PDA

View Full Version : Old School magic & metamagic



Frozen_Feet
2017-11-22, 06:54 AM
So this thread is about analyzing different gameable magic systems and tropes from the perspective of a metamagical theory consisting of four common rules which underline many classic tales and conceptions of magic:

1st rule: rule of symbolism: a thing which appears similar to a thing, can be used to affect that thing, AKA manipulation of symbols manipulates reality.

2nd rule: law of contagion: things which have been in contact, remain connected. You can use part of a whole to affect the whole.

3rd rule: mind over matter. Thoughts and emotions have direct impact on reality. Corollary to this is that a mage must be thinking of the effect they desire and fully intend it for magic to work. Rule of thumb: "there are no accidents in magic".

4th rule: no ontological inertia. Effects of magic only remain as long as the caster is focusing their thoughts and emotions, or, if the target is another conscious being, as long as the target can focus their thoughts and emotions.

Let me also give you a few example spells which adhere to these rules:

Example spell A: the Voodoo doll.

First, you acquire a symbol of the target person: a doll in their likeness. Second, you create a connection to that person, by acquiring a piece of their body: a strand of hair, a drop of blood, a toenail etc. Third, you must harm the doll with the intent of harming the real person. If your intentions are true, the person will now suffer pain. After this, two things can happen. If the target is unaware of the curse, the pain will cease once your attention on the doll ceases. If you get the target to believe they are cursed, then their own belief will keep the curse going even when your attention is elsewhere.

Things which can go wrong with the spell:

- your symbol is lackluster; it does not bear resemblance to the right person
- you lack real connection to the target person; the hair, the blood, the nail, is from someone else
- you lack real intent to harm. Again: "there are no accidents in magic". If you don't truly wish to stab a person with a needle, it does not matter how many needles you stab in your doll.
- the target refuses to believe they are cursed. You can still affect them when your full attention is on the doll, but you cannot make the curse "stick" to cause a lasting change in the target's life.

How to break the spell:

- destroy the doll without intending harm to the person the doll is made of. This destroys the symbolic connection between the doll and the target. To be on the safe side, it helps if you at the same time proclaim and honestly believe the doll has no connection to the person it is made of. If you feel at any level that harming the doll equates to harming the person, this is obviously very dangerous. You might want to get a complete stranger to do this. It's easier to think a doll's just a doll if you don't know it's off a real person.
- remove the body part from the doll. This breaks the connection between the target and the doll.
- make the spellcaster feel pity towards the target. They cannot cause them harm if they do not honestly wish that. It also helps if the target believes the spellcaster does not honestly wish them harm.
- convince the target that they aren't, and can't, be cursed. This makes it impossible to make a curse "stick", and provides resistance to the spellcaster's tricks.
- if the target's own belief is upholding the curse, give them the doll so they can themselves remove the pins and destroy the doll, hence verifying the curse is over.
- kill the spellcaster, preferably in sight of the target.
- if the target's own belief is fueling the curse, make them suffer amnesia.

Example spell B: shapeshifting

First, you make yourself into a symbol of the thing you wish to change into. Second, you place upon yourself or consume ("you are what you eat") a piece of the thing you wish to turn into. For example, for turning into a wolf, dressing in a wolf pelt serves both purposes. Now, while honestly wanting to be the thing you wish to change into, act like that thing. You change back once you honestly wish to be human again and cease to act like the thing you changed into.

Things which can go wrong with this spell:

- your symbol is lackluster; neither you nor your actions bear resemblance to the thing you wanted to change into.
- the thing you consumed or placed upon yourself is of the wrong creature, so you don't have a connection to it. Do n't use a bear pelt if trying to turn into a wolf.
- you don't actually know what the thing is really like, so you can't honestly intent to become it either. If you know nothing of how real wolves act, you can't change into one either.
- the thing you turned into does not or cannot have a comprehension of what it's like to be human; a human may know both what it's like to be human and what it's like to be a wolf, but a wolf might only know what it's like to be wolf. This makes it difficult to change back on purpose. (One of the few corner cases of a spell being "permanent". Pro tip: don't turn yourself into an inanimate object!)
- the thing you turned into would not want to turn into your past form. For example, dragons are arrogant creatures and see humans as inferior. Not in a million years would a dragon want to be a human, a dragon just wants to be dragon.

