Rarity of Magic?

[Lucius]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

Which was my point in relation to role playing games where absolute factual conclusions must be drawn at design time in relation to how magic and miracles work. Its very hard to avoid decisions that don't kill religion as we understand it. Your proposal, for instance, carries an implicit cosmological assumption: that the source of miracles is belief, and not the thing believed in.

 

Again, its just a matter of taste - and its one of the reason I dropped the fantasy genre, both as a reader and a gamer, a long time ago.

 

Okay, I have to ask.

 

What exactly makes religion more problematic in fantasy than in, say, a superhero game or an espionage or western or space opera or modern-psychics-and-weird-conspiracy game?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Enquiring palindromedaries want to know

[Cantriped]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

In fantasy religion ends up playing a far greater part then in other setting which have totally different tropes and conventions and literature to draw upon. mainly cuz Fantasy (at least in part) simulates our earlier time periods, and the idea of religion as "no big deal" or somthing that is taken with more then a few grains of salt is a very new concept culturally speaking.

People lived and died by their religion in these time periods.

 

And from a more practical view point Religion tends have a greater impact because of the inclusion of Divine Magic.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

There's also the matter of faith as the highest virtue of religion. One has faith that a benevolent God exists. One does not have faith that the lights will come on when the switch is flipped; there's too much empirical evidence for it for it to be faith.

 

Divine magic has a tendency to turn miracles into a light switch.

[Markdoc]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

I don't see how. If bad guys are quickly dispatched' date=' only the good guys are left. If potential bad guy know they'll be quickly dispatched, they're likely to behave themselves. [/quote']

 

Or - as happens in real life - it just leads to widespread murder. In San Francisco during the gold rush days, you had "genetleman vigilantes" who took it upon themselves to promote law and order, because they felt the cops weren't up to it. They then went on to promote law and order by killing other undesirables such as indigents, chinese, blacks, people they didn't particularly like, etc.

 

Sad to say, in real life people don't come with labels identifying them as "good" and "bad" and "good guys" don't go around killing on their own judgement - because in real life, they turn into bad guys, if they do.

 

 

Granted that the general availably of firepower (be it guns or spells) does not give the whole picture. Values are also of extreme importance. I was writing under the assumption that the great majority of Iraqi citizens want to live their lives in peace' date=' make a living, put food on the table, etc. If this majority is well armed, then the small minority that would rather make war against a perceived enemy - even at the cost of their own lives - than live in peace and prosperity, cannot possibly succeed. If this is not the prevailing attitude in Iraq, well then that's very sad. I know that it was the case in the old west, and in the medieval Europe upon which most fantasy is based. Most peasants want to live, work, and feed their families. They don't want to go to war.[/quote']

 

Ah, if only life were so simple. Having talked to a few Iraqis, I would guess that yes, the vast majority want to raise their families in peace and quiet. But here's a real life story one of them told me (he's now left Iraq and works for USAID in the horn of Africa).

 

When he was working at al Kinde hospital in Bagdhad, several men were bought in who had been wounded, one of them severely. As they were cleaning them up about a dozen armed men arrived, claimed the wounded men were terrorists and demanded the wounded men be given to them - one doctor protested, and they beat him. Baqir (the guy who was telling the story) had a pistol: doctors in Iraq are almost always armed because of the risk of kidnapping. He was pretty certain the armed guys were "bad guys".

 

But his choices were try to draw his pistol on a dozen edgy, heavily-armed guys, and probably die - or do nothing. He chose to do nothing and live, but his shame and rage over that incident (and the fact that he knows it's being played out again and again all over his country) is one thing that drove him to leave Iraq.

 

And that's how it plays out, over and over again, in the real world. There were a dozen armed doctors and nurses in the emergency room. But they were up against a dozen armed, and more importantly, *organized* men. No-one was willing to be the first to draw - and to die - over some men they didn't know.

 

Others are *not* willing to do nothing. They take their guns and fight to defend their families and way of life: that's where the militias tearing Iraq apart today come from. It's where the militias that tore Somalia apart came from too. It's the old, old story of - you kill my brother, I will kill you.

 

And who knows? Maybe the wounded men at al Kindi really *were* terrorists and that if Mohammed Baqir had drawn his gun he would have been dying for the wrong reason. Life is not like a Batman comic.

