On Magic and Miracles

[Jack7]

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

Possibly so, but then again I didn't say it was evidence of miracles, just that it would probably be popularly perceived as so. Then again to have miracles a real definition of what constitutes a miracle would have to be established that most everyone could agree to, if not with.

And I personally am not absolutely sure that a fixed and standardized definition of what a miracle actually is does anything to serve the nature of what a miracle actually is. Then again I think that's probably true for magic as well, at least to a certain extent.

That is to say that a miracle precisely and unerringly defined is not likely to be a miracle, and magic precisely and unerringly defined is not likely to be magic, but science. Evidence does not create miracle or magic, but it might help prove or demonstrate miracle or magic.


Which brings me to another interesting point about miracles, and maybe magic as well. Miracles are generally not thought of as being replicable, and as far as literature and myth etc. (with the exception of more recent literature dealing with the subject of magic, generally borrowed from D&D and similar sources I'd say) most magic has not been portrayed as replicable either. (That may indeed be a whole nuther animal, and I suspect it is, but I do find it interesting that key historical traits of un-repeatability have shown up as fundamental aspects of a game about fantastic and miraculous subject matters. I wonder if this tendency, from whatever source one quotes, Vancian, etc. is a sort of obsession of reducing everything to scientific principles of repeatability and therefore mastery - if you can't repeat a thing you cannot really master it, or perhaps some other, perhaps even a psychological origin? In any case as I said that is probably another animal, perhaps a fabulous one.)

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.

That's an interesting point to me as well. I too associate miracles with goodness and with God, not with evil and with evil deities or devils, demons, etc. This is probably I think because I usually assume that miracles are meant to benefit the greatest number of recipient in the greatest way possible while inflicting as little harm as possible to anyone else, or ideally so, no harm to anyone in any way. (Indeed I personally consider Good for All to be a real component of miracles.)

Now that being said I therefore think of Blessing as being the Opposite of Curse, and as Miracle as being the opposite of... (what?) and there is the problem as far as I'm concerned. Usually the opposite of miraculous is something like mundane, but it implies no opposite moral quality, or no malignant effect (in contrast to Miracle, which I think of as good for all). What therefore would be an appropriate counter-term to Miracle, as Curse is the counter-term to Bless? One that would imply a difference in origin from Miracle, a difference in possible effect (though it might appear as a miracle in some ways, or at least initially, I would assume such a thing would only possess a façade of beneficence but would actually be harmful in the long run to large numbers of enemies, recipients, or by-standers), and a difference in moral quality?

I'm at kind of a loss for a term that is a good counter-term or antonym for Miracle. But whatever that term might be, and I'm open to suggestions, that is what I'd call an Anti-Miracle or an Evil Miracle.

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.

True enough, and I think this goes back to the Orthodox/Heretical argument, and I find it interesting at least in the real world that the same basic argument could erupt regarding magicians, scientists (in some cases), and the unorthodox. Though from my point of view there is much less dis-similarity in general between these things in real world history than is the cases in games, where a certain degree of unorthodoxy or heretical belief and behavior is sort of expected. And maybe this is an influence of modern culture on game design. It's hard for me to imagine a Medieval version of D&D, one invented in the Medieval world, to have the same views on matters of Orthodoxy/Heresy, and magical affairs, as does our current culture and society. (I am not making a moral statement on any of these things, of course, merely making a personal set of observations.)

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.

I'm not sure this would be true in every situation or every setting, or is a built in game assumption, but it is a very interesting argument regarding a particular type of conflict between magic and miracle. I can easily see misuse or abuse of magic as being detrimental in the eyes of certain deities, and therefore they might place an embargo on intercourse or exchange between magic and miracle. (And of course if there is no real intercourse, then can there really be any magic? Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.)

But what about the opposite point of view as Ed alluded to? What kinds of magic would the gods favor, and under what circumstances? And what kinds of miracles would magic users either find particularly attractive, or wish they could perform? And if they could somehow master Miracles as if they were magic (at least repeatable game magic) then is it really a miracle anymore? And finally, if a magician gained access to miraculous powers through some extraordinary means other than through a deity, what would the deity do or not do about that?

Well, folks, it's been interesting, but I've been out in the cold a lot today and I'm pretty much played out.

Carry on, but I'm hitting the hay for now.
It's your show.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

This isn't evidence of miracles. This is just different levels of medical technology.
Possibly so, but then again I didn't say it was evidence of miracles, just that it would probably be popularly perceived as so.

