Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 5047862" data-attributes="member: 54707">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.)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.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.)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.</blockquote>

Verification