself and my people. |
| | | | Anime-Junkie
Naga food
Joined : 17 Dec 2007
Posts : 33
Location : NSW, Australia
| | Subject: Re: On magic Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:40 am | |
| This is my theory of magic.
(I wrote this for fun, I had the idea and I needed to get it out of my head. It's got lots of holes... So I'm open so suggestions.)
---
Magic energy is extra-dimensional. (It exists in more than the 4 dimensions that most living creatures can observe).
There are different types of magical energy divine, demonic and neutral. Different types are suited to different spells. All types are sentient. Different types are suited to different spells.
Powerful magi do not need to cast spells, the magic is sentient, and understands what they want. Only extremely powerful beings can do this, such as guardians.
Magic energy can be stored in crystals, metals and to a small extent, stones.
The capacity of a crystal is determined by it's hardness and it's flaws.
This means that a huge diamond may not be able to store as much energy as a small diamond, if the small diamond is perfect.
Crystals, metals etc, can hold more magic if the magic is in the form of a spell, the spell gives the magic 'shape,' therefore it is less likely to shatter the object. Too much power can destroy the object with possibly catastrophic results. In Felarya there is so much background magic that crystals can build up magical power without any spells being cast.
Magic can be converted to matter or be used to energize and control matter.
So, "earth magic" is the conversion of magic energy to a solid form, or the use of magic to manipulate solids. "Fire magic" is the use of magic to convert matter to plasma. Air magic is the conversion if magic energy to kinetic energy, fire and water also use this to some extent.
"Water magic" is the use of magical energy to rapidly condense water vapor out of the air. Powerful wizards and spell-casters can also fuse water and hydrogen in the air to create water.
The use of magic to animate inanimate objects...
I'll use a golem to explain my theory in this area, it's easier.
An animating spell cast on a golem rearranges the molecules in a way that allows movement. The spell then kinetically charges the molecules. A golem with a crystal on it will last longer than a golem without, because the crystal can hold magic for longer than clay can. Golems without a magical power source would need to be constantly maintained.
Mind control magic requires spells equal to the complexity of the subject's mind. Some spells simply remove the will of the subject, so they can be ordered to do anything. Other spells implant a conscious or sub-conscious suggestion, like hypnosis, except much more powerful.
Scrying, observing and spy magic, the use of magic to observe distant places and people.
This magic can work in a number of ways.
Visible spy spells create a globe of magical energy that transmits a picture to be displayed on another object, like a mirror. If the spellcaster is skilled, he or she can make the globe invisible.
Another sort of observing spell creates a wormhole in space, but only allows light and energy to pass through. Usually sound would not be able to pass through. but and additional spell can be cast through the portal (Since magic is energy and energy can move through the portal) to create a kind of microphone.
The microphone spell works by creating a disc of air that is filled with magic. As sound vibrations enter the disc, they are converted to magical energy and sent to the other side of the viewing portal. This spell can also be used to provide sound on visible spy spells, the disc is just part of the magical globe.
---
I was going to post this in the off-topic section. But this topic seemed more appropriate.
I have a headache now... |
| | | | Claire
Newbie adventurer
Joined : 01 Feb 2008
Posts : 56
Location : its a secret!!!
| | Subject: Re: On magic Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:08 am | |
| ..wow
i'm so confused O__O heh |
| | | | TheQuantumMechanic
Temple scourge
Age : 30
Joined : 25 Jun 2008
Posts : 646
Location : Fresno, California, USA
| | Subject: Re: On magic Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:11 pm | |
| | Claire wrote: | ..wow
i'm so confused O__O heh |
What part is (or parts are) confusing you?  I might be able to clear things up... or make them even more confusing. Definitely one or the other. 
_________________
"Common Sense tells us, 'If it isn't broken, don't fix it!'."
"Scientific Method tells us, 'If it isn't broken, break it and figure out how it works!'."
"Quantum Mechanics tells us, 'If it can be fixed, it isn't really broken!'."
-------------------------------------------
For a larger version of my avatar, see http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9602/quantummechanicsxn2.jpg |
| | | | gwadahunter2222
Hero
Age : 24
Joined : 08 Dec 2007
Posts : 1074
| | Subject: Re: On magic Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:32 pm | |
| To be simple:
Use your own magic energy and do spell or ritual to alter mater: Ruled-based magic.
Borrow or call magic energy or property from someone else, a spirit, a god, a magic creature or another dimension it's Theurgy.
