What Is Magic?

[Lmns Crn]

If you are exploring it empirically and manipulating it methodically, you should call it what it is: "science."

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

If you are exploring it empirically and manipulating it methodically, you should call it what it is: "science."

So what you're saying is that "magic" is simply a label and not some thing that exists independent of the word "magic"?

[Nomadic]

In case nobody realized it... I was being a smart alek.

To be serious here for a moment if you are going to do "magic" by changing the fundamental laws of the universe you would need to realize that if you are looking at it like a law it is a universe encompassing one. You change the universal law for fusion and stars go dim or burn up in moments. So then I take it you actually are talking about psychokinesis and the like or the local manipulation of reality (primarily matter) via the mind.

Also while sayings about magic and its existence in the real world (advanced technology as magic or hard stuff as magic) have some merit what I get from the OP is that this is a discussion on the magic found in fantasy (which would make sense considering what this board is devoted to). Thus to look into magic there it is a bit of what I said in regards to something outside the norm for our world. Note I didn't say the world it is being cast in but our real world. It wouldn't be considered magical to us if we could shoot fireballs with our mind in the real world if someone shot a fireball with their mind in the game.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

'¦what I get from the OP is that this is a discussion on the magic found in fantasy'¦'¦'¦Thus to look into magic there it is a bit of what I said in regards to something outside the norm for our world.

What norm are we using?  Because from what I've been able to deduce a great, big lot of the stuff that appears in science-fiction lies outside our norms.  Even some of the supposedly "hard" stuff.

[sparkletwist]

I don't want somebody to pillage a sci-fi novel, hand me a mega-fusion-flamethrower, and tell me it's "magic" because they've replaced all the uranium with unicorn farts-- that's nothing but a let-down.

Hehe, I once played in a game where my character had a gun that ionized holy water into a hydrogen plasma and fired that. It was designed for fighting undead, and it worked quite well...

[Lmns Crn]

So what you're saying is that "magic" is simply a label and not some thing that exists independent of the word "magic"?

I really have no idea where you are getting that interpretation.

Enter in Clarke's quote about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic!

People use that quote to justify all sorts of atrocities.

[Nomadic]

'¦what I get from the OP is that this is a discussion on the magic found in fantasy'¦'¦'¦Thus to look into magic there it is a bit of what I said in regards to something outside the norm for our world.

Again look at my note regarding my belief that this is and should be dealing with classic magic (aka - standard fantasy magic). Nothing to do with sci-fi unless the sci-fi in question is using said magic. Also the norm should be pretty obvious here as it is the norm of the world and you are living in that world (at least I think you are... tell me if you aren't... and if so can I come visit your world?).

[SA]

Okay, so far it seems Luminous, Vreeg and Crow are the ones who seem to be on track.  Maybe I should have named the thread something different.

As for magic v science and whatnot, I was just last night thinking that this was turning into a creative cop-out in the fantasy community (of which I am surely guilty).  Clarke's law is cool and all but it doesn't help us be original with magic.

If you are exploring it empirically and manipulating it methodically, you should call it what it is: "science."

"Track Reset"[/b]

[Nomadic]

To be honest this doesn't really have enough to go on to really merit a full discussion. My first post was me being as said a smart alek (you asked for the definition of magic and I gave it :P ). I probably would have said nothing else if people hadn't misunderstood what I had said several times. Nothing personal, I just can't see the point to this thread as it seems something so often discussed in so many ways that there is not much left to discuss.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

So what you're saying is that "magic" is simply a label and not some thing that exists independent of the word "magic"?

I really have no idea where you are getting that interpretation.

Put another way: Does the word magic refer to only one definable force, or is it simply a word used to label things that fall under the vague heading of "Mysterious, reality-altering" but which in fact may turn out to be separate forces?

'¦'¦'¦look at my note regarding my belief that this is and should be dealing with classic magic (aka - standard fantasy magic). Nothing to do with sci-fi unless the sci-fi in question is using said magic. Also the norm should be pretty obvious here as it is the norm of the world and you are living in that world (at least I think you are... tell me if you aren't... and if so can I come visit your world?).

Well, okay, then.  My question has been answered.  The thing is that there's more than one kind of "fantasy + magic" nowadays, and I got confused as to which one was specifically desired.  Now that "classic fantasy" has been put forth i can dispense with the science/magic stuff.

'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦Except that makes it easier to think about differences.  My problem is that if I don't know the workings of something I can't think of how it's different.  Most of what I can think of right now is really just variations on how mages convey instructions to the magic-manipulating force, such as the differences between mages that have to sing and those that have to draw pictures.

