It would be an exaggeration to say I've never seen a fantasy world where magic was treated by the inhabitants like something mundane and non-magical, but it is not a big exaggeration.
Where Has All the Magic Gone?
- Thread starter Jack7
- Start date
It would be an exaggeration to say I've never seen a fantasy world where magic was treated by the inhabitants like something mundane and non-magical, but it is not a big exaggeration.
LostSoul
Adventurer
Beyond the Black River.
He kind of uses magic in The Tower of the Elephant, but I don't think that really counts.
There might be another couple of examples.
Closest I can think of is "The Phoenix on the Sword". Assuming that phoenix symbol qualifies as "ritualistic magic" then Conan is using the results of that ritual. He's not preforming the ritual, but in the context of the magic vs. technology thing, a race car driver probably doesn't work on his own car much either at a certain level.
I'd have a hard time accepting someone trying to make the case that Conan is anything but exceptional, across the board. He's certainly a very intelligent person - just not civilized, but he learns to read, and speak languages etc. He wouldn't "have all 18s" because he's not a DnD character, but I think he would have what "has all 18s" would signify when translated out of DnDese.
I think there are matters of degree when it comes to technology vs. magic, and I don't think there is a clear dividing line between the two. On one hand, it seems very easy to see examples of people using magic like technology - throwing salt over their shoulder to ward off evil, for instance. On the other hand, it seems likely that many historical people would have instinctively sensed a difference between issues having to do with gods, ghosts, etc. and those with mundane explanations. I recall reading somewhere that a Sumerian or Babylonian medical text made a distinction between mundane and magical diseases.
Ultimately, I can't imagine that in either a historical or fantastic setting, that the inhabitants wouldn't view magic with a sense of wonder, even if they make use of some small part of it when they need to. That sense of wonder seems to be to almost be required as the definition of magic.
In a magical system, human beings are at the center of the universe and are the measure of reality. The stones and trees have an intelligence because people do, and people project themselves and their psychologies onto the surrounding reality. This makes the reality of a magical world extremely significant to human beings. Magic is always perfect, even if people aren't prepared for the results (ie. Monkey's Paw) or someone elses magic is stronger. There's never a "better theory" when it comes to magic.
On the other hand, science, by it's own definition, avoids this projection. It's a tool for measuring a predicting things, but it does not purport to capture the essence of reality. Quantum mechanics is not magic because it's fallible. For instance, it doesn't predict the results that relativity does - the two theories are well known to be incompatible but are reasonable approximations for their respective scopes and will be replaced when something better comes along.
I would imagine that a wizard, if there were such a person, would understand his world totally different than a scientist does (at least a good one that's learned from the past 400 years of scientific mistakes). Most scientists that I knew (that I took classes from) would acknowledge that science will always be an approximation of reality. On the other hand, wizards seem to think that magic is capable of achieving perfection, past which there is nothing (ex. the philosopher's stone).
IMO the real historical world is an example of a world where the inhabitants believed their magic to be real, and IMO it certainly was treated with a level of awe/fear/respect that is not comparable to the way a person casually aquainted with quantum mechanics would think of it. The philosophy at the root of the Scientific Method, and the one at the root of "Magic" are significantly different.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
There may not even be one. Magic is just one more tool in the toolbox for some heroes, while for others it is something they have to fight against.
In general, I'd say magic is treasure the same way anything else of value or usefulness is treasure - once you've found it, you're (usually) either richer or more powerful or both.
The first one no, as I don't think it really ever existed. The second one no; in fact I'd suggest the opposite, in that magic has become the cornerstone of most treasure hoards.
Runs out. Also, it *should* present more risk to use, given proper design.
All in all, probably not very much; it achieves many of the same ends via different physical means...see below.
It can be a weapon, or not, depending what its caster/owner/user wants to do with it at the time.
Channel (or summon) it, shape it, and send it. The three components of casting any spell (though a true wild mage skips the second one).
To me, magic is merely a type of physical energy that some living beings can tap into and - to some extent - control.Works the same as for a wizard (see question 7) except the magic in this case is not summoned from the surroundings but from the deity. The Cleric still shapes it and sends it.
A two-part question. The "real" nature of magic I see as being the 5th energy type, along with gravity and three others I can't remember right now; the difference being in how it interacts with lifeforms or spirit. How should it function as an in-game reality changer? Hell if I know.
Good questions.
Lanefan
Raven Crowking
First Post
If you think breaking a gew-gaw is kind of using magic, then I suppose Gollum was a magic-user, too.
I am curious what you think qualifies as "magic use" in Beyond the Black River; I will re-read this story tonight. Nothing springs immediately to mind. My immediate thought, though, is "shennanigans". Still, it is possible that I am wrong.
That's not so different from claiming that Conan makes magic swords because he uses one. Sorry, but I don't find that argument compelling. It is certainly not an example of Conan performing ritual magic.