You were born with magic power:innate magic
You use magic without casting spell: ley
You se magic without control it and many weird things happen around you: wild magic
_________________
I can call the snows, and wind, and lightning. The trees may bend to me when I ask. The rivers may flow where I ask them to.
But I am granted these things because I ask , with respect in my heart, and I am willing to offer something in return. I request only the barest needs for myself and my people. |
| | | | TheQuantumMechanic
Temple scourge
Age : 30
Joined : 25 Jun 2008
Posts : 646
Location : Fresno, California, USA
| | Subject: Re: On magic Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:05 pm | |
| | Anime-Junkie wrote: | This is my theory of magic.
(I wrote this for fun, I had the idea and I needed to get it out of my head. It's got lots of holes... So I'm open so suggestions.) |
Hmmm. Some interesting ideas. If you don't mind, I am going to deconstruct them a bit to poke at those holes, before I offer suggestions.
| Anime-Junkie wrote: | | Magic energy is extra-dimensional. (It exists in more than the 4 dimensions that most living creatures can observe). |
Where does it come from? It is fine to say that one of its properties is multi-dimensionality, but where is its source? Is it just cosmic "background noise", diffused into the fabric of all dimensions? Or is there an unreachable higher-level dimension that no being can physically access, from which magical energy cascades down into the dimensions "beneath" it, similar to the process of entropy? Are there rare occurrences that result in magic universally not working or working differently (dimensional misalignment, conflicting universes connecting with one another, etc.); effectively, are there times when that higher-level dimension stops raining down magical energy on the other dimensions (if that is how you decide it works).
| Anime-Junkie wrote: | | There are different types of magical energy divine, demonic and neutral. Different types are suited to different spells. All types are sentient. |
What is the main difference between the types? Do they come from different sources? Do they have different intrinsic properties? Could an angel (a divine being), for example, use demonic magic? Or is that strictly out of the question? You said that they are all sentient, which is interesting... and can pose some unique problems when you really think about it.
Is the main difference between Divine and Demon magic that the types of magic themselves hate one another? If a Divine caster can cast a Demonic magic, does it whisper in the back of their mind about how much better off they would be on its side of the fence? Or does the very act of them casting a Demonic spell really tick off the will of Divine magic, and lead to insta-smites? Where does Neutral magic fit into the picture? Is it there sort of acting as an intermediary, or does it just sit back and let Divine and Demonic go for one another's throat?
| Anime-Junkie wrote: | | Powerful magi do not need to cast spells, the magic is sentient, and understands what they want. Only extremely powerful beings can do this, such as guardians. |
Why? Why do you have to be a "powerful mage" to not need to "cast spells"? If magic is sentient, and can understand what it is a caster wants to do, why does it care how powerful the mage is? In fact, why does it care what the mage wants to do at all?
If what a mage wants to do is hit someone with a fireball spell, and magic thinks the best thing to do in the situation is teleport out of there... what happens? Does it just do what the mage wants anyways and let them die, or does it take a "Magic knows best!" approach and watch their back?
| Anime-Junkie wrote: | Magic energy can be stored in crystals, metals and to a small extent, stones.
The capacity of a crystal is determined by it's hardness and it's flaws.
This means that a huge diamond may not be able to store as much energy as a small diamond, if the small diamond is perfect.
Crystals, metals etc, can hold more magic if the magic is in the form of a spell, the spell gives the magic 'shape,' therefore it is less likely to shatter the object. Too much power can destroy the object with possibly catastrophic results. In Felarya there is so much background magic that crystals can build up magical power without any spells being cast. |
So... all crystals, metals, and stones are magical, to some degree or another? Why? What makes them a good storage medium for magical energy, as opposed to... say, inscribing mystic runes on a scroll? You said the capacity of a crystal is determined by its hardness and flaws, which can make a lot of sense... but what determines the capacity of metal? Stone?
If you just leave a flawless diamond lying around, does it naturally accumulate mystical energy, without you needing to channel magic into it? If the answer is yes, does it stop accumulating magic once it's "full", or if you leave a diamond lying around in Felarya does it eventually shatter due to mystical overload? Given the sheer abundance of gems found at the bottom of the Jewel River and all the ruins and mines, the answer would seem to be "No". How does your theory of magic incorporate or explain that? Do casters from your world, where that theory of magic works perfectly, just scratch their head in wonder when they come to Felarya?
| Anime-Junkie wrote: | Magic can be converted to matter or be used to energize and control matter.
