waywardOne
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2010
- Messages
- 2,318
Sorry, no discussion of this (yet). I'm looking for source material where ^ is the case, specifically in regard to divine vs arcane magic.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
magic as a field of science
- Thread starter waywardOne
- Start date
I believe in WoD, science is a field of magic. Sorry, I can't be of any help more than that.
SCO
Arcane
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 16,320
Yeah, it's the dominant 'paradigm' in their fucked up mage cosmology where everything is determined by what the most of humanity believes, the 'consensus'. Magic as a 'science' that is.
If you want to go to real sources, most of the alchemists/early scientists were fucked up in the head. Bacon, Newton, Paracelsus etc.
If you want to go to real sources, most of the alchemists/early scientists were fucked up in the head. Bacon, Newton, Paracelsus etc.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Messages
- 4,836
Historical sources or fictional sources?
There's all sorts of historical sources for this if you're interested. Agrippa's Three Books, and Pseudo-Agrippa's Fourth Book are a good overview of historical Western magic before it was distinguished from "science". There are quite a lot of modern academic sources also working on distinguishing theurgia and goeteia; not quite "divine" vs "arcane" but roughly similar; this distinction was used by many of the Neo-Platonists like Iamblichus and Porphyry.
There's all sorts of historical sources for this if you're interested. Agrippa's Three Books, and Pseudo-Agrippa's Fourth Book are a good overview of historical Western magic before it was distinguished from "science". There are quite a lot of modern academic sources also working on distinguishing theurgia and goeteia; not quite "divine" vs "arcane" but roughly similar; this distinction was used by many of the Neo-Platonists like Iamblichus and Porphyry.
SCO
Arcane
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 16,320
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Messages
- 4,836
Also, are you referring to magic as a branch of knowledge wherein further progress can be made through the scientific method or are you using "science" to mean being studied as a respected field of knowledge? Not much for the former IRL besides ESP experiments which either miss the point of magic or disprove it depending on who you ask but tons for the latter.
If you want fantasy lit sources, you could do worse than start with Lyndon Hardy's books - Master of the Five Magics, Secret of the Sixth Magic, and Riddle of the Seven Realms. Each school of magic in the first book has laws that govern it and the proper procedure for practitioners, etc.
DraQ
Arcane
Real sources are being covered, for fictional universe where this is the case you should read China Miéville's Bas-Lag cycle.
waywardOne
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2010
- Messages
- 2,318
Thanks for the help so far. To clarify, I'm in the midst of modding an RPG according to 2 functions: what the engine will let me do, and how I would run the game as a PnP DM. For the most part so far, I haven't had to do anything major with the mechanics until this when I was confounded by an issue I should've noticed decades ago: In a game where clerics and mages are distinct classes, what is the justification for clerics not being able to cast any spell a mage can? Despite playing many different games over my lifetime, most cosmologies are either One-Size-Fits-All or inconsistent and arbitrary.
It's such a jumble right now so I can't go into details that don't exist yet.
It's such a jumble right now so I can't go into details that don't exist yet.
PandaBreeder
Educated
I think that in D&D wizards were supposed to take a sientific approach towards magic, at least in the fluff. But it doesn't really specify how a wizard researches his spells or conducts his arcane experiments, so you ended up with a laundry list of spells with very specific functions, that made magic seem less scientific and more rote. Ars Magica really nailed the 'wizards as scientists' feel.
Sukeban Cho
Erudite
*poofity poof*
Who dares to summon the most beautiful and absolutely charming neko of arcane lore and forbidden witchcraft, nya?
