What's Sci Fi Got that Fantasy Don't Got?

[lgburton]

I've never really been able to understand differentiating between the two genres. Most so-called sci fi is fantasy; the likelihood of being able to create androids that can mimic all human behaviors is very small, as is the likelihood of faster than light travel, or terraforming, or many of the other concepts popular in sci fi. And the descriptions of the science behind such concepts isn't much different from magic - remember the famous Arthur C. Clarke quote?

I can't understand the idea that superheroes is okay, either. Superpowers are usually even less defined than magic, and all the heroics are up to the heroes in most superhero genre material; you don't see anyone but Bible Man giving thanks to a diety. Many superhero RPG sourcebooks contain demons or demonic-looking entities, and also magical characters.

But I guess if that's what he has to do to make himself feel better... Preferably it would be nice if he would do his witnessing by showing what a good Christian he is without having to put on a front. :\

right, but superhero stories are almost automatically morality tales, and are not presented as "magic" (usually). the bit issue here is magic, witchcraft, demons, devils, and other small items which border mainstream (christian) religious mythology. not only that, it promotes the worship of other gods! i mean, come on, you know that church of pelor is looking mighty tempting, eh?

and, as for your statements about science fiction, it doesnt hurt to emphasize the "MOST" at the beginning - because there is good, solid, speculative science fiction out there which has rigerous internal consistancy and is most likely scientificly possible. it just wasn't written by gene rodenberry or george lucas.

 

[Templetroll]

Superheroes are based in the generally "real" modern day or future, as is SciFi, even spy gaming fits; westerns are the "real" recent past. that would be acceptable because it has a connection to a reality that is understood by most people. Fantasy, even the genre name, denotes 'not real'.

 

[No Name]

Perhaps religion and fantasy are similar enough to be in direct competition with each other. Both are filled with supernatural and improbable events, like sticks to snakes, talking donkeys, and world wide floods. Science falls under a different category than religion, and while it sometimes contradicts religion, most science is observable and reproducable.

I've known devoted religious types who saw science as the enemy as well, and didn't "believe in it." Although, those types are rare. I'll agree with the posters above, sci-fi isn't usually the bad guy because, given time, sci-fi should eventually become science.

I've read sci-fi written in the 30s and 40s about trips to the moon that was amazingly accurate. Even ancient Greek philosophers 2600ish years ago got some stuff right, like things growing denser as they cooled. (Of course, it was said back then that night was caused by the air becoming cooler, thus thicker, making it harder to see through).

It saddens me that even in modern times, we still feel the need to justify harmless activities. Whether it's playing D&D, taking martial arts, or putting together 1000 piece puzzles, someone somewhere will claim that it's a "Bad Thing" (puzzles waste time that could be spent reading a relevant religious text, for example). People need downtime, play is an important part of healthy living.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

One part is the "Magical Universe" paradigm, or "Gumball god", as one of my old Sunday School teachers used to call it. The idea that, "if I insert a quarter into the slot, and crank it this-a-way, then I get a gumball, every time!"

That's actually not a bad description of the scientific method. Hmmm...

 

[Herobizkit]

Perhaps it stems from the concept that thinking about doing something bad is just as bad as doing it for real. I couldn't quote a bible passage to support this, but I think my statement sums up the concept of sin.

So, pretending to worship 'false gods', practice sorcery/witchcraft, and "kill things and take their stuff" is just as bad as doing it for real, acoording to some (most? all?) interpretations of the Bible.

As a Taoist Wiccan, however, I tend not to think on such things.

 

[The Sigil]

I admit, I'm a bit baffled. What's the difference between fantasy and sci fi that precludes one from the fold, but not the other? Sure, one has magic and strange life, while the other has high technology and strange life. Is this just part of the old "D&D = evil" meme?

TWK
P.S. This is a thread about genre differences, not "What's wrong with religious group Y?"

The difference, as far as I understand it (and I have *taught* daily religion classes), is just that... "magic."

Remember this old saw: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

In terms of game effects (mechanics), magic and tech tend to be the same.

In terms of flavor (fluff), magic and tech are much different. Technology is supposed to be accomplished by better understanding the (normal) physical laws of the universe, and being able to harness those laws. Magic is supposed to be "beyond the (normal) physical laws of the universe."

In many religions, creating effects by going "beyond the (normal) physical laws of the universe" is reserved for deity only. Mortal servants may ask the deity to bend the normal laws of the universe, or are authorized to act on behalf of deity, but it is the power of deity that actually does the bending.

To have a magic system where mortals can bend the normal physical laws, then, gives to mortals power normally reserved for deity (or those whom he specifically selects), and is thus a form of blasphemy as men assume a power to which they are not authorized. In D&D this is arcane magic.

To have a magic system with pantheism where fictional deities who are not the same as "the real deity" (in real religion) grants powers are usually seen as blasphemy, because these are "false gods" and thus have no power (or their power is malignant). In D&D this is divine magic.

To have technology that appears to do the exact same thing as magic is okay, though, because it's man tapping into the laws of the universe, not superseding them, and thus not usurping power normally reserved for deity, nor worshipping false gods.

That's the general case; as you apply different religions, you'll have different views of "who the deity is" and "who the deity's authorized servants are" and so on, but I have omitted these so as to avoid the forbidden aspects of religion discussion.

The problem is that magic, by its very nature, suggests to religious types either blasphemy or worship of false gods or both. The problem comes when someone (not necessarily a player; an outsider who doesn't game as well) is unable to separate the fantasy/story from the reality.

Does that make any sense?

--The Sigil

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

And the descriptions of the science behind such concepts isn't much different from magic - remember the famous Arthur C. Clarke quote?

Yup, here it is.

Remember this old saw: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Magic, demons, devils, witches, wizards and more magic. Toss in the lingering traces of the D&D is teh evil in there, and that's it.

Tell someone you write for a Star Wars game. Then tell them you write for Dungeons & Dragons.

Watch responses.

 

[Shining Dragon]

Laser Cannons. Sci-Fi has Laser Cannons!

Hey! Stop reading my mind.

 

[tetsujin28]

Is this just part of the old "D&D = evil" meme?

More "fantasy = dumb, SF = makes sense". I knew a lot of wargamers back in the day who wouldn't touch D&D with a ten foot pole, but when Traveller came out, they were all over it.