 

It was not by accident I mentioned the Icelandic sagas. If there's a single theme in all those stories it's that killing - even for good reasons - leads to more killing. Many of the heroes of those stories are men who fought to protect their family or their land - and who knew even as they killed, that the friends and family of the man they had just killed would come looking for vegeance.

 

cheers, Mark

[Lucius]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

In fantasy religion ends up playing a far greater part then in other setting which have totally different tropes and conventions and literature to draw upon. mainly cuz Fantasy (at least in part) simulates our earlier time periods, and the idea of religion as "no big deal" or somthing that is taken with more then a few grains of salt is a very new concept culturally speaking.

People lived and died by their religion in these time periods..

 

In the first place: I'm not sure what world you're living in, but in mine, religion is still frequently a very big deal indeed. It sways presidential elections, fuels wars, and is often a factor in human thought and behavior. People still live and die by their religions.

 

In the second place: I'm not so sure that taking a more cavalier or sceptical attitude is something unique to modern Western culture. I remember my anthropology professor saying that no matter what the "official" mythology of a culture, in every tribe he found there were some atheists, some monotheists, and some polytheists. And I seem to remember that even Confucious wouldn't commit himself to the existence of Gods and spirits; the most he said was "We should behave as if they are real." And then there were the Greek and Roman philosophers...

 

And from a more practical view point Religion tends have a greater impact because of the inclusion of Divine Magic.

 

In the first place: what makes a Jedi using the Force NOT "Divine Magic?"

 

In the second place: why does fantasy have to have "Divine Magic" however you're defining it?

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Sator arepo tenet opera rotas!

[Zed-F]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

I've noticed that it's quiet common in discussions on magic systems and magic use for comments to pop up to the effect that someone wants magic to be rare and difficult, and/or that it should be restricted to specialist casters, at least to some degree.

 

I have two questions for those expressing such sentiments.

 

First, why is this?

 

Second, is this simply what you prefer in your games/settings, or is it something you think should be the case in most/all settings and campaigns?

 

Thanks.

 

What magic is like can and should vary from gameworld to gameworld.

 

Gameworlds where magic is relatively powerful tend to diverge more from a commonly-understood baseline reality. This is especially the case where magic is both powerful and common. This makes describing those gameworlds to the players more challenging. One of the reasons the Tolkein-esque fantasy setting is so commonly used, is precisely because almost everyone understands the tropes. Failing that, a prospective gamemaster has to spend a lot of energy both building the world and, as importantly, communicating his vision to the players.

 

These days I tend to prefer games where I have relatively well-defined areas where I have to stretch my disbelief, but otherwise the world is pretty much a normal modern or historical setting. This makes it easier to understand and interact with the game world. If I were to run a fantasy game, I would probably run one where magic is divine in nature, but is rare and largely takes the form of gifts, not spells. Actual miracles would be miraculous, impossible to reproduce, as they should be.

 

Another possibility would be to start from a world with no magic, introduce a magical event which changes the world, and explore the ramifications of that. In fact, that is what I am currently doing in my Dark Champions game, where the widespread sudden introduction of superpowers, combined with an imminent alien invasion, looks like it may result in an apocalypse for modern society. What falls out remains to be seen. In a fantasy setting, I might go for a more subtle approach, with less far-reaching effects.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

Or - as happens in real life - it just leads to widespread murder. In San Francisco during the gold rush days' date=' you had "genetleman vigilantes" who took it upon themselves to promote law and order, because they felt the cops weren't up to it. They then went on to promote law and order by killing other undesirables such as indigents, chinese, blacks, people they didn't particularly like, etc.[/quote']

Like I said, values are involved, too.

 

Sad to say, in real life people don't come with labels identifying them as "good" and "bad" and "good guys" don't go around killing on their own judgement - because in real life, they turn into bad guys, if they do.

They don't need labels. All it takes is good values, the courage to use them, and awareness of what's going on to determine whether someone is a good guy or a bad guy. If they kill on good judgement, they remain good guys.

 

Baqir (the guy who was telling the story) had a pistol: doctors in Iraq are almost always armed because of the risk of kidnapping. He was pretty certain the armed guys were "bad guys".

He wasn't certain enough to act. A gun without the courage to use it is of no use. Maybe if he, or some of the doctors and nurses, had stood up to these men, and been willing to fight and risk their lives, then next time the men would think twice before threatening a hospital. Because they got their way, they're emboldened to do the same thing at the next hospital.