So, "earth magic" is the conversion of magic energy to a solid form, or the use of magic to manipulate solids. "Fire magic" is the use of magic to convert matter to plasma. Air magic is the conversion if magic energy to kinetic energy, fire and water also use this to some extent.
"Water magic" is the use of magical energy to rapidly condense water vapor out of the air. Powerful wizards and spell-casters can also fuse water and hydrogen in the air to create water. |
You said before that the different types of magic are suited to different spells. Do all of them do the exact same thing to energize and control matter? Not all "Fire magic" deals with plasma; it tends to be based more on thermodynamic principles; when you break those down, you're really dealing entirely with kinetic energy and its effect on molecular structures.
Why is "air magic" more suited to the manipulation of kinetic energy than "fire magic" is, under this system of magic? Are all instances of magical energy-to-matter conversion classified as "earth magic"? What about if I want to create and manipulate plastic, instead of soil? Move metal using magnetic fields, instead of directly manipulating its molecules with magical energy? If all matter manipulation via magic involves directly controlling a substance's molecular structure, why does it take a "powerful" spellcaster to fuse oxygen (probably what you meant) and hydrogen to create water?
| Anime-Junkie wrote: | The use of magic to animate inanimate objects...
I'll use a golem to explain my theory in this area, it's easier.
An animating spell cast on a golem rearranges the molecules in a way that allows movement. The spell then kinetically charges the molecules. A golem with a crystal on it will last longer than a golem without, because the crystal can hold magic for longer than clay can. Golems without a magical power source would need to be constantly maintained. |
If metal can store magical energy in the same way a crystal can, and you can arrange a golem's molecules in a manner that allows for complex actions like movement... why not just make a golem entirely out of metal? If you're dealing with molecular manipulation, and you can animate clay, you can animate metal just as easily... unless there's some underlying cause preventing you from doing so. Even if you're dealing with crystals, why can't you set up some kind of link that transfers magical energy to a crystal remotely, so that you don't have to keep recharging the golem?
| Anime-Junkie wrote: | | Mind control magic requires spells equal to the complexity of the subject's mind. Some spells simply remove the will of the subject, so they can be ordered to do anything. Other spells implant a conscious or sub-conscious suggestion, like hypnosis, except much more powerful. |
Why is that? Are extremely powerful mages an exception, since they don't need to cast spells? Since the different types of magic are all sentient, and have their own will, can a mage just convince magic to take over someone's mind? And if magic can do that, what keeps it from arbitrarily deciding to take over anybody's mind whenever it wants? Maybe Divine magic doesn't do it because "that would be wrong", but why would Demonic magic agree to play by the honor system? Does that mean that Demonic and Neutral magic are better suited for mind-control, illusion, and hypnosis spells than Divine magic is, under your theory?
| Anime-Junkie wrote: | Scrying, observing and spy magic, the use of magic to observe distant places and people.
This magic can work in a number of ways.
Visible spy spells create a globe of magical energy that transmits a picture to be displayed on another object, like a mirror. If the spellcaster is skilled, he or she can make the globe invisible. |
Why a globe of magical energy, and why does the picture have to be displayed on another object? Why does it take a skilled spellcaster to use "invisible spy spells"? Some of the most common observation spells in fictional works are connecting one's sight to an animal or spiritually possessing the animal and using its senses for your own purposes, and using a "scrying pool"; which is nothing more than forging a sympathetic link between two bodies of water, for instance using the water in a cup to view the reflection of a subject near another body of water somewhere else. What about clairvoyance and astral projection? Are they possible under your theory, and how are they accomplished if they are?
| Anime-Junkie wrote: | | Another sort of observing spell creates a wormhole in space, but only allows light and energy to pass through. Usually sound would not be able to pass through. but and additional spell can be cast through the portal (Since magic is energy and energy can move through the portal) to create a kind of microphone. |
Why wouldn't sound be able to pass through? What keeps you from creating a wormhole that allows light and sound to pass through; which is technically already possibly, if light and energy can pass through. In fact, consider what that really means for a moment. If you are creating a wormhole that unconditionally allows light and sound to pass through... what is keeping a mage from sending through a fireball or concentrated beam of light (laser) and roasting your rear if they happen to notice you spying on them? Very, very dangerous and overly complex way to accomplish something simple!