How to break the spell:

- kill or destroy who has been changed. This, at latest, ends the spell and restores the thing to its original form.
- convince the changed thing that they'd really be better off in some other form, hence breaking the intentionality upholding the spell. For example, if the spellcaster-turned-wolf is faced with reality of a human they loved now scorning or fearing them, they may wish to not be wolf again.
- countespell: disbelieve the transformation really hard, acting like its all smoke and mirrors, and convince all others to follow suit. Note: this is dangerous if even little doubt remains in your heart. It is hard to disbelieve a wolf when its biting your throat. Usually only works if you know the thing is really under a spell, such as through witnessing the initial transformation.

---

So, in the context of these four rules, is there a spell (for example, Fireball), or type of magic (for example, Truenaming), or an aspect of using magic (such as spellbooks) you'd like me to analyze? I'm going to go over vocalized spells, scrolls, potions and some other common things regardless when I have time, but it'd be handy to start from something that'd actually interest someone.

weckar
2017-11-22, 07:39 AM
Where exactly did you get these rules from? I recognise the first one as Sympathetic Magic, but it feels like an oddly limited list.

Pleh
2017-11-22, 09:05 AM
I guess the thing that I'm interested to explore is Conjuration, specifically Conjuration (Creation).

I know the Fabrication spell requires material components, but under these sets of laws, does all Creative magic require a transmutation of existing material resources (even just energy to matter conversion), or is it possible to use magic to Create "Ex Nihilo" (out of nothing)?

Also, what might be the actual limits of Creative magic under these laws? Is a Spellcaster able to create literally anything they can imagine if only they believe in it enough?

Will it be magically functional in exactly the manner conceived, or will it only have the appearance exactly as imagined it should have?

If functional, would it possess a Boolean "yes can create/no cannot create" or a spectrum of "yes can create, but not 100% as imagined"?

To help ground the question, suppose a Wizard wanted to use the Fabricate spell (or suppose there were a similar spell that had different restrictions) to magically craft an actual Perpetual Motion machine that would magically create an endless supply of mechanical energy.

Would they need to draw a functional blueprint (hence it would be impossible) to have a symbol to draw upon?

Would they need a piece of an already existing perpetual motion machine, or just a piece of a regular machine, or any material component whatsoever?

Once created, would the Caster need to continue concentrating to keep the perpetual motion machine delivering infinite energy, or would they have to trick other people into believing it would never stop supplying energy?

Hopefully, this line of questioning illustrates where I find ambiguity in your law system.

Bastian Weaver
2017-11-22, 09:15 AM
Reminds me of the Case of the Toxic Spell Dump.

Frozen_Feet
2017-11-22, 10:41 AM
@weckar:

They are common beliefs held by superstitious people, (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking) and hence also appear as rules of many real life and fictional magic theories. All four make frequent appearance in roleplaying games, D&D as chief example, though D&D's spells don't consistently follow all four. (They typically follow 1st rule, requiring specific words as symbol or a holy symbol, often follow 2nd rule as material components, nearly always follow 3rd rule as spellcasting is governed by mental abilities, and often follow the 4th rule in some way, either requiring concentration or having limited durations, as well as by being usually suspect to dispelling, anti-magic field etc.)

See also:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_contagion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_over_matter

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SympatheticMagic

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoOntologicalInertia

Frozen_Feet
2017-11-22, 11:12 AM
I know the Fabrication spell requires material components, but under these sets of laws, does all Creative magic require a transmutation of existing material resources (even just energy to matter conversion), or is it possible to use magic to Create "Ex Nihilo" (out of nothing)?

It is impossible to create something completely out of nothing due to 1st and 2nd rules. However, 1st, 2nd and 3rd law in combination allow creation of a whole lot of a thing from a tiny amount of a thing. For example, a symbol of a rock and a piece of rock are enough to create a large boulder.

The 4th law limits the utility of this. If you cease to think of your boulder and can't get anyone else to think the boulder should still be there, the boulder will not be. So one should not build a castle of such boulders, lest they want to learn the hard way that it was only made of pebbles.