 

And that's how it plays out, over and over again, in the real world. There were a dozen armed doctors and nurses in the emergency room. But they were up against a dozen armed, and more importantly, *organized* men. No-one was willing to be the first to draw - and to die - over some men they didn't know.

Correct. If no one has the courage to change things, nothing changes. Appeasing aggressors is what leads to more killing.

 

Others are *not* willing to do nothing. They take their guns and fight to defend their families and way of life: that's where the militias tearing Iraq apart today come from. It's where the militias that tore Somalia apart came from too. It's the old, old story of - you kill my brother, I will kill you.

That's just bad values again - people who prefer revenge over living in peace.

 

And who knows? Maybe the wounded men at al Kindi really *were* terrorists and that if Mohammed Baqir had drawn his gun he would have been dying for the wrong reason. Life is not like a Batman comic.

And what "wrong reason" would that have been? It is O.K. to attack a hospital if there's a patient in it who is a terrorist?

 

It was not by accident I mentioned the Icelandic sagas. If there's a single theme in all those stories it's that killing - even for good reasons - leads to more killing. Many of the heroes of those stories are men who fought to protect their family or their land - and who knew even as they killed, that the friends and family of the man they had just killed would come looking for vegeance.

That goes back to what I was saying in the first place. If the people who only kill for good reasons are better armed than the people who kill for bad reasons, you get *less* killing. Killing over some primitive tribal idea of revenge is *not* a good reason. Maybe there's a reason why this way of life doesn't exist in Iceland anymore.

[assault]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

Maybe there's a reason why this way of life doesn't exist in Iceland anymore.

 

What ended "this way of life" in Iceland was the extension of centralised state power, ultimately resulting in Iceland becoming a Norwegian colony. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iceland

 

In many ways, this was a step backwards. What was originally something resembling a democracy ended up as an autocracy, with many formerly free inhabitants becoming serfs. Good old feudalism...

 

Incidentally, that means that feudalising the Sagas is no particular drama. They weren't written down until relatively late, and replacing the various characters with "knights" would be fairly trivial.

 

And that brings the fantastic elements into a feudal setting. Just right for a "traditional" fantasy game.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

And what "wrong reason" would that have been? It is O.K. to attack a hospital if there's a patient in it who is a terrorist?

 

This is getting to be an NGD FlameThread. To extend on your analogy, "is it OK to attack a nation because there's a terrorist (organization) hiding therein" is a pretty hot topic over the past few years.

[Kristopher]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

OK, seriously, let's not drift my thread from "the effect of combat magic on a society" to the close-to-lockdown topic of "modern gnu control debate".

[JackValhalla]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

I maintain that the availability of lethal force is unconnected to the will to use it. Canadians are, on average, better armed than Americans. The Japanese are largely unarmed. Both cultures have less murder than America.

So, returning to topic,it would follow that the availability of lethal magic, all things remaining equal, would not make a more hostile, or a more polite, society.

Now, if magic made it possible to kill in different ways.. For example, if voodoo dolls were amazingly effective and easy, you mind have to consider those ramifications. Indirect, long-ranged, covert.. perfect assassin's tool, and it would have to affect certain parts of society. Your ruling class would be a lot more concerned with either the contentedness of their people, or their own security. Any ruler has enemies, so I'm thinking that security would be more practical. So, does that mean that they ring themselves in protective wards and sorcery-wielding guards with sunglasses and earpieces? Or do they simply find a tower and isolate themselves so that nobody could remove a lock of their hair to use on the doll? Answers to those questions will begin shaping the campaign world.

What if a magic spell, commonly available and easily mastered, could indeed throw a fireball capable of mass damage? That will certainly change the entire progression of battlefield techniques that we know from history, massed infantry would never have been viable, cavalry charges only slightly moreso.

"Substitutional" magic, that only replicates, fairly closely, the effects of mundane phenomena, would not have such sweeping changes. A "magic missile" spell that can kill one target within your line of sight is not much different than a bow and arrow, save that it may be easier to smuggle through checkpoints, unless there are spellcheckers at the gates. A spell that lets you levitate a large load and tow it along behind you is not significantly different from a horse and cart in most ways.