| Anime-Junkie wrote: | | The microphone spell works by creating a disc of air that is filled with magic. As sound vibrations enter the disc, they are converted to magical energy and sent to the other side of the viewing portal. This spell can also be used to provide sound on visible spy spells, the disc is just part of the magical globe. |
Again, I kind of question the neccessity here. If you can create a spatial wormhole that lets you see someone through it, you can create one that lets you see and hear someone through it. It would be a matter of the time and effort you put into the spell. Why would you need to make a disc of air that picks up incoming sonic vibrations, converts them into magical energy, sends them across a link, and converts them back into sound? That is a whole lot of energy expended, on top of what you used to create a wormhole in space. And again, consider what happens if a harmful noise comes across the link; a burst of sound powerful enough to shatter stone, or a hypnotic melody. If that disc of air microphone is perfectly translating every sound it picks up, the caster eavesdropping could be in serious trouble!
| Anime-Junkie wrote: | I was going to post this in the off-topic section. But this topic seemed more appropriate.
I have a headache now... |
Yep, that's what this topic seems to be for. I'm really glad to read a few more viewpoints on the matter, it really helps put things into perspective. Sorry about the headache. And now for the suggestions!
You have some pretty interesting ideas about how to do things, and that is the best place to start when it comes to creative writing. It may seem like I was nitpicking every little details about your theory, but it is not because I was trying to shoot your ideas down. I was hoping to get you to think about the questions, and consider how to explain them within the context of your theory. It's hard to explain "every little thing", which is why a lot of people don't even bother; to be honest, no matter what you do, there is still someone who will ask a question you have not thought about yet. That's why discussions can be so much fun!
It seems to me like you took the "top-down" approach to magic, and created a system based on that. You started right out the gate with "Magic energy is extra-dimensional.", and then worked your way down to examples on how it is things are done under your theory. There is not anything wrong with that, but that is not how I do things personally. The "top-down" approach has its strengths, but the main problem with it is that you tend to notice the forest and not the trees, if you aren't careful.
When I am designing something in a creative writing context, I try to remember that the characters are the lens through which the readers are going to experience events. As such, it is important to think not only about what magic (or anything else) is and how it is done, but what the character thinks it is and how (s)he does it. In essence, it is the "bottom-up" approach; viewing a scene of two spellcasters throwing fireballs back and forth. From above, as an unbiased observer, what they are doing is the same; they are both throwing fireballs.
Look at the same scene from the viewpoint of the characters, though. What is one thinking and experiencing as she casts the spell? Is she just chanting off a widely known sequence of syllables that has been unchanged for thousands of years to cast a generic, AD&D-style 3rd level "Fireball" spell? Or is she reaching out, gathering magical energy, exciting the molecules in the air around her until it combusts, and forming the resulting flames into the shape of a ball? How is she experiencing the event, and how is her opponent (an observer at the same level of existence) experiencing it?
What do you want "her"- that character you created in your mind- to be able to do, and what do you want her not to be able to do (this is just as important, and in some cases more important!). Once you have an idea of that, consider the mechanics behind how she does it, and what others see when she does it. Then, all you have to do is establish a cohesive framework that links together the things she can do, and explains the things she can not do. And bang, you have a "theory of magic" that covers the magic system you just created!
This is just how I do things, though; I'm not going to insist that it's the best way to do it, or appropriate for everyone. Different strokes for different folks and all that. I really do hope it helps, and if you (or anyone else) found anything worthwhile in the post, I guess I accomplished what I intended.
_________________
"Common Sense tells us, 'If it isn't broken, don't fix it!'."
"Scientific Method tells us, 'If it isn't broken, break it and figure out how it works!'."
"Quantum Mechanics tells us, 'If it can be fixed, it isn't really broken!'."
-------------------------------------------
For a larger version of my avatar, see http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9602/quantummechanicsxn2.jpg |
| | | | TheQuantumMechanic
Temple scourge
Age : 30
Joined : 25 Jun 2008
Posts : 646
Location : Fresno, California, USA
| | Subject: Re: On magic Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:24 pm | |
| | gwadahunter2222 wrote: | To be simple:
Use your own magic energy and do spell or ritual to alter mater: Ruled-based magic.
Borrow or call magic energy or property from someone else, a spirit, a god, a magic creature or another dimension it's Theurgy.
