[Question] What's your favorite flavor of Magic

[Dave]

Kinda off-topic: The Dresden Files are some of the best books I've read.

On-topic:

Magic to me really depends on the world and whether or not it makes sense in context. For example, the swallowing of metals and "burning" them makes no sense in any context other then the Mistborn trilogy, which is excellent. At the same time, the High/Low magic of the Riftwar Saga would make no sense in Mistborn but makes perfect sense in Midkemia.

The stories I write tend to a more Nature/Scientific bent where you gather the power from several sources yet cause/effect still apply. Someone teleports there's a *bamf!* sound as the air is displaced. Large fire spells will suck the air out of enclosed spaces, etc. The more magic you use the better and more focused at it you become and the more power you are able to weild due to a sort of resistance you build up.

I do get what Pez is saying and it intrigues me. I think it could be successfully written but would be difficult to do and keep it so that it's NOT Deus ex Machina. Magic in that case could be that new powers could only be discovered in cases of great duress.

But one thing I've always had an issue with is that the concept of magic has never been used the way it would have in reality. Let's look at it from a strictly technological standpoint.

Almost all technology has been brought about to fill a perceived need of some sort. Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin to help in the separation of seeds from cotton fiber. Because of this, the South prospered. But what if magic had been around? No mechanical cotton gin would have been invented. Instead, a wizard would have used magic to do the separating, maybe passing on the technique, maybe not. Others would have duplicated the feat once they knew it could be done. For that matter, would they even have needed to grow cotton? With transmutational magic, wouldn't it be feasable to turn refuse into fibers or even food - gross though that may sound?

The problem with most magic is that we are limited by our imaginations where as in a "real" situation we would be driven by need, which is the mother of all invention.

I wonder how businesses would thrive from magic as they do with technology. Would corporitization even be possible in a magical world? It's possible to patent technology so others can't just do it, but would they be able to patent certain spells/effects? Interesting.

 

[AshburnerX]

I'm disappointed there's no Shamanistic (think Native American style) option in the poll. It's sort of the mid-point between Nature and Divine, with exception that you often had to do awful, grueling shit to get them to help you. Many a Deadlands player would have to cut off a finger, just to get that emergency thunder strike from the spirits...

Alternatively, how about Faustian Bargains, where you have to give something up to get what you want from a source that isn't exactly trustworthy? These tend to be the best stories about magic, hands down.

 

[figmentPez]

I do get what Pez is saying and it intrigues me. I think it could be successfully written but would be difficult to do and keep it so that it's NOT Deus ex Machina. Magic in that case could be that new powers could only be discovered in cases of great duress.

That's not quite what I was getting at. I didn't mean to limit the source of magic that severely, I just was trying to emphasize that magic doesn't have to have relate to underlying principles of a rational world. New magic abilities could occur every year on a mage's birthday, as long as that's just the way it happens. Magic should be like Just-So stories and wishing on stars. It should have a story or ritual behind it, and seem fitting or right on the surface, but still be the special case that is the exception to the rule. Magic is rare and special, but also should be laced with the ordinary at the same time. It should also have non-physical interations (tell someone about your wish and it won't come true.)

Overall I think the imporant thing about magic is that, like a good metaphor, it shouldn't examine itself too closely (unless you're trying to be a parody of the genre.) Magic is about symbolism and appearance, where what is fitting is also usually true. A magic potion made from a plant that looks like a foot makes you run faster. It's that simple. It's not some chemical in the plant, and there's no reason why it's running and not healing bunions, it just is because it's more fitting.

 

[Bowielee]

I have to agree with previous posters about how the Dresden Files handles magic. It's incredibly descriptive while still keeping it magical, much like Pez is talking about. For example, potions are all about sybolism. The ingredients have to apply to each of the 5 senses and be symbolically representative of what you want the potion to do.

 

[checkeredhat]

I just noticed that favourite (or favorite, for you American-types) is spelled wrong in the thread title. Its missing the 'r'

 

[makare]

we were all being polite and not mentioning that. you cad.

 

[Bowielee]

I have no idea what you're talking about

 

[figmentPez]

One of the reasons I think this is such a hot-button issue for me is because I see a lot of people who don't know what differentiates science from magic and alchemy. While there is a blurry line in fiction and history, there are very important differences. One of the things about magic is personality. If an alchemist does an experiment and it produces desired result A, while another five alchemists do that same experiment and all get failed result B, that very well may have happened because the first alchemist had a greater "understanding" of arcane knowledge and unquantifiable hidden principles (i.e. he was more worthy than the rest). With science, if one person gets A, while 5 more get B, then something was different about the experiment setup that produced A, and if that difference can be discovered then B can be changed to A for all scientists.