But, a spell that lets you walk through walls? Unless it is very limited, it will, perforce, impact your campaign world in a big way.

[Markdoc]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

OK' date=' seriously, let's not drift my thread from "the effect of combat magic on a society" to the close-to-lockdown topic of "modern gnu control debate".[/quote']

 

Agreed. I'll even avoid a joke on the control of horned mammals

 

Cheers, Mark

[Springald Jack]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

There's also the matter of faith as the highest virtue of religion. One has faith that a benevolent God exists. One does not have faith that the lights will come on when the switch is flipped; there's too much empirical evidence for it for it to be faith.

 

Divine magic has a tendency to turn miracles into a light switch.

 

That's a western attitude. I've seen a temple in India where a young woman was bossing around her whole family because she was possesed by a god. Who was therefore very obviously real to everyone involved. Many of the people in the temple were named Pondi (the name of the deity) because they're birth was as closely attributed to the intervention of Pondi as the I attribute the light in my room to flipping the switch.

[Markdoc]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

I maintain that the availability of lethal force is unconnected to the will to use it. Canadians are, on average, better armed than Americans. The Japanese are largely unarmed. Both cultures have less murder than America.

So, returning to topic,it would follow that the availability of lethal magic, all things remaining equal, would not make a more hostile, or a more polite, society.

 

Agreed. The whole "armed = polite" thing makes a nice soundbite, but nothing else. It is interesting, though to think about how societies in-game would deal with "magical firepower".

 

Now' date=' if magic made it possible to kill in different ways.. For example, if voodoo dolls were amazingly effective and easy, you mind have to consider those ramifications. Indirect, long-ranged, covert.. perfect assassin's tool, and it would have to affect certain parts of society. Your ruling class would be a lot more concerned with either the contentedness of their people, or their own security. Any ruler has enemies, so I'm thinking that security would be more practical. So, does that mean that they ring themselves in protective wards and sorcery-wielding guards with sunglasses and earpieces? Or do they simply find a tower and isolate themselves so that nobody could remove a lock of their hair to use on the doll? Answers to those questions will begin shaping the campaign world. [/quote']

 

This is the beauty of low magic worlds - when confronted with the murdered duke, the players don't have to contend with the fact that maybe it was the daughter of a man he executed 6 months ago, who did it from her beach house in the other hemisphere.

 

Still, I like to have both powerful magic and low magic cultures in my game, so you are right, this is a defining question. To take an example, in my game, one of the dominant features is that much of one continent is taken up by two old, powerful empires with high magic (and the ruins of a third). In one of them, rulers have gone the security route - every powerful person has a bevy of mages who spend all their time casting spells to prevent scrying, prevent disease and old age, block teleport, mystical attacks, etc. In this culture, being a mage is an unusual, but respected craft, and you only need to be good at one or two spells to have a secure job. That means "magic-for-hire" is a distinct possibility. The opposing empire is big on control. There, the mages are actually in charge (OK, they call themselves "priests" and magical training takes place in "Temples", but mages is what they really are). They deal with the threat by carefully checking for and culling out any magic use by "infidels" - which is to say, anybody not temple-approved, and having an inquisition which keeps an eye on the approved.

 

What if a magic spell' date=' commonly available and easily mastered, could indeed throw a fireball capable of mass damage? That will certainly change the entire progression of battlefield techniques that we know from history, massed infantry would never have been viable, cavalry charges only slightly moreso.[/quote']

 

Right. It goes further. What about magic weapons/armour? A mage who can generate a 13 PD forcewall can essentially ignore archers (as can the people with him). A mage who can fly - especially if he can take people with him - changes siege dynamics. Again to take the two empires above, in the first case the mage specialisation thing carries over into "military magic technology". For assault troops you have the warguilds: warriors with enchanted armour and weapons, passed religiously down through the generations and ever more dolled-up as time goes by. For battle-field support, you have teams of mages who do Attack spells and Defence spells. They may not have many spells, but, there are in fact only so many ways you can blow stuff up. If you spend all your points on EB, you can get a pretty good EB! This makes their army small, mobile and very hard hitting - the vast bulk of the army is actually used for garrison duty, tax-collecting and protecting the mages. Think about it. On one side, 1000 guys with normal armour and weapons. On the other, 2 guys with magical armour that augments their STR, lets them fly, breathe in the absence of air and bounce arrows like gentle rain, armed with flame lances that can melt stone - at range. Without magical support, it's not a question of who wins, but of how many of the 1000 get away. Even if the two uber knights cost 1000 times as much to equip as one ordinary knight, it's still a viable strategy. The other Empire, in contrast, fields armies with many warriors, among whom are sprinkled hundreds of spellcasters of various levels, who serve as medics, and combined moral and fire support. Individually, they are no match for their counterparts, but there's a *lot* of them.