@ WayWardOne
Up until around two and a half centuries ago Magic and Science were not that distinguished from each other, even if there were already voices calling for the separation that would later happen when the ruling paradigm of Science became entirely materialistic and thus there was no longer a place for any metaphysical matters on it. Many historical figures famous as origins of scientifical thought were neck deep into alchemy and qabalah themselves, and as a westerner you should focus on those disciplines (alchemy, qabalah, hermetic magic, etc) as one way or another many of their symbols and basic elements have found their way into popular culture and entertainment, even if badly misunderstood or misrepresented. It is easier for most westerners to learn, say, Qabalah or, even more, Hermetic Magic than it is to learn Onmyodo or Daoist Sorcery, for example.
Modern examples are rare, but there are some all the same. Jung, from the top of my head, loved alchemy and tarot to bits.
So focus on Qabalah, Hermetism, and Alchemy to begin with. The problem with most books on the topic is that they depend heavily on symbolism, because: A, how do you describe something beyond normal experience by means of a language defined by normal experience other than by symbols? And B, most wizards and witches are bloody elitists.
By this I mean you will not start seeing what you are looking for until you start understanding the symbols and the manner of speech, so it may be hard to see the "science" or "philosophy" behind it at first, you will see nothing but esoteric mumbo-jumbo and a lot of weird stuffies about demons and gods and magic circles. I would thus recomend you to begin becoming familiar with both pitagorean stuffies as well as neoplatonism to have a general idea on the basis of western metaphysics on which model you can later project the weird symbols you get. Also a lot on the myths and symbols of the culture that spawned this model or that model, as there is little hope you will see any "science" behind a mention of, say, Typhon if you can't see beyond "big monster zeus did beat in some primitive story about people with short and sexy togas."
Other than that most of the entry level stuff has been mentioned in the thread already. However, I would recomend some left hand stuff in addition to this: Do some Austin Osman Spare and maybe some Crowley (madness notwhitstanding), read a bit on Chaoism and Thelema and others like them. If you want to go hardcore go into the Hindu left hand and of some Shivaist cults, for example, or the so called "Hsien" daoists. Most occult traditions are married to their symbols, and it can be hard to understand were the metaphysics end and the religion begins without having at least a basic understanding of metaparadigmatics, which is a field in which the left hand is quite more advanced than the right one.
Also, if you can get a copy of it read also Richard Kieckhefer's Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer's Manual of the Fifteenth Century (Magic in History). It is a quite academical study of an obscure magical text, and the author focus on studying the text itself to discover several things about both its author and the cultural context, adding other texts and references here and there. It is actually a pretty interesting read to understand how magic systems and metaphysical models develop a language and style over time, and there are quite a lot of commentary on the patterns of magic that can help you distinguish between "model" and "practice" in other texts.
It will also break the delusion of "Burning times were about evil priests burning wizards and witches", quoting several texts and chronicles that show the much more realistic "burning times were about evil priests burning heretics, and only those wizards and witches whose magic went against catholic dogma were shown the way to the pyre." Which is actually something that should be used in more games, instead of the boring myth of fanatical inquisitors burning people left and right because they had not done their daily mwahahaha yet.
Anyway, back on topic...
The key to understanding magic as "science" is to understand the entirety of the occult is based on the idea of patterns: A good model of magic or metaphysical reality has to be, in some way, applicable to everything else, as the entire idea of "magic" is understanding the mechanism of creation to, uhm, mess with the source code when no one's watching. Comparing paradigms and models is the best way to understand magic as a science, as most paradigms and models, even those that never had contact with each other, are very similar in structure (the differences being mostly superficial and based on the language and context in which the symbolic explanation was developed).
I can go on and on about it, and I am open to particular questions on topics of magic (practice, dogma, models, etc) if you don't mind getting the wall-of-text treatment. It really is kind of a lot of work just to make a game, though. :S
@ SCO
That's actually stolen (or based on, as they actually mention the sources on the bibliography) from the Chaoists, who in turn stole it from several sources in both asia and the western world, and is thus part of actual magical lore. Many of the weird rules witches have are derived from this in some way or another.
