The Divine/Arcane Magic Split in Fantasy Literature

Yeah, there's some strong evidence in the early game to support this- sticks to snakes, flame strike and insect plague among them. All three are straight outta the Bible.

And others, like Bless, Atonement, Prayer, Detect Lie, Remove Curse, Exorcise also have their bases in the Bible and other religious texts.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Of course the really interesting point that people tend to miss is that prior to DnD most of the sources presented all magic as 'divine' (ie derived from supernatural entities) and very little as arcane. Gandalf was an 'outsider', Merlin half-incubus and most of the scorcerers in Conan were worshippers of Father Set.

Perhaps it would be better to determine where the concept of casting spells without recourse to necromancy/demons/fey first appeared...
 

I think part of what causes the conceptual divide is the expectation that if your source of power can accomplish a given task, if you are a competent user of that power source you ought to be able to accomplish that task. So if there is only one kind of magic, wizards being to think, " Well, I am super knowledgeable about magic, so why can I not heal people? "

So, I think the real key to breaking down the arcane/divine split is to have a really strong conceptual grounding for what makes each approach to magic unique. What makes a cleric different is that they have a holistic approach to magic that gives them the ability to accomplish some things that a wizard cannot.

This is essential different perhaps only in degree to what makes an specialist evoker that eschews enchantment and illusion different from a transmuter that eschews conjuration and necromancy. But it is a very big degree. If a wizard could specialize in clerical magic used for healing, it would probably cost like five or six schools at least. And by that point, you might as well have started as a cleric.
 

Of course the really interesting point that people tend to miss is that prior to DnD most of the sources presented all magic as 'divine' (ie derived from supernatural entities) and very little as arcane. Gandalf was an 'outsider', Merlin half-incubus and most of the scorcerers in Conan were worshippers of Father Set.

Perhaps it would be better to determine where the concept of casting spells without recourse to necromancy/demons/fey first appeared...

Oddly, that springs out of religions as well.

Many religions have a concept that the rational mind may be able to figure out the inner workings of the universe- the tricks of the gods, if you will- through research, experimentation, and the crafting of precise rituals or gaining the servitude of powerful beings. In some, this is a perfectly acceptable use of the mind of man. In others, it is a usurpation of the divine, and thus condemned.

The thing is, no matter how I see it in print, man is NEVER as good as the gods are at doing these tricks. Thee's always something...lesser...about the way they go about things that leaves them inferior in some way to the legitimate priests.

Which, to me, has served as the basis for D&D Divine casters being able to do things like cast in full armor. They're getting a divine assist, the arcanists are not.
 
Last edited:

The lack of "divine magic" in the pulp tradition that inspired D&D is what makes me wish we could just have one spellcasting class without this weird divide.

Playing D&D with a cleric is like forcing Conan to team up with the Pope to go on an adventure. Spoils the vibe.
 
Last edited:

The Knights of Arthurian Legend, though not in the earliest renditions, are often tied to Christianity (such as when tied to the Grail Quest) whereas Merlin from the same mythos would be difficult to characterize as having Christian ties or using "divine" magic or powers.
 

Personally, I'd like all magic to be divided into nine groupings according to the expertise of the Nine Masters of Roke in Earthsea. That includes healing magic, being the specialty of Master Herbal.
 

The lack of "divine magic" in the pulp tradition that inspired D&D is what makes me wish we could just have one spellcasting class without this weird divide.

Playing D&D with a cleric is like forcing Conan to team up with the Pope to go on an adventure. Spoils the vibe.

You bring up Conan, but that's actually a pretty good example - Howard had a good god in that named Mitra (probably based on the real world one) that battled the forces of another, evil god, Set (ditto)

Mitra is mostly just mentioned, but in one story a queen prays to him and Mitra directs her to Conan. In another, priests used magical powers to hide him. (I think it was Hour of the Dragon)

Beyond that, read some of Manly Wade Wellman's pulp tales (he's listed in Appendix N). The Silver John stuff in particular, but another series featured a former Civil War soldier turned preacher who fought the supernatural.

A. Merritt's stuff also featured priests/priestesses of gods - like A Ship of Ishtar. And then there was CAS's Avereoigne (sp?) tales, which sometimes have priests confront evil with varying degrees of success - an Abott in one tale chases off a Lamia, while in another, a necromancer handily beats up two novices.

Not to mention D&D isn't just inspired by the pulps (or modern fiction) - it owes a lot to folklore, as mentioned, the Arthurian stuff, but also the later Charlemagne tales (where the Paladin comes from)
 

The Knights of Arthurian Legend, though not in the earliest renditions, are often tied to Christianity (such as when tied to the Grail Quest) whereas Merlin from the same mythos would be difficult to characterize as having Christian ties or using "divine" magic or powers.

There is some evidence that Geoffrey of Monmouth derived Merlin from the legend of a welsh seer Myrdin (Merlinus) a bard who may have later converted to christianity.
 

I always saw this as a game mechanic rather than anything set in literature or myths.

Usually, I have modified versions of spells for the classes (as arcane healing is possible) because to me the split is annoying.
 

Remove ads

Top