 

In short, I actually use the modern firepower idea in designing the armies of my "high magic" societies. Doing so, has shaped the societies themselves: though I hadn't planned it, when I thought about it, the feudal aspects withered away.

 

"Substitutional" magic, that only replicates, fairly closely, the effects of mundane phenomena, would not have such sweeping changes. A "magic missile" spell that can kill one target within your line of sight is not much different than a bow and arrow, save that it may be easier to smuggle through checkpoints, unless there are spellcheckers at the gates. A spell that lets you levitate a large load and tow it along behind you is not significantly different from a horse and cart in most ways.

But, a spell that lets you walk through walls? Unless it is very limited, it will, perforce, impact your campaign world in a big way.

 

Agreed - here's the kicker for me. What about "immunity to aging" and "Immunity to disease"? Real-life rulers spent fortunes on chasing these. If they could be purchased - even if it cost a fortune - people would want it. What happens to a society when the rulers (or even just plain wealthy people) can - in theory - stay in place for generations?

 

What happens to rules of inheritance, one of the defining features of premodern societies? Or to the concept of "life after death"? (Other than "I'd rather not find out"). How many points is a 1200 year old warrior built on?

 

Again, answering those questions has shaped the societies. In Empire #1, the question of inheritance is largely meaningless. Daddy can leave his stuff equally to all his children (which could be anywhere from 1 to 100 of them), or to somebody else entirely. A child is *expected* to go out and earn his own way in the world. As one result, people have a stronger attachment to the extended family and the clan, than the immediate family. The son of the clan leader can't expect to grow up and inherit Daddy's (or Mummy's) position, but their parent *is* expected to provide them with a living (usually a position in the business, or if that's not possible, something to get them started in the world). If Mummy and Daddy can't afford it, your uncle, or the family's patron should. Mummy and Daddy are also expected to watch their back verrrry carefully, in the upper echelons of society: after waiting 200 years, Junior might be getting a tad impatient to step up in the heirarchy - though if he's good, he might be able to do so *without* them unexpectedly falling backwards onto a salad fork . Society - especially at the upper levels - is cultured, secretive and seething with intrigue, but also relatively open to newcomers and socially mobile. Ability is more important than lineage and age (though without ability you won't live to any great age...). If being the oldest son of a wealthy and powerful family doesn't guarantee succession to same, the prestige associated with lineage is diminished. Boasting of your family's ancient lineage cuts less ice when there is someone in the room who remembers your founding father as a wee tadger.

In empire #2, however the only way to get magical protection and magical longevity is to belong to the temple - because only they have mages, natch. But to join the temple, you have to give the Temple all your stuff (meaning it accumulates more and more all the time). Thus the Temple *is* to all extents and purposes, both the government and the army. But since it's men-only, it's never acquired the role of a nobility: it's something you join, not something you're from. In this power structure, you can politic your way to the top.

 

So by posing questions and seeking answers to the same "magic" questions I ended up with two different societies. This was by design. Empire #1 is the "adventurer-friendly" society, where highly-skilled combatants are valued (if they are not complete loonies, and occasionally even if they are) and bright young things can rise in the world, if they are cunning, careful and lucky. Empire #2 is the "bad guy" empire as far as most players are concerned. They're not "evil" per se, they don't have giant demon-rape ceremonies or anything, but they are rigid, humorless, structured and definitely not down with the idea of armed strangers wandering from town to town.

 

cheers, Mark

[Black Rose]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

An alternative view - the kind I was describing - was that magic was a key aspect of reality. In this approach, if Hades abducts Persephone, Demeter goes into mourning, and crops don't grow. At all.

 

And if humans fail to pay due respect to Demeter, their crops won't grow either.

 

Magic is not necessarily about making things happen better or faster - it can be about making things happen at all. It's not about making life better - it's about making life possible.