You were born with magic power:innate magic
You use magic without casting spell: ley
You se magic without control it and many weird things happen around you: wild magic |
Not quite, it's more a matter of where the true source of power is. Magical energy you use can be internal (using your own capacity) or external (coming from somewhere else) under any of the systems. The simple version is this:
Rule-based: The real power lies in what you know or what you believe. If "Open Sesame" is a spell to open doors and it works for anybody who says it, or anybody who meets certain qualifications (has magical ability, or is a mage of the "Door Opening" school, or has blue eyes, or whatever the rules state) and says "Open Sesame", it is an example of Rule-based magic. The power or ability is rooted in the spell itself, regardless of where the energy to cast it comes from.
Thaumaturgy/Theurgy: The real power lies in who you know; namely, some type of supernatural entity you have contact with. It can be a god, a demon, a spirit, or anything else. Your magic is a boon granted to you by them, and depends solely on them- if they want, they can take it away or just stop answering calls from you. It can be a passive power that you keep until they take it back, or something that requires active participation on their part. For example, a spirit might give you the ability to cast spells if you couldn't before, or you might call on the power of a spirit when you need to do something, and it shows up and casts the spell itself. In both cases, the spirit is the direct source of power, you are only enjoying the perks.
Innate/Inherent: The real power lies in what you are, or something about you. If all members of your species (Fire Succubi) have a natural ability (Extreme Fire Resistance), that is a form of Innate magic. This doesn't mean you can't have Innate magical abilities and still cast spells; there is nothing that keeps you from having multiple classes of magic. But unless the spellcasting is a natural ability (not just magical potential, an actual ability of your species/race/family/whatever), then it is not Innate magic. For example, if all Fire Succubi can cast fire spells, then "fire magic" is another form of Innate magic that succubi possess. If most Fire Succubi cast fire spells, but some learn how to use other types of magic (Ice magic, Summoning magic, etc.) instead, then Fire magic is not part of a Fire Succubus' Innate magic.
Ley/Force: The real power lies in where you are, or a metaphysical property of a certain location. This can be anything from your personal place of power or sanctum sanctorum, or a magical energy field, or ley lines that surge across the planet. The point is, your magic either draws its power directly from a magical location, or you siphon power from a location into yourself (which might have to be used right away, or can stored within you as "your" energy capacity), or your magic only works in certain locations. If any or all of these are the most important traits of your style of magic, then it is Ley magic (or Force Magic, whichever term you prefer); whether or not you actually cast spells or directly manipulate magical forces is secondary. If "Abracadabra" is only a word until you put power into it, and that power originated from a location or magical field of energy (which might be confined to a certain spot, or encompass the entire world), then the magic is primarily Ley-based.
Living/Wild: The real power lies in Magic itself. Magic is a cosmic force, that might be non-sentient, semi-sentient, or fully sentient. It has a will and desire of its own, and technically can never be controlled, only influenced. This does not mean that it can never be reliable; just that even when you think you are making it do what you want, it is really only doing it because It wants to. If you call on magic or the Will of the Universe for help, and it answers you, actually converses with you, is capable of liking you or disliking you, or shows any other signs of being an actual entity of some sort, then you are using Living magic (or Wild magic). The Force qualifies as a type of Living magic; its properties are that it encompasses all life in the Universe and connects all living things. That doesn't have to be the case with all styles of Living magic, just as there doesn't have to be a tangible "Light side" and "Dark side" to the Universe. If Magic is capable of making its own plans, has its own interests, and manipulates you just as much as you manipulate it, you are looking at a textbook case of Living magic.
Alchemy: The real power lies in the properties of magical substances, and the interactions between them. If you are combining components in a particular process to attain a particular result, your style of magic is a kind of Alchemy. It doesn't neccessarily have to be potions you make; combining three different types of magic powder to cast a fireball spell can be a type of Alchemy, or it can be a type of Rule-based magic. If the power of the spell comes from the properties of Red Powder, Blue Powder, and Yellow Powder, and the effect is determined by knowing how much of each to mix together, then it is Alchemy. If you are a mage who wants to cast a 3rd level Fireball spell, and the requirement to do so is having an amount of Red Powder, Blue Powder, and Yellow powder on hand, then you are using Rule-based magic.
Artifact: The real power of your magic lies in what you have. You are using magic items, or objects with power of their own. Maybe you made them yourself, maybe someone else made them, or maybe you found an ancient relic. Whatever the case is, the power is rooted in an object or item you have, and without that object or item you can not use that particular ability. This doesn't mean the item is self-sufficient; it is entirely possible that you provide the magical energy for it out of your own internal capacity. The actual spell or ability, however, is derived from the item in your possession. Whether it is Seven-League Boots, a magic wand, or an assortment of magical jewelry, your magic is rooted in a physical object. If you have a magic sword, and it is primarily magic in nature because of a specific property of the steel alloy you created it from, it is more along the lines of Alchemy. But if the sword is primarily magic in nature because of the way you crafted it or because it was imbued with power, it is more an example of Artificing.