It is a belief that knowledge is not hidden, but discoverable, and that the world is a rational, ordered universe that behaves in a manner that can be studied for use by all that separates science from magic. I find that, at times, science gets reduced to "just-so" stories. The Big Bang, black holes, nutrition, electricity... everything just gets repeated, unexamined, until it reaches the point there "that's just the way it is" and becomes inaccessible, unassailable myth, sometimes even within the scientific community itself.

Which is not to say that blurring the lines is always a bad thing in fiction. "The Practice Effect" by David Brin is quite an interesting story that relies heavily on blurring the line between the two, but is quite an interesting "what if" story and uses that blurring to a purpose. On the other side of the coin is "Warehouse 13", which regularly says "this is science" when it's nothing of the sort. The artifacts on that show, and the powers they have, are pure magic. For all the computer use and rubber gloves, there is nothing scientific about what they do or how it works. The show can be fun despite that (and despite bad dialog) because the magical artifacts are so inventive, but it makes me roll my eyes sometimes when it pretends to be science.

 

[Bowielee]

Wait...

you don't actually believe magic is real, do you?

And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.

 

[makare]

well he cant say yes after that can he...

 

[Hailey Knight]

Wait...

you don't actually believe magic is real, do you?

And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.

It's not okay to believe in magic, unless it's the Jesus type.

 

[figmentPez]

Wait...

you don't actually believe magic is real, do you?

And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.

I believe that that there is a supernatural. I believe in God, that He is not bound by the physical laws that generally govern creation and that He can circumvent those laws at His choosing (but generally does not.) I also believe in angels and demons, and that they have a limited ability to act in this world in ways that cannot be studied via the scientific method.

I do not, however, believe that "magic" exists, though. What appears to be magic is usually just trickery, self-delusion or some other ignorance, intentional or accidental. I assume that in some cases that witchcraft or other magic actually does work contrary to the normal natural order of the world, via the work of demons, but I have no idea how common that is.

Despite my belief in a metaphysical world, it is in part due to my belief in God that I think science has real merit. The scientific method has limits, most prominent is that it cannot prove it's own basic assumption, that the world is ordered and rational. It's not possible to prove, via scientific testing, that the world actually has consistent laws, or if apparent consistency is just a fluke. While it's not difficult to reach the conclusion that it's a far simpler for the world to have some great amount of order than being completely random; that's still a far cry from being completely ordered without any capriciousness. I believe that God is a god of order, and that the world He created is meant to be understood by us, and is thus rational and can be studied. Other people are certain of this for other reasons, but I find it important to examine why fundamental, but untestable, assumptions are being made.

I think such examination helps to understand better how subsequent conclusion are reached. i.e. if there always exists a possiblity of disproving a law/theory, no matter how small a chance, then why do we believe it? Well, it gets back to the foundational assumptions of science. It's always possible that the world will radically change tomorrow because physics will no longer be what they are, (but then we probably wouldn't be alive to know that if they did change significantly.) An ordered universe is what is most consistent with what has been observed, and the same goes with all the knowledge that has been accumulated by use of the scientific method. That's a lot of knowledge, which cannot have been gained so rapidly, or in some cases at all, without the shift from alchemy, shamanism, various ancient philosophies and other forms of magical thinking (which are still around).

There mere fact that the scientific method works at all is taken for granted these days, when that hasn't always been the case. I think one of the potential values of magic in fiction is to show how different the world would be if magic actually worked, and all those strange assumptions and superficial logic that go along with it were somehow functional. To examine the things about this world that make science functional, by replacing them with mechanisms of magic. (Stuff like "Warehouse 13" arguably works counter to this, with it's insistence that "it's science!" when there isn't any science going on.)

 

[Mathias]

What do you mean when you say magic as science (mages). Magic is not science, nor is science magic...
Added at: 09:39

One of the reasons I think this is such a hot-button issue for me is because I see a lot of people who don't know what differentiates science from magic and alchemy. While there is a blurry line in fiction and history, there are very important differences. One of the things about magic is personality. If an alchemist does an experiment and it produces desired result A, while another five alchemists do that same experiment and all get failed result B, that very well may have happened because the first alchemist had a greater "understanding" of arcane knowledge and unquantifiable hidden principles (i.e. he was more worthy than the rest). With science, if one person gets A, while 5 more get B, then something was different about the experiment setup that produced A, and if that difference can be discovered then B can be changed to A for all scientists.