An easy example would be how and when to actually announce you are going to use magic: In a cultural context were magic is accepted, or when the target of your magic actually believes on it, it is actually better to announce you are cursing or helping him, or to leave behind "cursed items" and such, so that the belief of others adds to you own power. In a cultural context were magic is not accepted or when the target doesn't believes on it you are better neither announcing it nor leaving "cursed items" around, as the power of your magic would erode based on disbelief. And in the first context the result you will get is always more "wow" than in the second.
This also implies following the forms and styles of the kind of magic accepted on your current context makes your magic more powerful than following those who are alien to them and may generate disbelief, for example.
@ Alkeides
The most basic laws of Magic indicate it can't neither work in such conditions nor be openly proven to work, as per the Pilar of Silence itself. The only thing such experiments prove is that magic doesn't work under those conditions magic will not to work under to begin with. Alas! @_@
Then, Magic is entirely based on the metaphysical. Even in Alchemy, the most "physical" of the occult sciences or arts, most, if not all, procedures only come to the desired result if your thoughts, emotions, passions, etc, are the right ones for every stage of the process, otherwise the result is useless and meaningless, or has a completely different effect, or kills you while the universe goes TROLOLOLOL around you.
It is actually quite amusing how it all works.
Who dares to summon the most beautiful and absolutely charming neko of arcane lore and forbidden witchcraft, nya?
@ WayWardOne
Up until around two and a half centuries ago Magic and Science were not that distinguished from each other, even if there were already voices calling for the separation that would later happen when the ruling paradigm of Science became entirely materialistic and thus there was no longer a place for any metaphysical matters on it. Many historical figures famous as origins of scientifical thought were neck deep into alchemy and qabalah themselves, and as a westerner you should focus on those disciplines (alchemy, qabalah, hermetic magic, etc) as one way or another many of their symbols and basic elements have found their way into popular culture and entertainment, even if badly misunderstood or misrepresented. It is easier for most westerners to learn, say, Qabalah or, even more, Hermetic Magic than it is to learn Onmyodo or Daoist Sorcery, for example.
Modern examples are rare, but there are some all the same. Jung, from the top of my head, loved alchemy and tarot to bits.
So focus on Qabalah, Hermetism, and Alchemy to begin with. The problem with most books on the topic is that they depend heavily on symbolism, because: A, how do you describe something beyond normal experience by means of a language defined by normal experience other than by symbols? And B, most wizards and witches are bloody elitists.
By this I mean you will not start seeing what you are looking for until you start understanding the symbols and the manner of speech, so it may be hard to see the "science" or "philosophy" behind it at first, you will see nothing but esoteric mumbo-jumbo and a lot of weird stuffies about demons and gods and magic circles. I would thus recomend you to begin becoming familiar with both pitagorean stuffies as well as neoplatonism to have a general idea on the basis of western metaphysics on which model you can later project the weird symbols you get. Also a lot on the myths and symbols of the culture that spawned this model or that model, as there is little hope you will see any "science" behind a mention of, say, Typhon if you can't see beyond "big monster zeus did beat in some primitive story about people with short and sexy togas."
Other than that most of the entry level stuff has been mentioned in the thread already. However, I would recomend some left hand stuff in addition to this: Do some Austin Osman Spare and maybe some Crowley (madness notwhitstanding), read a bit on Chaoism and Thelema and others like them. If you want to go hardcore go into the Hindu left hand and of some Shivaist cults, for example, or the so called "Hsien" daoists. Most occult traditions are married to their symbols, and it can be hard to understand were the metaphysics end and the religion begins without having at least a basic understanding of metaparadigmatics, which is a field in which the left hand is quite more advanced than the right one.
Also, if you can get a copy of it read also Richard Kieckhefer's Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer's Manual of the Fifteenth Century (Magic in History). It is a quite academical study of an obscure magical text, and the author focus on studying the text itself to discover several things about both its author and the cultural context, adding other texts and references here and there. It is actually a pretty interesting read to understand how magic systems and metaphysical models develop a language and style over time, and there are quite a lot of commentary on the patterns of magic that can help you distinguish between "model" and "practice" in other texts.