... Whew. I really need to learn how to be more concise. I hope that is somehow less confusing, and doesn't just add more confusion on top of it. Do note that none of these categories of magic are exclusive; it is possible to have a style of magic that only falls into one of those categories, or any number of combinations of them, or all of them. But the primary category of a particular magic style will be determined by where the real "power" is derived from.
Not the "mana" or mystical energy that you use to cast spells, but the actual power/effect you are invoking. If it's Holy Magic from your god, then you're mainly using Theurgy. If it's a sword blessed by a priest of your god, and you have no real power of your own without the sword, you are mostly using Artifact magic (with Theurgy elements, but there is no direct connection between you and the god, just the properties imbued into your sword).
Does that help up at all, Claire (or anyone else with questions)?
_________________
"Common Sense tells us, 'If it isn't broken, don't fix it!'."
"Scientific Method tells us, 'If it isn't broken, break it and figure out how it works!'."
"Quantum Mechanics tells us, 'If it can be fixed, it isn't really broken!'."
-------------------------------------------
For a larger version of my avatar, see http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9602/quantummechanicsxn2.jpg |
| | | | gwadahunter2222
Hero
Age : 24
Joined : 08 Dec 2007
Posts : 1074
| | Subject: Re: On magic Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:48 pm | |
| | Quote: | | Rule-based: The real power lies in what you know or what you believe. If "Open Sesame" is a spell to open doors and it works for anybody who says it, or anybody who meets certain qualifications (has magical ability, or is a mage of the "Door Opening" school, or has blue eyes, or whatever the rules state) and says "Open Sesame", it is an example of Rule-based magic. The power or ability is rooted in the spell itself, regardless of where the energy to cast it comes from. |
Im'not agree with that point it will depend on of the limit of your world,there is no proof of another world from your world the mage of this place won't know how to access to it. and another question I will ask you who write the spell the mage use  and how he finds it 
You tell me is the writer who will decide in that case ruled-base system include all the different magic system. In a world like Felarya there is no real difference between "summonier", "priest","warlock"," shaman"(voodou and omnyodou and kabbalah have some shamanic origin) and "mage" It's just a "title" in that case all the magic system are just different school of magic.
And another point the ruled-based magic even if they follow their rules and spell they need an energy if they want to work in clear depending on the spell or it's just words.
And another point a ruled-based mage is limited by his knowledge of his world , even if he know to teleport or dimensionnal magic he can not travel in different world than the other if he tries he will dies or have some side effect, but in general this kind of thing is necessary if he wants to evolve the magic of his homeworld.
| Quote: | | Thaumaturgy/Theurgy: The real power lies in who you know; namely, some type of supernatural entity you have contact with. It can be a god, a demon, a spirit, or anything else. Your magic is a boon granted to you by them, and depends solely on them- if they want, they can take it away or just stop answering calls from you. It can be a passive power that you keep until they take it back, or something that requires active participation on their part. For example, a spirit might give you the ability to cast spells if you couldn't before, or you might call on the power of a spirit when you need to do something, and it shows up and casts the spell itself. In both cases, the spirit is the direct source of power, you are only enjoying the perks. |
In Theurgy it depends on the relationship between the magician and the entity there is three case:
1-Submission: the entity is the master and the summoner is a follower or a disciple or a slave (possession)
2-domination:the summoner is the master and the spirit obey to his order
3-equal: the spirit and the summoner are in good term, the spirit can learn what it knows to the mage and the mage can call (summon) the spirit for help
The theurgy is limited by the power of the spirit and how the summoner can stand it.
It's not all the summoner who can summon the spirit completely, so the summoner becomes a kind of gate through the power of the spirit will pass.
