zompist bboard

I wonder if Almea contains any kind of magic, or of sorcery, that can be performed by uest??

And if yes, how its occurrence is explained?

Yes, there are sorcerers called shrayomi, I think, or something like that. (Please don't bash me if i got it incorrect).

And I think magic really exists on Almea, and doesn't have any scientific explanation.

Amulek is right. There's some information on magic in the Cadhinorian Paganism page.

Thanx, I'll read it...

Does Almean magic work successfully?

Waldkater wrote:Does Almean magic work successfully?

Sometimes, if the Powers feel like cooperating.

Just to explain, for newer readers... I'm annoyed by some contemporary treatments of magic in fantasy-- treating it as a reliable form of technology. To me that makes it a dishonest form of science fiction: if magic lets you light the streets and institute a cargo service, you just advance to the modern era in a different way, and you shouldn't keep all the other accoutrements of fantasy-- the kings and knights and castles.

To me, magic should be something numinous-- spiritual rather than scientific. I've essentially borrowed my solution from Ariosto: magic is actually requests made of sentient supernatural powers... superior beings that have their own agenda. They may indulge their pets a bit, but there is a price to be paid, and they certainly can't be ordered around or turned into a business.

zompist wrote:

Waldkater wrote:Does Almean magic work successfully?

Sometimes, if the Powers feel like cooperating.

Just to explain, for newer readers... I'm annoyed by some contemporary treatments of magic in fantasy-- treating it as a reliable form of technology. To me that makes it a dishonest form of science fiction: if magic lets you light the streets and institute a cargo service, you just advance to the modern era in a different way, and you shouldn't keep all the other accoutrements of fantasy-- the kings and knights and castles.

To me, magic should be something numinous-- spiritual rather than scientific. I've essentially borrowed my solution from Ariosto: magic is actually requests made of sentient supernatural powers... superior beings that have their own agenda. They may indulge their pets a bit, but there is a price to be paid, and they certainly can't be ordered around or turned into a business.

Yes sir!

I'm wanting to compile a list of annoying and clich?d things that pop up in conworlds.

zompist wrote:Just to explain, for newer readers... I'm annoyed by some contemporary treatments of magic in fantasy-- treating it as a reliable form of technology. To me that makes it a dishonest form of science fiction: if magic lets you light the streets and institute a cargo service, you just advance to the modern era in a different way, and you shouldn't keep all the other accoutrements of fantasy-- the kings and knights and castles.

Oh well, I guess you won't be very interested in my work then; that's a pretty succinct summary of the basic principles of my conworld. I think it makes for a beautifully improved storyline to be able to have modern and even better-than-modern lifestyles without having to worry about technological progress (since magic is pretty much static).

Mercator wrote:Oh well, I guess you won't be very interested in my work then; that's a pretty succinct summary of the basic principles of my conworld. I think it makes for a beautifully improved storyline to be able to have modern and even better-than-modern lifestyles without having to worry about technological progress (since magic is pretty much static).

Depends on how you did it, really. Technologized magic is basically equivalent to science fiction with new physical laws. If it works as a s.f. world, great. It's the combination with standard medievalism, D&D style, that I think is cheap.

How commonly used is this magic? Is it something only a very few people have and is only infrequently used? Why did you decide to add magic?

Eddy the Great wrote:Why did you decide to add magic?

Might it have had something to do with the fact that Almea was originally concieved as a D&D setting?

con quesa wrote:

Eddy the Great wrote:Why did you decide to add magic?

Might it have had something to do with the fact that Almea was originally concieved as a D&D setting?

It does; so the question isn't really why I added magic, but why I left it in. And the answer, more or less, is that there was never any reason not to. Fantasy goes well with magic, just as rationalism goes well with science fiction. The Almeans themselves would believe in magic, anyway; and it's more interesting if they're sometimes right than if they're always wrong.

Is there any nation or grouping on Almea that, for one reason or another, does *not* make use of magic? Did the Cuezians?

So Haleza Grise wrote:Is there any nation or grouping on Almea that, for one reason or another, does *not* make use of magic? Did the Cuezians?

Good call... the Cuzeians trusted in their god(s) and viewed other forms of magic as idolatry. The modern Eledhi are distrustful of magic as well.