It will also break the delusion of "Burning times were about evil priests burning wizards and witches", quoting several texts and chronicles that show the much more realistic "burning times were about evil priests burning heretics, and only those wizards and witches whose magic went against catholic dogma were shown the way to the pyre." Which is actually something that should be used in more games, instead of the boring myth of fanatical inquisitors burning people left and right because they had not done their daily mwahahaha yet.
Anyway, back on topic...
The key to understanding magic as "science" is to understand the entirety of the occult is based on the idea of patterns: A good model of magic or metaphysical reality has to be, in some way, applicable to everything else, as the entire idea of "magic" is understanding the mechanism of creation to, uhm, mess with the source code when no one's watching. Comparing paradigms and models is the best way to understand magic as a science, as most paradigms and models, even those that never had contact with each other, are very similar in structure (the differences being mostly superficial and based on the language and context in which the symbolic explanation was developed).
I can go on and on about it, and I am open to particular questions on topics of magic (practice, dogma, models, etc) if you don't mind getting the wall-of-text treatment. It really is kind of a lot of work just to make a game, though. :S
@ SCO
That's actually stolen (or based on, as they actually mention the sources on the bibliography) from the Chaoists, who in turn stole it from several sources in both asia and the western world, and is thus part of actual magical lore. Many of the weird rules witches have are derived from this in some way or another.
An easy example would be how and when to actually announce you are going to use magic: In a cultural context were magic is accepted, or when the target of your magic actually believes on it, it is actually better to announce you are cursing or helping him, or to leave behind "cursed items" and such, so that the belief of others adds to you own power. In a cultural context were magic is not accepted or when the target doesn't believes on it you are better neither announcing it nor leaving "cursed items" around, as the power of your magic would erode based on disbelief. And in the first context the result you will get is always more "wow" than in the second.
This also implies following the forms and styles of the kind of magic accepted on your current context makes your magic more powerful than following those who are alien to them and may generate disbelief, for example.
@ Alkeides
The most basic laws of Magic indicate it can't neither work in such conditions nor be openly proven to work, as per the Pilar of Silence itself. The only thing such experiments prove is that magic doesn't work under those conditions magic will not to work under to begin with. Alas! @_@
Then, Magic is entirely based on the metaphysical. Even in Alchemy, the most "physical" of the occult sciences or arts, most, if not all, procedures only come to the desired result if your thoughts, emotions, passions, etc, are the right ones for every stage of the process, otherwise the result is useless and meaningless, or has a completely different effect, or kills you while the universe goes TROLOLOLOL around you.
It is actually quite amusing how it all works.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Messages
- 4,836
In that case I think the best model to look for is potion-making and alchemy in a few games -- TES games also have spellcrafting but the effects are all spelled out. I think you'd need to invovle reagent use in spells for something like this and have a set of magical syllables, something like the Ultima series.
I don't know if this would help, but trying to compare the way "divine" and "arcane" magic in RPGs to magico-religious practices in real life -- I'd say "divine" magic is similar to prayers in general (which can be ad-libbed, or memorized from specific texts; Jews and Christians use the Psalms, Muslims certain passages from the Quran) or "revealed" mantras from deities in tantra. "Arcane" magic, which in theory comes from some kind of magic "field" without the need for any spirits, is most similar to "energy"-based systems, prana, qi whatever.
Sukeban Cho
Erudite
Divine Magic draws its power from a divine being (you call upon god to do this for you) while Arcane Magic manipulates reality at a quantum level, informational level, or "metaphysical" level.
The antagonism between "divine casters" and "arcane casters" can be seen in itself as a form of the antagonism between "hands", or between mystics and sorcerers, as "arcane casters" would be changing reality to fit their will instead of letting it flow in accordance to the divine will, thus considering themselves "as god." Divine Casters, meanwhile, must plead for "it" to change the plan, for example, and mostly use "magic" as a way to follow the right path and complete that which divine will ordained them to do (thus their power is not their own, but a manifestation of the divine will that lead them down that path to begin with).