You say the power lies in who you know so if I understand the difference between Theurgy and Ruled can be summed by this two questions who you know? and what you know? but it's not true to know someone you need to know how to deal with him in clear you know what you know In general you can not deal with the Queen of the Erebus as you deal with a lesser demon in clear you need to know who she is to do that you need to gather information about her and how to deal with her. In clear you need to know the protocol in clear learn ruled-based spells like astral projection, mind control and how to convince and dimensionnal magic. In clear the summoner has in own spell who had been written in a ruled-based magic
Your explication about the difference are very paradoxical because Contrary to a ruled-mage master in dimensionnal magic the Theurgy system deal with the non- physical or supernatural or physcal dimension but if in a ruled-based the existence of demon or supernatural creature is proven so all the theurgy becomes a tradditionnal school of magic where the shaman deals with both the physical and dimensionnal force
_________________
I can call the snows, and wind, and lightning. The trees may bend to me when I ask. The rivers may flow where I ask them to.
But I am granted these things because I ask , with respect in my heart, and I am willing to offer something in return. I request only the barest needs for myself and my people. |
| | | | TheQuantumMechanic
Temple scourge
Age : 30
Joined : 25 Jun 2008
Posts : 646
Location : Fresno, California, USA
| | Subject: Re: On magic Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:19 pm | |
| | gwadahunter2222 wrote: | | Im'not agree with that point it will depend on of the limit of your world,there is no proof of another world from your world the mage of this place won't know how to access to it. and another question I will ask you who write the spell the mage use and how he finds it |
Again, you are focusing on the wrong point. It doesn't matter who writes the spell, or what world the spell is cast on, or anything else, for determining whether or not a particular system is Rule-based. All those are secondary factors, and not relevant to the question of "Is the metaphysical Power, the effect itself, derived directly from the spell?" If the answer is "Yes", it is primarily Rule-based magic. If the answer is "No", it is not primarily Rule-based.
Everything else is of secondary importance in context to that question. If a particular world operates on a particular system of Rule-based magic, and the rules of that system state that the style of magic only works on that world, then a spellcaster who travels to a different world is not going to be casting spells operating under that system of magic. Period. This doesn't mean that their knowledge of magic is worthless, or that they can't learn a completely different type of magic. It just means that they aren't going to be using their native style of magic away from home, unless there is some sort of specific mitigating conditions. If that rule says, "This magic only works on your home world." and on Felarya, almost everybody's magic works just like it does at home, then that mage might be able to use their system of magic normally while on Felarya.
It depends on the situation, however. We know that it's impossible to create undead on Felarya, although they can travel there. In effect, that's a Rule-based magic element that trumps a whole lot of styles of Necromantic magic. It doesn't matter if Mumm-Ra the Ever-Living promises his followers that their Rule-based magic will let them raise the dead anywhere in the known Universe; It can't be done on Felarya, which means Felarya's "no creating undead!" rule trumps Mumm-Ra's.
| gwadahunter2222 wrote: | | You tell me is the writer who will decide in that case ruled-base system include all the different magic system. In a world like Felarya there is no real difference between "summonier", "priest","warlock"," shaman"(voodou and omnyodou and kabbalah have some shamanic origin) and "mage" It's just a "title" in that case all the magic system are just different school of magic. |
If the systems of magic are different in terms of what they can and can not accomplish, then there is a real difference between a summoner, a priest, a warlock, a shaman, and a mage. Heck, one shaman is still different from another shaman, even under a Rule-based system, if their magic follows different rules. The only way that "There is no real difference between them" statement can ever be true is under one situation: If everybody's magic worked exactly the same and did the exact same things.
A Herald of Xotli from Age of Conan and a Bright Wizard from Warcraft Fantasy Battles have hardly anything in common in terms of how their magic works and what their magic can accomplish. That means they are different; they are not the same, and they never will be the same in the context of their own universes or one another's universe. They will also not be the same on Felarya, unless as soon as they set foot on Felarya, their magic suddenly stops working the way each is used to and starts working exactly the same. It doesn't matter what their titles are, those are artificial distinctions. The reason a Summoner and a Mage are different is because their magic operates on different principles; if it doesn't, then they are both using the same system of magic.
Now, if you create a universe entirely from scratch that all your writing takes place in, and the framework you build for magic use states that "All magic is Rule-based magic, in some form or another", then guess what. All magic is Rule-based magic, in some form or another, in your universe. Because that's the overarching rule that guides all magic use in your universe. If you take it further, and say that all magic users are basically the same, and the only difference between an Elementalist and a Hermetic Mage are cultural, then... yes, "All magic users are basically the same" becomes a universal "Law of Magic" in the context of your universe.