 

This is "wide" magic. Its practice involves almost everyone in a society to one degree or another. If you like, it's a relationship between a community and the divine.

 

It is not "narrow" magic in the sense of being restricted to a bunch of mystics hanging out in a tower studying the mysteries. (That can go on too, of course.)

 

It is "low" magic in the sense that its effects are barely distinguishable from mere chance. It isn't "high" magic in the sense of flashy effects like creating fireballs or continual sources of light. These could happen sometimes, of course, but they are hardly routine.

In a lot of ways, this is the way I prefer magic in my Empire game to work. For the most part, there are "arrangements" that the people have with the Gods - mortals do this thing and the Gods shall do this other thing... usually. So long as the rituals are performed at the appropriate times, the crops will grow... unless "somebody does something to displease Jerilin Harvestbringer", in which case something bad might happen. Though Jerilin is pretty laid back... for a God (this is at least partially due to exellent growing conditions in the Empire).

 

That's a western attitude. I've seen a temple in India where a young woman was bossing around her whole family because she was possesed by a god. Who was therefore very obviously real to everyone involved. Many of the people in the temple were named Pondi (the name of the deity) because they're birth was as closely attributed to the intervention of Pondi as the I attribute the light in my room to flipping the switch.

Exactly!! This is the kind of miracle I like. Something happens, and it is deemed a miracle, and everyone knows it. Don't try to explain fertility cycles to me, bub, Pondi made it so I could have a son!

 

And really, this is how miracles should be in "most" fantasy games IMO. Some event occurs, and a number of people witness it, and call it a miracle, and maybe some others claim they were there too, to get in on the benefits (free meals for telling the story), and the priests are sticking with the party line, whether they believe or not, and....

 

You see what I mean? I like the idea of an event being declared "miraculous" and people simply going with it - regardless of how "big" it is. When you think about it, finally being able to have a child when you couldn't before sans fertility meds is pretty miraculous.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

What ended "this way of life" in Iceland was the extension of centralised state power, ultimately resulting in Iceland becoming a Norwegian colony. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iceland

 

In many ways, this was a step backwards. What was originally something resembling a democracy ended up as an autocracy, with many formerly free inhabitants becoming serfs. Good old feudalism...

Based on what MarkDoc said, it sounded like a bunch of tribal clans continually trying to conquer each other, fighting back, taking revenge, and re-revenge, and re-re-revenge, etc. That this isn't happening anymore in Iceland seems more like a step forward to me.

 

But, a spell that lets you walk through walls? Unless it is very limited, it will, perforce, impact your campaign world in a big way.

This has always been one that's bugged me. There's this other game system you may have heard of, where they have spells called "Ethereal Form" and "Passwall" and "Stone Shape" and "Meld into Stone" and "Transmute Rock to Mud" and "Teleport" and "Fly" etc., and yet heads of state in their world still build stone castles and build stone walls around their cities for "protection."

 

I apologize for my contribution to thread derailment earlier. The relevent point is that the impact magic has on the world depends not only on the magic itself, but on the morality of those who use it. A world in which the only magic comes from pacts with the devil (or similar evil entities), and has a corrupting influence on the user will be very different from a world where magic comes from good gods, and is dependant on obeying their good principles. This difference will exist even if the magical effects achieved are exactly the same.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

That's a western attitude. I've seen a temple in India where a young woman was bossing around her whole family because she was possesed by a god. Who was therefore very obviously real to everyone involved. Many of the people in the temple were named Pondi (the name of the deity) because they're birth was as closely attributed to the intervention of Pondi as the I attribute the light in my room to flipping the switch.

 

When someone has faith in a higher power, they see all sorts of things that are unargueable signs of that power. That explains all the Virgin Mary sightings in Catholic countries, as opposed to tribal animist countries. The fact that the person of faith sees absolute evidence doesn't mean that observers without that faith see it as such.

 

Divine magic, as usually represented in fantasy roleplaying, makes it very difficult for anyone to disbelieve in the gods. We, in the real world, if we don't have faith in the power in question, can say that this Virgin Mary is actually a scorch on tortilla with some natural human pattern-finding thrown in, or that this possession by a god is actually a sign of a mental disturbance. It's hard to say that when a religious figure calls on the power of the gods to raise your neighbor from the dead, and then your neighbor goes around telling everyone what the afterlife is like.