I get the feeling in DnD that only the greatest crazy inventor wizards are able to create new spells (hence why they are often named after someone, e.g. Melf's Acid Arrow), while most wizards simply learn spells that others created. You can draw a comparison to kinds of skill, say in sports, surgery or construction, most practitioners do not invent new techniques and procedures, they simply follow those that came before them.
crojipjip
Developer
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 4,253
The real world informs the magical world. Every fiction takes that route because they are at the mercy of knowns in the natural language. Unknowns are the result of fiction reaching a point of nonsense. Like God. Demi-gods explain more than God or Gods that share the world. Discernment is key, which is why the Greeks had more satisfying Gods. Fiction owes itsself to nonfiction. Imagination can hijack words and knowns.
If you know a shitload about the real world you can do much better than Twilight. Some names for creatures that do exist already fertilizes the imagination. Water bears (extremophiles-from earth) can actually live in space for a long time.
A lot of the japanese animes do a good job at recognizing the potential of knowns. Energy, it fuels the forces. If I have pure energy (mana) I can invent the idea of elemental control. Fire, Wind, Water. Somethings do seem impossible in fiction (unknowns).
Maybe you are a crazy person? using ideas that sound crazy enough to work will allow your readers to believe one could attain what is typically thought as mythical power. Aliens are great for it!
So the test of a true work of fiction will first and foremost have its Crazy-enough-to-work ideas worked out. Intuitive concepts beyond the reach of refutation is very welcome. But try to avoid obvious controversy, and instead present similar themes in a different light. It is fucking fiction damn it.
If you know a shitload about the real world you can do much better than Twilight. Some names for creatures that do exist already fertilizes the imagination. Water bears (extremophiles-from earth) can actually live in space for a long time.
A lot of the japanese animes do a good job at recognizing the potential of knowns. Energy, it fuels the forces. If I have pure energy (mana) I can invent the idea of elemental control. Fire, Wind, Water. Somethings do seem impossible in fiction (unknowns).
Maybe you are a crazy person? using ideas that sound crazy enough to work will allow your readers to believe one could attain what is typically thought as mythical power. Aliens are great for it!
So the test of a true work of fiction will first and foremost have its Crazy-enough-to-work ideas worked out. Intuitive concepts beyond the reach of refutation is very welcome. But try to avoid obvious controversy, and instead present similar themes in a different light. It is fucking fiction damn it.
Awor Szurkrarz
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 21,899
Some time ago I thought it would be cool to have magic as a programming language in game.
waywardOne
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2010
- Messages
- 2,318
Something like this:
1. The gods create reality or are the entities closest to its "true" form. Either way, they have an inherent ability to manipulate it.
2. Druids are similar though on a much reduced scale.
3. Mages through study can discover their own method of altering reality.
4. Clerics can only do so through the grace of their gods.
Not to be a dick, but any talk of "real world" magic systems is way off the mark, primarily due to (a) gods not existing and (b) magic not being real. Interesting to read, at least.
1. The gods create reality or are the entities closest to its "true" form. Either way, they have an inherent ability to manipulate it.
2. Druids are similar though on a much reduced scale.
3. Mages through study can discover their own method of altering reality.
4. Clerics can only do so through the grace of their gods.
Not to be a dick, but any talk of "real world" magic systems is way off the mark, primarily due to (a) gods not existing and (b) magic not being real. Interesting to read, at least.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Messages
- 4,836
OK so where does the "science" part come in?
I'm neutral with regards to magic IRL personally, I haven't experienced any of its effects first hand but there are people I trust to be honest and intelligent who claim to have had many experiences. Regardless, all fantasy-based magic systems derive at least in part from these "real world" systems and should provide some research material.