Also, what might be the actual limits of Creative magic under these laws? Is a Spellcaster able to create literally anything they can imagine if only they believe in it enough?

The limits of magic, in the abstract, are unknown under these rules. Only the limits of a specific caster in a specific situation can be known. If a caster has the requisite symbolic knowledge, the requisite material component and the right state of mind, they might be able to, say, create a boulder of any size up to the limit where boulder of such size would kill the caster and make the boulder vanish.

As talked of in the examples, magical creations are also subject to being dispelled and resisted by strong enough disbelief. A mage might be able to create a planet in a vacuum, but not before a crowd who think that'd be BS. Or to put it more simply: it is literally possible to create an unbelievably big boulder.


Will it be magically functional in exactly the manner conceived, or will it only have the appearance exactly as imagined it should have?

As discussed in the examples above, the caster has to have enough real knowledge for magic to work. But in general, having everyday experience of a thing is enough to make a thing that works like the real thing. The 2nd law, and where applicable, 3rd law due to presence of believing bystanders will fill the gaps in the caster's knowledge.


If functional, would it possess a Boolean "yes can create/no cannot create" or a spectrum of "yes can create, but not 100% as imagined"?

Uncertain. It could certainly create a device which can tell if a mage is in the right state of mind to create a thing, but this result would obviously be influenced by the mage, so such a machine would rapidly run into circular logic.

In general, science of, and science with, magic are really difficult due to 3rd law and 4th law messing experiments. Basically 3rd law makes confirmation bias into a hard rule: a spell works if you expect it to work. It cannot work if you expect it not to. It cannot work if no-one expects its results.


To help ground the question, suppose a Wizard wanted to use the Fabricate spell (or suppose there were a similar spell that had different restrictions) to magically craft an actual Perpetual Motion machine that would magically create an endless supply of mechanical energy.

Would they need to draw a functional blueprint (hence it would be impossible) to have a symbol to draw upon?

In absence of a real piece of a perpetual motion machine, yes. In presence of such a piece, however, a symbol, such as a rough picture of the machine, would suffice. Think of paintings by M.C. Escher: it is possible to draw projections which would be impossible to really implement. Hence symbols of non-existent things can exist, and be used to satisfy the 1st law.


Would they need a piece of an already existing perpetual motion machine, or just a piece of a regular machine, or any material component whatsoever?

They would need a piece of a perpetual motion machine, or a piece of someone who built one, or a piece of someone who designed it etc. To satisfy the 2nd law.

That is, 2nd law allows for several degrees of separation, as long as a real connection was had somewhere along the line to link the spell to the desired object. So if no perpetual motion machine exists anywhere, it cannot be made with magic. This is enforced by the 4th law, which itself states creating anything perpetual with magic is impossible, or at the very least really difficult.


Once created, would the Caster need to continue concentrating to keep the perpetual motion machine delivering infinite energy, or would they have to trick other people into believing it would never stop supplying energy?

One of these must be filled, to satisfy dual criteria of 3rd and 4th laws. 3rd law states that as long as people believe in it, it will work. 4th law states that as soon as no-one is thinking of it, it goes poof.


Hopefully, this line of questioning illustrates where I find ambiguity in your law system.

That is what this thread is for.

Pleh
2017-11-23, 06:37 AM
It does seem like a wild weakness to magic that you can be safe from all enemy casters just by possessing a strong enough conviction that they aren't actually a magician, therefore nothing they seem to be doing is really happening.

You are now practically immune to enemy casters.

So all magic is merely illusory and becomes real when believed?

Frozen_Feet
2017-11-23, 08:13 AM
In theory, yes. In practice, if you don't know who the magician is (such as in one the examples, you didn't witness them shapeshifting), then it is hard to have specific enough focus to constantly ward off magic. And no matter how strong your convictions are, you won't be thinking of magic all the time. So you can be caught off-guard when you're not expecting magic. This applies even in the non-magical realm: there are countless optical illusions which cause immobile things to appear to move etc. Just knowing this can happen does not actually allow you to recognize them at first glance..