[Kristopher]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

When someone has faith in a higher power, they see all sorts of things that are unargueable signs of that power. That explains all the Virgin Mary sightings in Catholic countries, as opposed to tribal animist countries. The fact that the person of faith sees absolute evidence doesn't mean that observers without that faith see it as such.

 

Divine magic, as usually represented in fantasy roleplaying, makes it very difficult for anyone to disbelieve in the gods. We, in the real world, if we don't have faith in the power in question, can say that this Virgin Mary is actually a scorch on tortilla with some natural human pattern-finding thrown in, or that this possession by a god is actually a sign of a mental disturbance. It's hard to say that when a religious figure calls on the power of the gods to raise your neighbor from the dead, and then your neighbor goes around telling everyone what the afterlife is like.

 

Even if someone else can pull off the same magic and says it has nothing to do with the gods?

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

Even if someone else can pull off the same magic and says it has nothing to do with the gods?

 

I suppose the world could be structured like that, but most divine-magic-as-presented-in-fantasy-games has no secular style resurrection magic, and no priest in any halfway believable world would deny the existence of the gods and still be able to use their magic.

[Lucius]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

When someone has faith in a higher power' date=' they see all sorts of things that are unargueable signs of that power. That explains all the Virgin Mary sightings in Catholic countries, as opposed to tribal animist countries.[/quote']

 

Where they see much the same thing, but deem it a local Goddess, or Kuan Yin, or whatever.

 

Divine magic, as usually represented in fantasy roleplaying, makes it very difficult for anyone to disbelieve in the gods. We, in the real world, if we don't have faith in the power in question, can say that this Virgin Mary is actually a scorch on tortilla with some natural human pattern-finding thrown in, or that this possession by a god is actually a sign of a mental disturbance. It's hard to say that when a religious figure calls on the power of the gods to raise your neighbor from the dead, and then your neighbor goes around telling everyone what the afterlife is like.

 

In Terry Pratchet's Feet of Clay ..

 

Hmm, how do you do that "spoiler" thing??

 

I don't know how, so if you don't want a plot point given away, just don't read the next paragraph.

 

Towards the end of Feet of Clay a delegation of priests confronts a golem who has declared himself (itself?) an atheist. The priest of Io calls down lightning. Fortunately, the golem, being a thing of clay, is far from destroyed and not even seriously damaged, and responds "A lightning bolt is not a rational argument."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Not to further thread derailment, but the palindromedary feels obliged to point out that "a polite society" and "a violent society" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It is possible to be both scrupulously courteous and capable of lethal violence.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

Where they see much the same thing, but deem it a local Goddess, or Kuan Yin, or whatever.

Exactly. In the real world, any of these manifestations can be interpreted in other ways. It's the faith that makes the difference.

 

In Terry Pratchet's Feet of Clay ..

 

Hmm, how do you do that "spoiler" thing??

 

I don't know how, so if you don't want a plot point given away, just don't read the next paragraph.

 

Towards the end of Feet of Clay a delegation of priests confronts a golem who has declared himself (itself?) an atheist. The priest of Io calls down lightning. Fortunately, the golem, being a thing of clay, is far from destroyed and not even seriously damaged, and responds "A lightning bolt is not a rational argument."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Pratchet's works are rarely meant to be taken seriously, at least IME. Even so, this illustration isn't too far out in left field. A lightning bolt isn't a rational argument. (Although, I'd say that faith isn't really meant to be discussed in an entirely rational manner.) However, it could be demonstrated to any citizen of a fantasy world who cared to carry out the experiment that when a priest casts a spell, he's not using any arcane gestures or words of power. He calls on the gods, and maybe makes some ritual motions common to the religion, and the miracle happens. Anyone could do the exact same things, but without the priest's faith and devotion to the gods, nothing happens. If the golem were truely rational, and carried out this experiment, in addition to not being very funny, it would prove that the gods exist.

 

Of course, this effect lessens in those worlds where the gestures and incantations are more difficult for the layman to repeat, until you reach a point where divine magic is as arcane as secular magic. Then it gets more difficult to prove the existence of the gods, except that some who study for the priesthood are never able to cast spells, for their lack of faith.

 

Not to further thread derailment, but the palindromedary feels obliged to point out that "a polite society" and "a violent society" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It is possible to be both scrupulously courteous and capable of lethal violence.