The only one with a larger focus than that is this:
-The energy magic derives from is a duality of completely opposite forces which combine, compete, and even, in a way, cooperate to form and run the universe.  So magic would draw upon these two forces, each force only being able to alter certain aspects of the universe that the other has no control over.
-However, in addition there are three ways to "do" magic: via the summoning of these energies into the universe from where is lies outside, alter their structures while they are in the universe, and finally release them back outside when they have become tired so they can be refreshed.  Each one of these three ways can create only certain effects.
-So if you combine these three methods with the opposing natures of the two forces you actually have 6 different forms of basic magic.

[SA]

I certainly see the point and think there is much to discuss.  Vreeg certainly got it.  The point is, what could magic be?  New ideas we haven't seen before.  Not an examination of its current incarnations, but original constructions. If no-one interested in that facet, well, whatever, but it's a little disappointing as I don't think it was been explored here in this way and it would make for an interesting exercise.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

If no-one interested in that facet, well, whatever, but it's a little disappointing as I don't think it was been explored here in this way and it would make for an interesting exercise.

I'm interested, but my problem is that I don't know what rules to start from.  Are we starting from an already-established idea of what magic is?  Are we starting from real-world ideas of magic and magic-seeming things?  Are we starting from simply defining magic as "reality-altering power"?  I'm confused.

[SA]

"inventing new forms and functions of magic"

Really, interpret that as you will.  From any direction, just not "this is how I understand magic to work already", or how "Joe Bob says magic works in his setting".  More "what if it was X", "powered by Y", "defined by Z".  This can include a new cosmology (as complex or simple as you like), a wacky origin tale, whatever.

Sorry if that hasn't been clear.

Random Example

The Second Creation, Issou, the Uncreator, was ten thousand men as he was one.  When he met his blazing brother Toheih in the unformed Sky after Foul Mother Temu fled the world, their blows cut free whole beings, divisions of their fathers of whom they were part, and these foundlings fell to the world and through it, into the darkness beneath.

These creatures, each a representation of their full-bodied father, took with them the memories of First World, the world unsullied by Foul Mother Temu.  Nothing more than recollections, but that alone is a powerful thing, an absence preserved by its pattern in the substance of the existent world.

The sons of Issou and Toheih, who live and brood in the shadows of the world, are bold, virile and jealous beasts.  The Magi who consort with them are usually women, for the Sons lust after flesh and passion, but an exceptionally cunning man might parlay with them also.  They offer the gleaming, primal creations of the First world, and their strength as warriors (and also lovers) without peer.  And foremost, they offer the hate of their other half - had their separations not cut away their loyalty to their fathers' Completeness, each would assemble once again and scour the Other from the earth.

It is strange that they cannot remember why they hate.  That memory died with the division of their forms, and so they fulminate in their rage without cause or purpose.

Another One

Magic is the double-edged gift the parent leaves for its child: the discontent, the sullied desires of a creature crushed by the mundane truths of the world.  This dissatisfaction pours from us like lifeblood, suffusing the artifacts of our youth and empowering them.  To wield magic is to seize those artifacts, and to weave from them the hopes and passions that will define a new generation.

There are also the Feends, the mad and petty godlings of desire, who seek the artifacts that they might twist our desires into absurdities.

Only children can work the sorceries of Hope.  Adults have another magic, strange, wild and multivariate, and it is called Wisdom.

[LordVreeg]

If no-one interested in that facet, well, whatever, but it's a little disappointing as I don't think it was been explored here in this way and it would make for an interesting exercise.

I'm interested, but my problem is that I don't know what rules to start from.  Are we starting from an already-established idea of what magic is?  Are we starting from real-world ideas of magic and magic-seeming things?  Are we starting from simply defining magic as "reality-altering power"?  I'm confused.

I'm back at work.  this is not my how computer.  I am still possessed by an urge to answer this.

Go backward, SCM.  I have ben telling people since day one to create the rules to fit the setting, don't cram your square peg seting ideas into some round hole system becasue it is a prevalent system.

SA is asking what is magic like?  What would you like magic to be?  If you could start again and make spellcasting and dweomercraft actually seem 'magical' again, how would you want that to feel?

Until you have this down, until you understand the exact awe and the particular unease you want it to havem you should not even ask about the system.  Make the system fit the stories you want to create, make it fit all tomorrow's parties.  Don't let the mechanics get in the way, they are the bridge, not the journey.

[Nomadic]

If no-one interested in that facet, well, whatever, but it's a little disappointing as I don't think it was been explored here in this way and it would make for an interesting exercise.

This was the same problem I was having. Now that I see your response though I take it this is simply a showcase for new ideas and concepts regarding magic.