On Magic and Miracles

[Jack7]

What is the exact relationship between the Magical, and the Miraculous? How are they different, how similar? What aspects do they share in common, and what aspects are at variance with each other, or perhaps even contradict each other? Is there a relationship between magic and miracle, and if so, how is that defined, and what does it mean? For that matter is there a particular “Magical personality type” and/or a particular “Miraculous personality type” (individuals who are drawn to the idea of either, or of both, and if so, what are these personalities like, and why)?

I have my own views on these matters, of course, which maybe I’ll share later after others have had their turn at bat, but I’d like to solicit other opinions for now and not darken or prejudice the waters with my own ideas. For the moment I’d rather see what anybody else, or everyone else for that matter, might think on these things.

Now of course you are welcome to discuss these things from a gaming or even an in-game point of view, but as far as I’m concerned you need not limit yourself to that particular perspective, or at least not to that perspective alone. But I am interested in seeing how others define Magic and Miracle, and how they perceive the relationship between these things to function (or perhaps not function).

There is of course no right answer; I am more interested in a sort of search for the general truth (assuming there is a general consensus on these matters) and a search for perceptual truth (how various people relate these things within their own minds and outlooks). And given that how do you think these various general and personal opinions influence how magic and miracles work in games? And why might that be so?

Of course there is no need to limit yourself to the specific questions I asked. Anything addressing the subject matters of Magic and Miracles is fair game to me. Or to you if you want it to be.

I just ask that if you wander into areas like mythology and religion and personal belief, etc. (which I’m all for by the way) that you do so respectfully and considerately and thoughtfully and interestingly, rather than argumentatively or agitatedly, or in a hostile fashion.

Well, I got a squadron meeting tonight so I can’t stick around for this right now. But I’ll be real interested to read what your thoughts and opinions are on these matters later on when I can get back to this.

See ya.

 

[Yabanjin]

A miracle, no matter what setting, would have to be something so utterly inconceivably wonderful that it would be an utter impossibility. If the setting is 30 CE, creating a large amount of food from very little is a miracle. If the setting is Faerun, it's just a 3rd-level cleric spell, and it's probably not viewed as a miracle among educated circles. "Miracle" connotes goodness and power beyond the reach of mortals. In game terms, a miracle is the act of a good-aligned (possibly neutral) god beyond the scope of powers available to mortals.

Magic, on the other hand, carries fewer connotations. Magic can be minor in scope, evil, trainable, or constrained by fundamental laws and still be called magic; miracles are none of those. Miracles are usually magical, but not all magic is miraculous. Magic that a human being can perform is not a miracle, no matter how good, and no act of an evil god could be called a miracle.

That's my take on it, anyway.

 

[Jack7]

A miracle, no matter what setting, would have to be something so utterly inconceivably wonderful that it would be an utter impossibility. If the setting is 30 CE, creating a large amount of food from very little is a miracle. If the setting is Faerun, it's just a 3rd-level cleric spell, and it's probably not viewed as a miracle among educated circles.

You made some real good points, but this one in particular struck me as a good insight about the background environment versus what is considered miraculous.

Bringing back someone form the dead nowadays would not be considered very miraculous if they had only been dead ten minutes or so (under the right conditions).

But if someone had been declared dead for ten days and then was alive again, I think most people would still consider that miraculous without much question. Then again I think that kind of thing would be considered well beyond the art of any magic either, so I guess you could say it's a sort of sliding scale of impossibility versus improbability.

You had some good observations.
Well, night all.

 

[Clavis]

For me, Magic is a matter of command and will, while Miracles can only be requested and accepted. The magician commands the spirits and forces of nature to do his will, while the priest only requests that his deity grant him a miracle. Magic is subject to laws and rules, albeit bizarre rules that only make sense to the magicians themselves. Miracles, on the other hand, are subject only to the whim of some deity. The magician is a rival to the gods, while the holy man who performs miracles is only their servant.

In most pre-industrial societies there is only a vague line between magic and science. Many of the fathers of modern science, such as Paracelsus and Newton, also engaged in magical practices (in both cases Alchemy). Ultimately, the goal of the magician and the scientist are the same - to make man the master of his environment. Such a goal is opposed to reliance on miracles, which demonstrate that man cannot master his environment. In a fantasy setting, magicians and clerics should stand opposed to each other, just as they usually have in the real world.

 

[Jack7]

I understand your points Clav, and I agree with them for the most part.

I'm gonna point these particular statements out though for further discussion.

Miracles, on the other hand, are subject only to the whim of some deity.