Ah, I missed that. Sorry.
As to an antonym for Miracle I would have to go with Mundanity. A miracle is something that breaches the laws of nature by special act of God (who is, in the Judeao/ Christo/ Islamic religious model, considered apart from and unknowable by His creation.) It cannot be replicated or even explained by any agency short of God. Moral quality not required because a miracle does not have a moral quality. Now, one may suggest that because God is All Good that His Acts are too. But I would counter that an action is not it's motive. The mundane is that which is part of the normal course of the world. It can be understood and (theoretically) even controlled. Hence magic and then science.
Nor are miracles, per se, unrepeatable. If God wanted to part the Red Sea again, he could. Er, sorry, He could. Just that it requires the divinity to do the same trick again. Something divinities seem loathe to do. I suspect this is because for miracles to have maximum PR impact they need to be new and never before seen. (Aside: But didn't it rain mana in the desert many times for the wandering Israelites? That's a repeating a miracle if I've remembered it correctly.)
So I guess I'm saying that the definitive aspect of a miracle is it is an act of God. As opposed to the definitive aspect of magic which is an act of Humanity.

 

[LostSoul]

The way I see it - and this is for 4E - Clerics are trained to see the order that the gods imposed on the world and their ritual training aids them in it (ideologically tainted/brainwashed, perhaps).

Wizards are able to tap into the power of creation and mold it to obey their whims. With limited success.

 

[Syunsuke]

When something happens without perceivable cause-and-effect, it's miracle.
When something happens with perceivable cause-and-effect, it's magic or just mundane.

You build a house with manual labor; mundane.
You cast proper spell to create a house; magic.
You do nothing but suddenly a house maniffested; miracle.

With this point of view, clerics in most fantasy (RPG) world use magic.
Someone with proper faith and clerical training asks his deity something modest and the deity answers. That's perceivable cause-and-effect, therefore it's magic(divine magic).
On the other hand, an ordinary person in danger simply ask a deity for help and the deity answer. That's a miracle.

 

[Jack7]

(Aside: But didn't it rain mana in the desert many times for the wandering Israelites? That's a repeating a miracle if I've remembered it correctly.)

Yes, that's true. Miracles aren't usually repeatable, but can be, under certain circumstances. And they can often re-remerge in different forms, but with the same general impact. Manna from Heaven (God feeding people directly), Jesus feeding the thousands, though the food was already available, just in very short supply compared to need. So in both cases you have the hungry being fed, in one case directly through the agency of a sort of hybrid supernatural-natural phenomenon, in the other cases through a natural phenomenon (bread an fish) being supernaturally amplified by Jesus. It's a fascinating of juxta-positionings. One can automatically see the relationships, but the means and methods and even the implements and parties vary.

There is I think an important principle or clue you've hit upon here that I can't quite put my finger on, but that I intuitively perceive what you are saying as being right in some way. Perhaps it is linked to "survival miracles, or sustaining miracles" and perhaps it would be better to think of miracles as having "categories of operation, or function." Of course I know that is a sort of modern, scientific mania as well, or at least a mania to make technical - the impulsive need to categorize, but nevertheless it could very well be true, that miracles fall into categories depending upon desired effect and other factors. But there is something about what you implied that strikes me as very interesting. But I can't quite define yet what I think all of the implications are. I'll have to think more on that.

Something divinities seem loathe to do. I suspect this is because for miracles to have maximum PR impact they need to be new and never before seen.

I've never quite thought of it in precisely that way before, but to me what you seem to be saying is that not only does a miracle have a "pragmatic effect" (a intentional end) but that part of that end is psychological and historical impact. That is to say the fame of the miracle is not an after-effect, or a side-effect, but an intentional and perhaps even necessary competent of the Act itself. That's also interesting to me, and something to think on. Which again brings up the point of repeatability, but in the opposite direction of what you mentioned before. Maybe the idea is to create something "Unique to the given situation," but with "Universal appeal, that can be recognized again when it appears in another form or variation." It has occurred to me before that miracles follow certain Themes for lack of a better term, as well as Expressions depending upon the culture they manifest within and what the purpose of the miracle might really be. (Though I also feel quite certain that miracles can have either multiple, or even secret and covert meanings, as well as possibly both.)

The way I see it - and this is for 4E - Clerics are trained to see the order that the gods imposed on the world and their ritual training aids them in it (ideologically tainted/brainwashed, perhaps).

Wizards are able to tap into the power of creation and mold it to obey their whims. With limited success.

I think this is an interesting set of observations. Especially the part about ritual training be a method of "perception of God or gods at work in the world."

So both Clerics and Wizards "train" but to different ends.

When something happens without perceivable cause-and-effect, it's miracle.
When something happens with perceivable cause-and-effect, it's magic or just mundane.

