Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
For some reason, this thread reminded me of the Skeleton King in Super Robot Monkey Squad Hyper Force Go!
Even being much older than the intended audience of that show, it still scared the shit out of me.
This thread just keeps on coming back again! But seriously, I wanted to say something.
If it's something that isn't interactive, like literature, I'd agree with you.
Thing is, this systemization is necessary for gameplay reasons. There have to be "strong" and "weak" undead not because of any desire to marginalize certain undead but because there have to be "strong" and "weak" enemies.
My own quick comment: I like fantasy over mythology essentially because of what's been called "systematization" here. Mystique is nice and well, but it can also mean that you go "Wait a moment, how does that even work?" after just one small thought too much. And while yes, you can answer "magic!" or "the gods!" to that question every time, that isn't very satisfying, IMO.
I like systemization too. It appeals to my scientific sensibilities.
But that doesn't require different undead types, strictly speaking. You can have a "strong" revenant and a "weak" revenant, and they can be exactly the same type of foe. There can also be mechanics that relate to factors that are not HP, such as morale -- what if dispelling a revenant was impossible via conventional damage, but they could be demoralised to such an extent that they would leave the mortal world? Stuff like that. Most RPGs that have different types and tiers and whatnot have such an excess of magical damage that requiring it doesn't make much of a difference, anyway.
One idea common in folkloric fantasy is that there aren't necessarily standard, objective explanations for everything weird that happens. Not even "the gods!" or "magic!". A good example is The Witcher books, games, TV show, movie, etc, where spells can be accidentally cast by an excess of collective emotional discomfort, usually resulting in a curse. The effects of the curse won't be standardised, and nor will the means of breaking it be, but you can ultimately trust strong emotions within a community to generate something strange.
This idea goes well with mundane materials having magical or semi-magical applications. The D&D ilk of fantasy comes from a secular perspective wherein the "mundane" world and the "fantastic" world are entirely separated, but much of European folklore comes from Christian and pagan perspectives. That means that those people believed they already inhabited the world of the "fantastic", which means that magic and whatnot was an open possibility to them. Thus you get things like Christian symbols being seen as tools against evil spirits, Churches being safe havens from the same and so on and so forth. It's essentially the idea that the arcane and the mundane aren't opposed, but mingled in such a way that where one starts and where one ends isn't always apparent.
He says, as I watch Warehouse 13. :V
The Witcher cycle actually has a very, so to say, scientific attitude to magic. Sure, it can blow up in your face, especially when you haven't been properly trained in its operation or aren't in the good shape for it, but it also can be scientifically studied and is reliable enough if working under the proper conditions. So I'd say it's pretty systematic even if it allows for unexpected results, or the other way round if we prefer. Just a nitpick.
I get that, but then shouldn't that be what science fiction is for? Given that there are people who don't like magic, the solution shouldn't be to make magic more like science; it should be for them to not read something they don't like.
I think systemization is much more vulnerable to this problem, mainly because systemization is the one where "how" is an important question. Or to put it another way, we've all seen threads griping about how this or that fantasy/sci-fi story breaks its own rules, but no one ever reads "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings" and complains that it shouldn't be considered canonical because the rules of the Marquezverse put hard cosmological constraints on wingspan and age.
The science of magic in The Witcher has more to do with the inclusion of actual science, I think. It's not as though magic is some kind of scientific equivalent in that setting; instead, the two compliment one-another while being somewhat separate entities.
Bleh, the DLDR stance kind of stinks.
Also, you say science fiction and fantasy like they're completely separate. Magitek, for one, plays a big role in one of the most influential RPGs of the SNES era.
I'll expand on what I said earlier. I think that the underlying problem I have with magic being completely divorced from science runs counter to my belief in mages as a "learned" group in the setting. I like rules magic because it shows an alternate path of progress.
It also conveniently renders all scientific inconsistencies null and void: why are you expecting a fictional universe to act like reality when it is explicitly stated to use different rules than reality? I do agree that this effect can be abused to the point where it seems sloppy and ineffective, though.
I guess it really boils down to a matter of opinion. Once again, I believe that magic is great when treated as an alternative science because it implies that, on some level, science can be magical.
I get, however, that people are complaining about the overuse of rules magic in fantasy fiction. I think that any sort of magic, no matter how intrinsically wondrous, can be rendered ineffective by overuse. As it is with most things.
The trappings of each are what separate the two. They are separate.
They're also not completely separate. I'll point you towards Warehouse 13 as an example of a show that blurs the lines of fantasy and sci-fi.
Magic --> Magic. "Soft" magic.
Magic ---> Science. "Hard" magic.
Science ---> Magic. "Soft" sci-fi.
Science ---> Science. "Hard" sci-fi.
Science can be magical. At the same time, science is also the complete opposite of mystical. It involves analyzing things- understanding how they work, as opposed to just letting it exist.
There are stories that use both. Lord of the Rings would suck with a scientific form of magic, not least because Middle-Earth is not precisely a hugely scientific world.
It's this that I find appealing about "hard" magic. Again, just a matter of opinion.
Hard magic works fantastically in some stories.
I find soft magic to often be more exciting, however. Simply because it's so loose and fluid- anything could happen with it.
I actually considered a fantasy setting where both coexisted.
Of course they were mutually exclusive and practitioners of one discriminated against the other. It was kind of like science vs magic in that regard.