Uh, if 1 person gets A and 5 more get B, person A is scrutinized and has to explain why it's different.

 

[Hailey Knight]

What do you mean when you say magic as science (mages). Magic is not science, nor is science magic...

He means stories where all magic produces predictable results that can be scientifically studied, or where there's a scientific explanation for what the magic is (like midichlorians).

 

[Mathias]

He means stories where all magic produces predictable results that can be scientifically studied, or where there's a scientific explanation for what the magic is (like midichlorians).

Well then the (mages) part is wrong. Mages for the most part study elemental forces (the fire, earth, wind, and water) - so it's more of a mystical arcane power source.

Science and magic... I think Full Metal Alchemist is probably a good example of a mesh of the two that works. Mages, not so much. They pretty clearly fall under nature magic, where you're bending forces of the universe to your will.

And necromancy probably falls under a corrupted form of the other magic schools in the list here.

 

[North_Ranger]

Personally, I would just call necromancy a school of magic, not a method as the other examples. Y'know, a specialization, if you will. There's Carl who's really good at summoning monsters, Larry who's a whiz when it comes to elemental magic (fire in particular), Louis who has a knack with building golems and other constructs... and then there's Edgar who likes to summon undead things to do his bidding.

 

[figmentPez]

Uh, if 1 person gets A and 5 more get B, person A is scrutinized and has to explain why it's different.

How does that in any way contradict what I said? Yes, of course person A is scrutinized, but if it can be discovered how that desireable result was actually achieved, then everyone can then replicate that result. (I did neglect to mention the possibility that it was only an apparent result A, and did not actually achieve result A, but I was going with the assumption of actual success for purposes of simplification.)

 

[Hailey Knight]

I guess this should've been "Which D&D magic class do you like to play?"

 

[Mathias]

How does that in any way contradict what I said? Yes, of course person A is scrutinized, but if it can be discovered how that desireable result was actually achieved, then everyone can then replicate that result. (I did neglect to mention the possibility that it was only an apparent result A, and did not actually achieve result A, but I was going with the assumption of actual success for purposes of simplification.)

Relax toto. There is no "desirable" result. There's a hypothesis to explain what's going on, and if the result doesn't show it, you modify the hypothesis.

 

[figmentPez]

Relax toto. There is no "desirable" result. There's a hypothesis to explain what's going on, and if the result doesn't show it, you modify the hypothesis.

That's one way of looking at it, if you're pursuing pure knowledge. However, if you're doing experiments with the intent to achieve a goal, then there is a desirable result. If you're trying to make a light bulb, you have a goal of finding a filament that will work for a certain amount of time. Now that I think about it, such experimentation is not actually science, since it's not working via the scientific method. (However, the scientific method can then be used when trying to figure out how to replicate results in the future.)

Here's what I'm trying to get at. Let's look at alternate versions of Edison. We'll call them SciEd and MagEd.

SciEd is like the Edision from our universe, he tries hundreds of different materials in different combinations for use as a filament in his light bulb. Finally he finds one that works for long enough to be of practical use. However, when others try to replicate his results, the bulbs they make burn-out in minutes rather than hours. Science says there must be some quantifiable difference between what SciEd is making and what others have built from his design. SciEd and the others can then use the scientific method to experiment, testing variables, until they discover what makes SciEd's bulbs work, where others fail. Eventually the desirable result (a working light bulb) will be achievable by all.

MagEd works a little differently. He also tests materials in various configurations until he constructs a bulb that lasts long enough to be of use. When others try and replicate his bulb, using the same materials and design, they can't. However, in this magic world, these imitators are out of luck. Their bulbs didn't work because they aren't MagEd. They lack the special qualities that allow MagEd to succeed where they fail. He's got access to revelatory knowledge they don't, or had some creative spark or spirit they don't, and there's no way for them to have it. The desired result (a working light bulb) cannot be had by all because only MagEd has the light bulb magic.

 

[Mathias]

No. It's the only way to look at it. It's the way the scientific method works. Period. The goal is to provide evidence for a testable hypothesis.

With science, if one person gets A, while 5 more get B, then something was different about the experiment setup that produced A, and if that difference can be discovered then B can be changed to A for all scientists.

That's not the scientific method, it's person A fucking up the experiment to prove a hypothesis.