Is this statement entirely true? Is it assumed either in-game, or in real life for that matter that the capabilities or powers granted to a cleric (or any worshipper), or even the production (if that is the right term) of miraculous events is entirely up to the whim of the deity or to God? For instance is there nothing the cleric or anyone else seeking a miracle can do to successfully solicit a miracle, or nothing they can do to improve the odds of a miracle occurring? True, a miracle, in the supernatural sense, cannot truly occur without a Divine intervention of some sort, but does any deity or God just arbitrarily distribute miracles without rhyme or reason? Or are there definite motivations on the part of the deity, as well as incentive behavior on the part of the requester, which make miracles more likely to occur?

(For instance if a worshipper or practitioner is contrite, humble, prayerful, pious, etc. are these and related behaviors more likely to elicit or solicit miraculous behavior or occurrences, or less so, or do such actions remain totally uninfluential in the matter? Or in game terms do not deities usually require some type of service, devotion, worship, etc? I understand your point and agree with the thrust of what you are pointing out, as far as matters of "control differential between magic and miracles," but I am pointing these things out as the basis for, and of, future and further discussion, without trying to overtly interject my own opinions at this point.)

Many of the fathers of modern science, such as Paracelsus and Newton, also engaged in magical practices (in both cases Alchemy). Ultimately, the goal of the magician and the scientist are the same - to make man the master of his environment. Such a goal is opposed to reliance on miracles, which demonstrate that man cannot master his environment. In a fantasy setting, magicians and clerics should stand opposed to each other, just as they usually have in the real world.

This is an interesting point too and I agree for the most part. However since you brought up the apparent motivational relationship between magic and science I'd like top point out a couple of things here as well. Many of the greatest scientists in the world, especially in the West, Newton for instance, were also extremely devout men, if not priests and monks. (Newton for example wrote more on God and Christology than he did on science, and as you point out, he was also considered by many to be a magician of sorts, at the very least a practicing alchemist). Then there are cases replete in Western science (Medieval and post-Medieval) where monks and priests made important discoveries and were in many respects considered the fathers of their science, Mendel for instance, to name but one such example. And they tended to be very devout and religious men, and sometimes women. This trend continues today with scientists, some of whom are acquaintances or friends of mine.

But back to your point. I too agree, that on first blush, and even to some very deep level the idea of magicians and the idea of scientists as individuals who wish to control and master their world (through a sort of combined understanding of secret or at least not generally obvious knowledge of the world and nature, which is then mixed with motivations of using that knowledge to gain mastery of the same) is a type of parallel and even overlapping worldview.

How then does this desire to master and understand the world mesh with the piety and devoutness of so many of these individuals? I am speaking here of course about real world examples like Newton and Galileo (who was very devout despite troubles with the Cardinals and the Church), and Kepler, and Bacon, and so forth? Is there some point of overlap where these seemingly conflicting, but perhaps not exclusionarily so, motivations begin to transmute themselves into similar or parallel motivations capable of achieving common ends?

And if that is true with the scientist/monk, or monk/scientist, depending upon your outlook, and it surely has been, then could it not also be true of the cleric/wizard? Are their separate and individual motivations always exclusionary and contradictory, or are they not sometimes obviously or not so obviously integrated in effect, or at the very least complimentary in design or desire?

Again I am not arguing with you per se, as much as trying to explore all of the possibilities, and to see what they might possibly imply. So with that in mind thanks for your input, and you've given me some things to think about that I might not have strictly considered in this context.

Anywho, at some point I guess we're gonna hav'ta to begin trying to define magic, and miracles, and see if that helps our cause, or hinders it. I suspect it will probably do a fair share of both...

 

[Ed_Laprade]

And then there's always the question of what to do with the Cleric of a God(dess) of Magic? Should they be able to learn magic too, or not? (That is, without multiclassing, but getting free access to the MU/Wizard spell list in older editions.)

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I'm gonna go with Miracles = Passive; Magic = Active.

Magical systems have always been intended to coerce the universe into a preferred pattern of behaviour. Either by sympathetic magic, right thinking, propitiating the spirits, getting your chi to flow uphill and whatnot.

Miracles just happen (and are ultimately from a source outside of the beneficiaries of said miracle.) Miracles are granted based solely on the whims of the granting power and although people may need them and even deserve them these have no bearing on whether or not the miracle will happen. Attempts to request miracles (ie: active attempt) are frequently met with a response similar to 'Do not tempt him, shallow one!' That being said, certain individuals have a right to ask for miracles. Moses and parting the Red Sea for instance. But this right is always granted by the miraculous power* and can be taken away at that being's whim. Certainly people can hope for them, beg for them, need them. None of which matters: sometimes the Lord is moved to pity, sometimes not. The 'why' and 'why not' of the situation are unknowable.