I'm neutral with regards to magic IRL personally, I haven't experienced any of its effects first hand but there are people I trust to be honest and intelligent who claim to have had many experiences. Regardless, all fantasy-based magic systems derive at least in part from these "real world" systems and should provide some research material.
Sukeban Cho
Erudite
I would hate to burst your bubble, but it is technically impossible to prove the non existence of something. @_@
Therefore it is a choice between:
1. I haven't seen it, thus it does not exist. (which is not rational)
2. I haven't seen it, so I don't fucking know. (which is pretty smart)
DraQ
Arcane
You can still talk of "real world" as in historical magic systems that can be used as a basis for creating something convincing and come from the time when scientific and magical thinking weren't yet separated.
Also (a) + (b) summons Black Nyan.
waywardOne
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2010
- Messages
- 2,318
Why so desperate to incorporate real world? It's a game; we can make up whatever we want. All I'm looking for is consistency. No more relativism, thx.
Sukeban Cho
Erudite
waywardOne
You asked about magic as a field of science, we did answer by giving you material that exemplifies exactly what you were asking about. What's the point of making up whatever we may want when there's already quite a lot of material demonstrating and showing how such a thing would work, and thus being more internally consistent than anything we may make up? *shrug*
I don't think that word means what you believe it means.
Edit:
You may want to add another level around the fundamental reality, kind of "material reality" or something.
So you have that divine casters interact with the gods, who interact with fundamental reality. You have the arcane casters interact directly with fundamental reality. And then you have the druids, in their fantasy game form at least, interact with both the natural world and the gods that rule over it, so their power is less related to fundamental reality and more to tangible one (understanding the secret natures of plants and animals, talking with animals and birds and trees, summoning beasts, etc) and their little contact with fundamental reality is limited to the part directly related to it (i.e: the spirits of trees, elementals, etc).
You asked about magic as a field of science, we did answer by giving you material that exemplifies exactly what you were asking about. What's the point of making up whatever we may want when there's already quite a lot of material demonstrating and showing how such a thing would work, and thus being more internally consistent than anything we may make up? *shrug*
I don't think that word means what you believe it means.
Edit:
You may want to add another level around the fundamental reality, kind of "material reality" or something.
So you have that divine casters interact with the gods, who interact with fundamental reality. You have the arcane casters interact directly with fundamental reality. And then you have the druids, in their fantasy game form at least, interact with both the natural world and the gods that rule over it, so their power is less related to fundamental reality and more to tangible one (understanding the secret natures of plants and animals, talking with animals and birds and trees, summoning beasts, etc) and their little contact with fundamental reality is limited to the part directly related to it (i.e: the spirits of trees, elementals, etc).
Teepo
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2011
- Messages
- 892
Well the general idea is the person is invoking or evoking something in a way reality is forced to respond.
Sorcerers bypass the evocation entirely using gestures and language instead. Clerics rely entirely on invocations from their god. Druids are the hippy variety of this, probably not understanding what they do, just "feeling it out, dude." Wizards are the most cognizant of what they're doing and rely on the evocation of scriptures and objects in probably the most "sciency" and utilitarian way. They are the ones who spend the most time studying magic. Sorcerers are more in tune with the universe itself.
It's all really fascinating stuff. Hilarious how out of a mage's spell set they constructed a huge universe of gods and dimensional realities.
Sorcerers bypass the evocation entirely using gestures and language instead. Clerics rely entirely on invocations from their god. Druids are the hippy variety of this, probably not understanding what they do, just "feeling it out, dude." Wizards are the most cognizant of what they're doing and rely on the evocation of scriptures and objects in probably the most "sciency" and utilitarian way. They are the ones who spend the most time studying magic. Sorcerers are more in tune with the universe itself.
It's all really fascinating stuff. Hilarious how out of a mage's spell set they constructed a huge universe of gods and dimensional realities.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.