 

[Krisken]

Perhaps, to stop the side argument, we can say natural phenomenon explainable through science mistaken for magic? Then again, that wouldn't have fit well on the poll. I guess I assumed this was what was meant, though.

 

[Calleja]

Uhh

 

[Krisken]

Get back here!

 

[figmentPez]

That's not the scientific method, it's person A fucking up the experiment to prove a hypothesis.

Unless it's not scientific experimentation but inventive experimentation, in which case there was no hypothesis, until scientific experimentation began to explain why inventive experimentation succeeded.

 

[Mathias]

Unless it's not scientific experimentation but inventive experimentation, in which case there was no hypothesis, until scientific experimentation began to explain why inventive experimentation succeeded.

Yeah, what the fuck ever, I'm just a fucking PhD SCIENTIST... I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about...

 

[Krisken]

Yeah, what the fuck ever, I'm just a fucking PhD SCIENTIST... I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about...

Admit it, you're a magician. Take your magic back to commiestan.

 

[figmentPez]

Yeah, what the fuck ever, I'm just a fucking PhD SCIENTIST... I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about...

Well you sure as hell didn't read my explanation past the first sentence. So, no, you don't know I'm talking about. You may have a pretty good grasp of what the scientific method is, but you certainly haven't tried to understand what I'm saying beyond my failure to use the exact terminology you think I should.

If I'm trying to construct a new invention, say a light bulb, and I keep trying different components and configurations, what the hell else do you call that besides experimentation? I build something, I experiment with it to see if it works, and if it doesn't I try something else. That's not the scientific method. There is no hypothesis, there is no control group, but there is testing to determine the unknown.

Now science can come into play when trying to determine the principles behind the designs being tested. Lets look at another example from history, the Wright Brothers. Those two did lots of scientific testing of various parts to determine lift and drag before getting to Kitty Hawk. However, once they were doing that historic first flight, there wasn't a hypothesis being tested beyond "will it fly?" If dozens of others had built copies of the Wright Brothers plane and tried their own test flights, only to fail, was that first flight at Kitty Hawk just "fucking up an experiment to prove a hypothesis"? How the hell did actually achieving flight somehow fuck up the experiment? There is real merit to the idea that the flight at Kitty Hawk was a fluke, and that the controlled flight of a later model Wright plane should be celebrated as the real historic achievement, however that doesn't mean that they didn't actually fly before that. The Wright Brothers took their first flight, and then looked to see why it succeeded, why it might have failed, and refined their plane until it was a consistent success, and others learned from them and made planes as well. It worked. Not every step that was experimental was scientific experimentation, but the whole process was based on knowledge gained, at least in part, from scientific experimentation.

If you don't understand that, then there's nothing more I can do to explain. There are types of experimentation that are not scientific, but are used in conjunction with the scientific method to advance practical application of knowledge. That's the way things work when you actually want to build stuff in the real world.

 

[Mathias]

So, you make a vague statement. I call you on it, and you completely alter what you were saying about that vague statement. Gotcha.

 

[Shegokigo]

 

[figmentPez]

So, you make a vague statement. I call you on it, and you completely alter what you were saying about that vague statement. Gotcha.

You made unwarranted assumptions about what my statement meant. Rather than trying to understand something that could be interpreted multiple ways, you jumped ahead with your preconceptions and declared me wrong without even trying to consider what was being said in context.

 

[Calleja]

*peeks in*

...can we talk about the Dresden Files now?

 

[Mathias]

You made unwarranted assumptions about what my statement meant. Rather than trying to understand something that could be interpreted multiple ways, you jumped ahead with your preconceptions and declared me wrong without even trying to consider what was being said in context.

With science, if one person gets A, while 5 more get B, then something was different about the experiment setup that produced A, and if that difference can be discovered then B can be changed to A for all scientists

I just finished reading your sob story in the the cosplay section, which explains all the sand in your vag. I'll lay off. Just shut the fuck up and I'll do the same.

 

[checkeredhat]

It was mentioned. I've added it to my Goodreads based just off what was said in this thread.

 

[figmentPez]

And yet you mean engineering... dumbass.

The conversation is a discussion of science-based reality versus magic-based fiction. If I meant anything it was "With a science-based world..." However, I thought those reading were smart enough to reason such a conclusion without having to be overly wordy about it.

EDIT: Changed "magic-based reality" to "magic-based fiction" because I'm talking with someone nit-picky enough to try to intentionally misinterpret what I'm saying based on inexact language.