Now, if the Elementalist and Hermetic Mage travel to a universe where the Rule-based magic system for Elementalism and Hermeticism are completely different, things change. Unless for some reason external rules from another universe apply, that Elementalist and Hermetic Mage are not going to be able to do things the way they are used to, because they are operating under different rules in a different universe. Does this mean that the rule of their native Universe stating, "All magic users are basically the same" is false? No, because that rule is still functioning back in their native universe. It is just completely irrelevant to the situation they've found themselves in now, because their magic no longer works the same.
| gwadahunter2222 wrote: | | And another point the ruled-based magic even if they follow their rules and spell they need an energy if they want to work in clear depending on the spell or it's just words. |
Again, that point is irrelevant. All magic requires energy from somewhere. You draw energy from food; it doesn't matter whether you got that energy from an apple or a sandwhich, to accomplish the task of lifting your arms over your head. It just has nothing to do with Rule-based magic specifically. You can have Rule-based spells that you still have to power with your own energy, leaving you fatigued after casting them. Fantasy novels are full of magic like that.
| gwadahunter2222 wrote: | | And another point a ruled-based mage is limited by his knowledge of his world , even if he know to teleport or dimensionnal magic he can not travel in different world than the other if he tries he will dies or have some side effect, but in general this kind of thing is necessary if he wants to evolve the magic of his homeworld. |
Incorrect. A rule-based mage is limited first and foremost by the rules of his magic system. Everything else is secondary to the rules of the system, which is why it is called rule-based magic. I'll prove the point using your example. I think you are saying that a rule-based mage has to know dimensional magic to travel to another world without mishap or death. This can be true, or it can not be true; it depends solely on the rules of the magic system he is using. In some cases, a novice can just study a magic spell they've never seen before out of a book, and proceed to perform a complicated ritual thanks to easy-to-follow diagrams and teleport or travel between worlds. It's that easy.
On the other hand, in some cases it takes decades of study for a archmage to travel between planes, and the rituals are so pain-stakingly difficult that no novice could even hope to perform them. And heaven help you if you write a scribe a single wrong rune! You might never be heard from again. If you got both of these mages to a place where their systems of magic work individually just like they do at home, and asked them how difficult it is to travel between planes, the novice would just laugh and say that it's not that hard, while the archmage would have an extremely different opinion.
Each of them have a totally different experience, that is extremely relevant under the rules of their own system, and irrelevant to the rules of the other's system. You think the novice cares how much effort planar travel takes for the archmage? It has no bearing on how he personally performs magic himself, because rules his magic operates under are different. He would start caring pretty quickly if he wound up in the archmage's universe, and suddenly the system of magic he uses no longer had any power.
| gwadahunter2222 wrote: | In Theurgy it depends on the relationship between the magician and the entity there is three case:
1-Submission: the entity is the master and the summoner is a follower or a disciple or a slave (possession)
2-domination:the summoner is the master and the spirit obey to his order
3-equal: the spirit and the summoner are in good term, the spirit can learn what it knows to the mage and the mage can call (summon) the spirit for help |
Those are the three basic types of power-sharing relationships. I would argue that things could be just that simple, or infinitely more complicated. A lot of factors come into play when you are dealing with Thaumaturgy; how many parties are involved, what your relationship with each party is based on (mutual respect, dislike of a common enemy, worship), what kind of relationship each of the other parties have (You are a summoner who has a contract with two creatures, both of whom despise one another. They aren't happy about sharing a bond with you, but as long as you only call one of them up at a time things stay relatively peaceful), the personality of the entity or entities you have a bond with, and how compatible you are with them, etc.
| gwadahunter2222 wrote: | | The theurgy is limited by the power of the spirit and how the summoner can stand it. |
I disagree, but only slightly. I would say the power of Thaumaturgy (or Theurgy) is limited by the power of the spirit, and how much of that power it is willing to bring to bear. Or optionally, how much of that power the Theurgist can coerce out of the spirit. The summoner's ability to withstand the spirit's power is irrelevant (well, maybe not to the summoner himself, but to an objective observer).
If you summon the Lord of Destruction and he destroys the planet (with you on it), that doesn't mean that you were a weak Theurgist. It means that you were an idiot, for summoning a creature you knew could and would destroy everything in sight, without giving it a second thought. All those evil cults in fiction who raise elder gods and then get eaten by them are no exception; Like I said in my initial set of posts, the upside of Theurgy is that it can be absurdly powerful. The downside is that it can be the end of your life as you know it.
_________________
"Common Sense tells us, 'If it isn't broken, |
|
|
|