Of course there's grey areas and many folks claim miracles while attempting magic (eg: faith healers.) But just because the magicians are calling on outside powers does not make it miraculous. Many real world magical systems involve calling on supernatural entities (eg: genius locii, elementals, ancestors, etc.) The main thing about a magical system is that, in theory, the results should be repeatable. Failures to repeat are blamed on things like lack of strength of will, a change in the relationship with the granting power, interference from hostile powers, etc.

Yabanjin: I must disagree with you regarding miracles only coming from Good aligned deities. Why can't Evil deities grant miracles to their followers? They may be evil but these are their people they're miracling for. Their's in a very real and possessive sense. Oh the evil deity's motives may be different, more of a 'don't touch my stuff' than 'love and pity' sort of thing but a miracle is a miracle and no-one has a right to question the motives of the granting power (by my definition above anyway.)

Jack7: must disagree with you too. (I guess I'm just in that sort of mood.)

Bringing back someone form the dead nowadays would not be considered very miraculous if they had only been dead ten minutes or so (under the right conditions).

But if someone had been declared dead for ten days and then was alive again, I think most people would still consider that miraculous without much question.

This isn't evidence of miracles. This is just different levels of medical technology.


*Or the religious community depending on whether or not one believes miracles and their granting power are real. Or to put it another way: whether or not one is inside the religious community in question.

cheers.

 

[Yabanjin]

Why can't Evil deities grant miracles to their followers?

No reason in particular, it's just that miracle connotes "goodness" to me. I'm specifically imagining someone exclaiming, "It's a miracle!" I just can't see that happening when an evil god blows up the shining castle of Goodman McRighteous.

Purely a connotation thing, though, nothing objective.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Yabanjin: Fair enough.
For myself I can see Badguy McNasty standing by the smouldering ruins of the castle exclaiming 'The Righteous Fist of Evil hath Smitten thee, you pratt! God be praised.' It's important to capitalise letters when proclaiming the Lord's Work.

 

[Clavis]

For instance is there nothing the cleric or anyone else seeking a miracle can do to successfully solicit a miracle, or nothing they can do to improve the odds of a miracle occurring? True, a miracle, in the supernatural sense, cannot truly occur without a Divine intervention of some sort, but does any deity or God just arbitrarily distribute miracles without rhyme or reason? Or are there definite motivations on the part of the deity, as well as incentive behavior on the part of the requester, which make miracles more likely to occur?

The point of much religion is, on a certain level, to make miracles more likely. So, miracles should occur more frequently for the pious than for the impious. They're a reward for behaving in accordance with the god's wishes. On the other hand, some miracles might really have no point other than a reminder that the god exists and can work miracles. For instance, if the god decides to create a portrait of himself on some peasant's piece of burnt bread...

Many of the greatest scientists in the world, especially in the West, Newton for instance, were also extremely devout men, if not priests and monks. (Newton for example wrote more on God and Christology than he did on science, and as you point out, he was also considered by many to be a magician of sorts, at the very least a practicing alchemist). Then there are cases replete in Western science (Medieval and post-Medieval) where monks and priests made important discoveries and were in many respects considered the fathers of their science, Mendel for instance, to name but one such example. And they tended to be very devout and religious men, and sometimes women. This trend continues today with scientists, some of whom are acquaintances or friends of mine.

Very true. Many magicians and scientists were quite devout, but nonetheless ran into serious conflicts with the religious powers-that-be. The way that the magician or scientist sees themself, and the way that the church or temple sees them, could be very different. It's very easy for religious leaders to see the scientist/magician as leading people away from faith in the divine, even if the scientist/magician's aims are actually pious.

The conflict between magic and religion makes a good explanation for why a game world isn't overrun with magic. Perhaps clerical healing is only available for those who are not known to consort with wizards. Why isn't every nobleman raised form the dead? Because those nobles chose to employ magic in their wars, and many gods won't help anyone who displays a lack of faith by turning to magic! People would have to make a choice, whether to accept help from wizards or priests.

Is there some point of overlap where these seemingly conflicting, but perhaps not exclusionarily so, motivations begin to transmute themselves into similar or parallel motivations capable of achieving common ends?

And if that is true with the scientist/monk, or monk/scientist, depending upon your outlook, and it surely has been, then could it not also be true of the cleric/wizard? Are their separate and individual motivations always exclusionary and contradictory, or are they not sometimes obviously or not so obviously integrated in effect, or at the very least complimentary in design or desire?

That would historically be the point of view of the Theurgist, someone who employs the methods of religion to magical ends, and the methods of magic to religious ends. A good example would be Apollonius of Tyana. Theurgists tend to run into problems with the religious orthodoxy, of course.