You build a house with manual labor; mundane.
You cast proper spell to create a house; magic.
You do nothing but suddenly a house manifested; miracle.

With this point of view, clerics in most fantasy (RPG) world use magic.
Someone with proper faith and clerical training asks his deity something modest and the deity answers. That's perceivable cause-and-effect, therefore it's magic(divine magic).
On the other hand, an ordinary person in danger simply ask a deity for help and the deity answer. That's a miracle.

I also think these are interesting observations. Again I'm not sure at all that most miracles are "recipient, or worker, do nothing" miracles, but perhaps it can be said that the recipient often does things that do not seem directly related to the ultimate or end-result. For instance just the act of asking for help can be considered effort, and depending upon level of sincerity might require great effort from that individual. I agree though that in some cases miracles seem totally devoid of standard or normal cause and effect relationships.

(On a little side-note I also think you seem to be implying that if a person asks a deity "for help" and not anything in specific and the deity answers with something useful or maybe even salvific, but unexpected, that this is miraculous, whereas if they ask for something specific and small and are granted this, this is just answered prayer, or in game terms, magic. If I read you right then this is an interesting idea as well, a sort of hierarchy of Divine service, extending from the easy to achieve and the mundane to the impossible - not totally of course, for if it happens then by definition it is not really impossible but just had been previously thought impossible - and totally unexpected. )

I also have to agree that as far as fantasy game clerics go most do not perform Miracles at all or at least only extremely rarely, but rather "programmed magic" with a different emphasis or intended effect than that of arcane magic. So that in effect it merely becomes "divine magic" rather than Miraculous effect.

That is to say, let's use the Judeo-Christian background by way of example, that there is a definite quality to the workings of the Prophets and the Apostles which is far more "miraculous" and un-programmed and un-expected (the first time you encounter them) than is the pseudo-scientific, programmed, technical nature of the D&D cleric and the functions he performs.

I'd like to see Miraculous Clerics and Monks and Hermits in the game, who are far closer in nature and method of the Prophets and Apostles than they are to Wizards and Scientists, but I'm still working on that and am not aware of any other game in which "the miraculous" is a real component of the "clerical nature of fantasy game characters."

If there is such a game, where Miracle is more a function of the Cleric than merely a variation on Magic, then I'd like to hear about it.

Well, back to work.

 

[Umbran]

What is the exact relationship between the Magical, and the Miraculous?

Well, as you've already noted, there probably isn't an exact relationship. However, I think much of the difference can be summarized in one word: ineffability. Miracles are things that leave you dumbstruck, at a loss for words.

Magic is supernatural, but there is some sort of reasonable agency behind it. You may not know how it was done, but you're pretty sure that someone does or did. Someone has or had language to describe how the feat was accomplished. There's some nigh-mortal agent behind magic, someone you could talk about the magic with in a cogent manner.

Miracles, not so much.

Now, this makes "miraculous" fairly subjective. I, a modern human, with current technology in my hands, and produce effects that someone from the year 1000 would find miraculous. In a D&D world, there may be relatively few miracles, because there might be few events that cannot be duplicated with some form of known magic.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Umbran wrote:
In a D&D world, there may be relatively few miracles, because there might be few events that cannot be duplicated with some form of known magic.

There's even a spell called Miracle. It's game mechanics go something along the line of 'does whatever the hell you want it to.' So yeah Miracles in DnD don't happen.

Sudden thought: Unless the DM steps in all of a sudden and starts fudging dice rolls...

Mm, I like that idea. The Miracle there is beyond the power of any character to do, or even to realise the agency thereof. But it can materially effect their little pseudo existences. The character can see the result, but has no idea how it happened. There is no in game relation between the fudged dice roll and the Orc's sword suddenly missing a killing strike. It's simply perceived as a miracle.

Ooh, this making my head spin. I might go have a lie down.

 

[Jack7]

Mm, I like that idea. The Miracle there is beyond the power of any character to do, or even to realise the agency thereof. But it can materially effect their little pseudo existences. The character can see the result, but has no idea how it happened. There is no in game relation between the fudged dice roll and the Orc's sword suddenly missing a killing strike. It's simply perceived as a miracle.

Ooh, this making my head spin. I might go have a lie down.

Coincidentally enough, if you believe in that kinda thing, I've been working on gaming methods that govern miracles (exactly that), though I don't relate them to die-rolls.

But yeah I agree, the recipient or even by-standers may help influence if a miracle happens at all, but they should in no way influence the exact nature of the miracle, what it entails, or how it is manifested.

Pleading for, or praying for, or sincerely asking for a miracle, I'm all for that from the player's side, exactly what occurs though should be well out of their hands.

Thanks for the input so far everyone.