Saying "Conan did ritualistic Magic" =/= "Conan benefited from someone else's magic". There are several stories in which Conan benefits from someone else's magic, or performs an action that undoes that magic.
RC
I'm not saying either one of these things, and based on your other comments I think you misunderstood my post. In the case of the phoenix on the sword, Conan didn't perform a ritual. But "benefitting from someone else's magic" is way too conveniently vague. That would fit better for the case of an enemy of Conan being killed by some friendly wizard off-stage. Carrying around a sword that was a subject of an enchantment, and using it to slay a demon (however unintentional perhaps) is significantly more immersed in the magic than the off-stage situation.
I'm not laying claim to someone elses context on this discussion though, so please read my posts literally because I've gotten a little turned around about what the case is that other folks are trying to make regarding this. I don't think Conan needs to perform rituals in order to prove that he has higher than average intelligence.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Anyone who doubts that Conan has higher than average intelligence has never read a Conan story.
IMHO, Conan's Wisdom (perception and intuition) is higher than his Intelligence. I would say, 16 Int in AD&D 1e, and 18 Wisdom by the time he is 30.
However, I denied -- and asked for examples to demonstrate my denial was wrong -- that "Conan did ritualistic Magic in a real Howard story", and I thought that you were counter-exampling me. Conan certainly does make use of magic performed by others in several stories.
EDIT: In Beyond the Black River, Conan is being tracked by a supernatural panther. He scratches a symbol into the ground that he has seen scratched elsewhere, sacred to the power that fuels the creature tracking him. This makes the panther go away, and Conan indicates that he believes it will protect him and his companion from other creatures of the same type -- although it leaves a clear mark to men.
I am not sure that I would call this "ritual magic", though, although I can certainly see the argument that it is some form of magic use.
RC
Last edited:
It exists as part of the narrative, and as an essential part of the milieu. Be it a locale where the heroes fight with silver and cold iron against oppressive fey matriarchs or a place where magic carpets and fireballs rule the player's damage dealing ability, magic is first a narrative function; magic allows (X,Y,Z) which furthers Goals A, B, C to conclusions 1,2,3.
Treasure? Ehh, moreso reward. As part of the narrative, the necessity of reward as part of the general advancement of the PCs can make magic a nice side dish, or the main course. Boons, banes, and weaponry are all great tools to grant the PCs an edge, but to say that they qualify as a separate piece of the prize puzzle is being a bit obtuse in your thinking.
A shaman of the Cargul tribe grants the player's mount a powerful pattern tattoo allowing it to run in the Spirit Wilds. The player gains an amulet that grants him the ability to shift into the Plane of Shadow. A mage casts Plane Shift. Each is a means to an end (go to location A, do action B), but the level of flavor changes it all.
Connections are only lost by the lazy and unimaginative.
Magic provides a narrative outlet beyond a power. A villain who can literally rend heart from flesh with the gesture of a hand seems more fierce, more otherworldly (and rightly so) than the evil Melee Brute who kills with blows of his great ax.
Magic shouldn't necessarily do anything differently than science; usually it is just at a higher level. Some settings (Shadowrun and Arcanum are great examples) make a separation between magic and tech. Really, a mundane society should come up with ways to deal with magic if it is omnipresent; even in our own cultures there were always little tricks and common charms to stop devious effects of alleged magicians.
Magic is a force applied to a desired goal. It takes time, dedication, and will to hone and shape. If given enough talent and time, magic should be able to do damn near anything . . . but it comes at a price (spell components, XP loss, damage to self, isolation, etc.) and should be limited based on the spread of knowledge (not every hedge wizard has access to the Spell Compendium, and neither should your players).
Depends on the style. Some magic users may burn themselves in the process, others may channel the energy of the land around them, others use fetishes and gris gris (and may not even appear too wizardly). It's a matter of flavor setting-by-setting, really.
Again, depends. Is it the cleric's belief or divine intercession which grants spells?
Ahh, the crux of the whole thing, and it would take me a page or two to really get into it deeper than I already have . . . so I'll leave my other answers to divine the roots of my argument.
Really, my issue is one of flavor and narrative vs. mechanics. I enjoy having a mechanic which is flexible enough to give a lot of leeway when it comes to materials, but I really don't like a strong mechanical backing when it comes to other things. I enjoy the fairly generic Modern for this reason; I build flavor around it, it suits me fine. Thus, when I have to see Random Items +X all about, I get a touch angry... but I also have come to the realization that none of my books magically go away, and if I want to tear out some Dragon's Teeth or Heward's Organ into any game I choose... well, I still have the right to do so.
Slainte,
-Loonook.
Just because magic is not as mysterious to the inhabitant of a typical fantasy world as it is to us, doesn't mean that they don't find it amazing.
I'm surrounded by technology that I don't understand. I watch shows on futuretech & prototypes. Some of that stuff blows me away. I mean, have you ever heard a quantum physicist talk about quantum entanglement, a.k.a. "spooky action at a distance?" To me, that's pretty near to magic.
Similar Threads