In a pre-modern society there is a good deal of what we'd call magical thinking-- e.g. in herblore or alchemy-- but which the participants wouldn't call magic.

Just so people know...herblore is quite useful, and yes, it does work, if you know how to do it right (not me).

Drydic_guy wrote:Just so people know...herblore is quite useful, and yes, it does work, if you know how to do it right (not me).

Actually, it's always struck me as missing the point a little bit when someone asks if magic "works" in a given consetting. I mean, I know what they're getting at, but at the same time a big reason belief in magic (or "magical thinking") persists in our world is that it's not possible to prove that said belief is always wrong -- so it's a bit misleading to ask if magic "works" in someone's world as thought it's self-evident that it doesn't "work" in ours. Belief in magic is non-falsifiable, just like any supernatural belief (though in our age, like a lot of supernatural beliefs, it does often try to dress itself up as "science" for the sake of intellectual prestige).

I don't see how herblore is connected to magic.

ils wrote:

Drydic_guy wrote:Just so people know...herblore is quite useful, and yes, it does work, if you know how to do it right (not me).

Actually, it's always struck me as missing the point a little bit when someone asks if magic "works" in a given consetting. I mean, I know what they're getting at, but at the same time a big reason belief in magic (or "magical thinking") persists in our world is that it's not possible to prove that said belief is always wrong -- so it's a bit misleading to ask if magic "works" in someone's world as thought it's self-evident that it doesn't "work" in ours. Belief in magic is non-falsifiable, just like any supernatural belief (though in our age, like a lot of supernatural beliefs, it does often try to dress itself up as "science" for the sake of intellectual prestige).

I think I agree with you...my mind is a bit mushy right now, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean in a couple places. I'll re-read it tomorrow, it'll make more sense then.

zmeiat_joro wrote:I don't see how herblore is connected to magic.

At least in terrestrian cultures there's a close connection, because the people performing any magic or sorcery are the same that studied herblore. Imagine any clich? of an Indianish medicin-man or Mongolian shaman, or of an European medieval witch. At daytime she collects humpbackedly herbs, and at night she brews a green, whirling potion in her kettle. That's all because of the common idea that some herbs and plants possess magical power, maybe due to their actual medical power.

Herblore is also a playground for magical thinking-- basically, assuming that effects can be derived not from experiment but from surface properties and cultural associations. E.g. (I'm making these examples up) you use rose petals in a beauty potion, and the thorns for a protective ointment.

Waldkater wrote:That's all because of the common idea that some herbs and plants possess magical power, maybe due to their actual medical power.

Incidentally, does anyone know to what extent common terms like "witch-doctor" and "medicine man" are accurate translations of the terms in Amerindian or African cultures?

Ah, so this herblore you're talking about is not what I thought. I meant more like popular pre-modern-biological-science, derived-from-experience medicine. What you described sounds to me like it belongs to a really young culture that's just starting to develop that.

zmeiat_joro wrote:Ah, so this herblore you're talking about is not what I thought. I meant more like popular pre-modern-biological-science, derived-from-experience medicine.

"Derived-from-experience medicine" probably goes back to remote prehistory and has been a part of "magical" herblore for almost all of recorded history. The practice of vaccination was derived from a folk-cure used by Turkish peasant matrons.

zompist wrote:To me, magic should be something numinous-- spiritual rather than scientific.

That's my own view as well; treating magic like a science robs it of mystery and mythic power. I was particularly annoyed by Holly Lisle's article that suggests the only good way to approach magic is to create an absolutely defined "system" for it, with hard and fast rules; she may like that kind of thing, but it bores the hell out of me.

I think that in some way's she is right. After all, having hard and fast rules does not prohibit a mystical or numinous approach to magic - as long as its consistent. If you, as the narrator, don't know what it can and can't do, and when it does or doesn't do something, then it just turns into a plot device to enable you to pull gods out of the machine of magic.
Even if its just "the will of the gods", you should have an idea of what the gods are like, what sort of requests they answer and what they refuse, and what sort of prices they exact.

EDIT: I did NOT just write "write" in place of "right". I go to Oxford. I have an A at English A-level. I won my school's English prize. I DID NOT just write "write" instead of "right". I didn't. Any evidence you may have seen to the contrary was a figment of your imagination. A hallucination. Begone, hallucinations of hideous error, begone!

Let's move along now. Nothing to see here.