Mage: The Ascension the tabletop game actually has as its setting a conflict between traditional mages - like shamans, Hermetics, and necromancers - and the Technocracy, people who maintain the illusion that the world has no magic, and don't understand that they are mages themselves.
The problem with that is that you're using a very particular definition of the word "mystical" here. I get exactly what you're saying here, but there's a part of my mind that keeps saying, "But actual mysticism isn't like that! The Sufis were all about seeking after the truths of the universe through contemplation!"
I know it's nitpicking, but there has to be a better word. "Obscurantist" might work, but that has very particular implications...
In any case, I'm still with Alex as far as magic goes. It's an aesthetic thing, I guess.
Yeah, but I had to look up Obscurantist to know what it meant (and it still doesn't really fit the bill, as it refers to the deliberate obscuring of knowledge instead of just the natural obscuration of something which cannot easily be known), while the connotations of 'mysticism' in this context are well known enough for me to assume that people here can understand what I mean without having to look up the term.
Yeah, something like that. Only both sides acknowledged that what their side doing was straight-up magic. The REAL conflict came from them dismissing each other's brand of magic as "false" magic, which led to a lot of dick-waving contests and bitter enmity between the two.
I dislike mysterious magic because, as Alex mentioned somewhere, it is reliant on our ignorance. And that just seems like a celebration of ignorance to me.
Plus the image of a group of wizards studying and scribing new spells makes my inner Lucca cry tears of joy.
Hold on! Hold on! I have just the smiley face for this occasion
¬_¬
I just can't see how something considered wondrous because of our lack of understanding of it can be construed as anything but.
One thing I will concede is that rules magic, to some extent, encourages a linear school of thought. Romanticist magic is far more versatile, and I like that about it.
don't make me repeat myself eelektross
Well...
I suppose we can give it a rest now. I thought it still merited some discussion.
Magic in romanticist stories is more often the tool of the antagonist or supporting characters than the protagonist, though. If it's used to aid the protagonist, it's rarely understood by the protagonist themselves and won't be used by them without assistance. This is true of Norse sagas, Arthurian mythology, The Lord Of The Rings and Conan The Barbarian alike.
Those stories are often in part about the struggle with and against ignorance. The protagonists are usually skilled at some kind of mundane profession rather than magic; the classic one, of course, is the warrior. Premodern "sciences" were usually mingled with folklore and psuedo-scientific elements that made faith a significant element of their execution, but the original, completely secular science was martial arts. Medieval fighting manuscripts describe their content as being both arts and sciences, which makes sense given the completely objective perspective survival-based combat entailed.
Contrary to post-modern stereotypes and perspectives, the romantic warrior isn't a muscle-bound brute, but an intellectual whose fighting style is just as informed by their understanding of geometry and physics (if more abstracted than the modern mathematics) as it is by their physical capabilities. This isn't commented upon in premodern manuscripts and narrative traditions, because it didn't need to be; it was largely understood that there was more to fighting than size and strength. In fact, the tradition of chivalric romance that fantasy is ultimately drawn from makes a point of praising balance in its heroes, such as courage tempered by prudence and a kind of masculinity that includes the feminine.
A lot of enlightenment fantasy is the way it is because it doesn't really understand the Middle Ages or the traditions it was drawn from (at least in theory). It has more to do with pulp science fiction (such as superhero comics) than it does with the literary history of magic. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but they're very different things drawn from different influences. Enlightenment magic could have only happened in literature during the 20th century, though, or later -- no other literary context would really make it acceptable or appropriate. It required that an audience enjoy logical systems as a rule of thumb, which was aided by the secularisation advanced within the 20th century and the expansion of traditional gaming to include the likes of D&D. And today it's further supported by the popularity of fantasy video games.
So as much as there's nothing wrong with that, we have to understand that it's quite far removed from the paradigms of the genre's romantic roots. And I thought this was appropriate to bring up because,
A fair statement from certain perspectives, but it's also a statement that assumes that the protagonist wields magical abilities. That assumption makes sense today, but wouldn't have existed in the heydays of folklore, legend and romantic literature. If the protagonist is mundane, but fights against the magical antagonist, then by the same token, the work is implicitly about working against ignorance. But if we reverse that, we come to your conclusion -- the protagonist is wielding magic powers.
You're inherently coming at this from a perspective of spellcaster-as-protagonist, which is fair enough, given you like that a lot. But it's a perspective heavily, heavily divorced from the traditional stories that fantasy comes from, within which context your perspective would be unlikely to exist. This is the difference in perception we're talking about when we come to the topic of literary magic -- magic as part of a world that cannot be understood, as in the old tales, or magic as appropriated by the 20th century and a culture that had accepted scientific theory among all social classes.
Fair enough.
On another note, three months of thinking have lead me to revise my opinion on spellblades. Alex had previously debunked the misconception of a warrior as a big dumb brute. Instead, he presented the viewpoint of a warrior as an intellectual, albeit one different than a mage.
I now see spellblades as scholars of two crafts instead of fools who forsook arcane power for hitty sword stuff. And someone who has more than one area of expertise is respected in my book. Thanks, Alex!
Funnily enough, as fervent as I was to dismiss the allegations of wizardry being a nerd power fantasy I partially based my hatred of spellblades on a related principle. They get to learn the same stuff wizards learn and get chicks at parties!
You don't understand the "Romanticist" magic on an intellectual level.
You understand it with an emotional one. It makes sense to your heart.
k