 

That's true. Look at the samurai. Or the Victorians.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

I suppose the world could be structured like that' date=' but most divine-magic-as-presented-in-fantasy-games has no secular style resurrection magic, and no priest in any halfway believable world would deny the existence of the gods and still be able to use their magic.[/quote']

That's the B&D model, but there's no reason why it *has* to be that way. Just because those guys divide magic into "Arcane" and "Divine" and say that "Clerics" and "Druids" can use healing magic but "Wizards" and "Sorcerors" can't, doesn't mean that's the way all fantasy RPGs have to be. And BTW, it isn't even the way most fantasy literature is.

 

Even the magic used by a priest doesn't *have* to come from the gods, or that he even has to use magic at all.

[JackValhalla]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

I suppose the world could be structured like that' date=' but most divine-magic-as-presented-in-fantasy-games has no secular style resurrection magic, and no priest in any halfway believable world would deny the existence of the gods and still be able to use their magic.[/quote']

I'm one of those folks that likes to defy expectations. So, I've pulled off what you hypothesize above. Fantasy game, three schools of magic. Basically, they are psionics, alchemy, and divine magic.

Users of divine magic are the walking tac-nukes. They are the artillary, the deterrents, whatever. They bring the smite. They don't heal. They don't res.

Most healing magic is psionic. One effect would force the body to begin the regenerative process, healing at an advanced rate, but not instantaneously. Another psi effect could keep someone from feeling pain, if necessary. A third one could seal a spirit into the flesh, keeping them from dying before they can be healed. Incapacitated, but healing.

Alchemy, on the other hand, was the only school that had a legitimate resurrection effect. One potion could only be used nine times per subject, the other could be used as many times as necessary. The first one was made from cats, the second from phoenixes.

[Markdoc]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

The relevent point is that the impact magic has on the world depends not only on the magic itself' date=' but on the morality of those who use it. A world in which the only magic comes from pacts with the devil (or similar evil entities), and has a corrupting influence on the user will be very different from a world where magic comes from good gods, and is dependant on obeying their good principles. This difference will exist even if the magical effects achieved are exactly the same.[/quote']

 

Now this is a very good point - in fact, by chance, it's the key point around which my current story-arc is based. The basic setup is this. There's three kinds of magic in the area where the players are.

 

The first kind is oldy-timey magic, where you make a deal with the Forest God and he gives you a magic gift. In return, you have to give him something. It's powerful, but very limited magic (you pay full cost for powers and only limited kinds of power is available)

Then there's temple magic. This doesn't actually come *from* the gods, so much as the basic techniques were taught by the by the gods. It's technology, of a sort - secret cult knowledge only shared with the initiated, but no different in practice from other cult secrets - like for example, how to calculate the span of a load-bearing arch, which you might learn from a building-oriented cult. (This magic uses a VPP, but what goes into it quite limited).

Last of all, there's "new magic" - potentially the most powerful of all, but which has significant and potentially nasty side effects (it uses a multipower structure and is based off the Valdorian Age system, letting you get alot of bang for your buck, pointwise). This last system of magic has been portrayed so far in the campaign as universally used by evil cults, it's dangerous and corrupting, etc and the players are happily chasing down a group of cultists with the aim of putting them all to the sword.

 

The kicker of course, is that later in the game, the players will get a chance to learn to use the same kind of magic, offered by someone who claims to be able to *avoid* the nasty side effects. What will they do? Will they accept the extra power? By that point in the game, they will be facing powerful and ruthless foes, so they'll need all the help they can get. If they do accept the magic, will they be able to accept the stringent discipline needed to keep the nasty side effects at bay? If not, what will they do when they realise they are starting to resemble the evil cultists they are supposed to be fighting...

 

Interestingly, the players had a long argument last night over what to do with a potentially heretical book (not even a magic book, just a text on philosophy) which suggests the fault lines are already starting to emerge between the "practical sorts" and the hardliners. And I haven't even tempted anybody yet

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

Even if someone else can pull off the same magic and says it has nothing to do with the gods?

 

This is one of the talking points in the "Empire #1" from my game I mentioned above - frequently posed questions include "How do we *know* the gods exist? What's the difference between a God and a really powerful mage? Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from divine power, etc etc".

 

That's why lots of taverns there have signs posted saying "No religious arguments"

 

cheers, Mark