However, it is worth noting that entities, such as low-intelligence animals which cannot understand speech or symbols, will be heavily resistant to most magic that can be cast on them, because you can't fool them to believe in abstractions. In D&D terms, this is why you'd need a different spell to charm an animal, or a monster, than to charm a person.

As for whether all magic is "illusory", that is one philosophical way to look at it. Most Illusions and Enchantments from D&D can be implemented within these four rules, and some already follow all three. However, impermanent is not quite the same as illusionary. Magic can cause changes which won't immediately go away after a spell ends when magic is not succesfully resisted nor dispelled. For example, if a mage lulls someone into sleep, they will wake up when the mage's concentration falters, but if they hit their head due to falling down, effects of that will stay. Fear, pain and shock from magical flames can cause a person to pass out or even die, even if their burns go away when a spell ends. A non-magic object moved by magic will usually not move itself back. That last one may sound counterintuitive, but it's a weird interaction of the 4th law: in order for object to move back, force is required. But after the magic has ended, no magical force can cause that. Of course, non-magical forces can make the object move, so if the object that was moved is not supported by non-magical means, then gravity will take its toll.

If you are careful, this interpretation of magical things as temporary rather than illusory can maybe be used to cheat physics. You may, at least seemingly, get more energy out of a system than you're putting in. On the other hand, these rules do not answer the question of whether the world in which the magic is done is open or closed system. Magic is not be-all-end-all of either natural or supernatural worlds.

Pleh
2017-11-23, 05:38 PM
And no matter how strong your convictions are, you won't be thinking of magic all the time. So you can be caught off-guard when you're not expecting magic.

So what you're saying is that nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition?

I guess more the point I was getting at was that instantaneous conjuration seems a problem for magic that disappears when the caster stops casting it, because we already know that this is a common strategy for beating an Anti Magic Field (instant conjured objects "last indefinitely" and "does not depend on magic for its existence").

The Glyphstone
2017-11-23, 08:29 PM
I'm curious how persistent magic items work using this rule. Not consumable/stored spells in scrolls or potions, which you listed as a to-do. Things like a Belt of Giant Strength, or a Bag of Holding, that are 'always on', or triggered items that can be used repeatedly like Winged Boots.

Along a similar line of thought, would mindless creatures like animated skeletons or zombies cease to function if their controlling necromancer was killed? They can't perpetuate their own existence without sapience. Golems might be able to get away with it because they are powered by a bound elemental of some kind.

Knaight
2017-11-23, 09:11 PM
I'm curious how persistent magic items work using this rule. Not consumable/stored spells in scrolls or potions, which you listed as a to-do. Things like a Belt of Giant Strength, or a Bag of Holding, that are 'always on', or triggered items that can be used repeatedly like Winged Boots.

They generally wouldn't, although holy relics or similar might be able to maintain the level of continuity of concentration needed to work.

Frozen_Feet
2017-11-24, 03:17 AM
So what you're saying is that nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition?

I guess more the point I was getting at was that instantaneous conjuration seems a problem for magic that disappears when the caster stops casting it, because we already know that this is a common strategy for beating an Anti Magic Field (instant conjured objects "last indefinitely" and "does not depend on magic for its existence").

Instant creation spells of that specific form as seen in D&D are outright denied by the 4th rule.

In a planar cosmology such as D&D's, you could approximate the same effect by moving already existing things in from an infinite or near-infinite elemental plane, provided you somehow have connection to that plane in order to satisfy the 2nd rule. These rules of magic do not tell if or how such an extraplanar connection could exist.

---


I'm curious how persistent magic items work using this rule. Not consumable/stored spells in scrolls or potions, which you listed as a to-do. Things like a Belt of Giant Strength, or a Bag of Holding, that are 'always on', or triggered items that can be used repeatedly like Winged Boots.

Student: "if a magical tree falls when no-one is around, does it make a sound?"
Master: "no, as a magical tree cannot exist with no-one around."

In order for a magic item to be "always on", someone must be observing it and focusing on it to satisfy dual demands of 3rd and 4th rules.

A forgotten object sitting in a vault cannot be doing its thing.

You can have persistent items of great magical signifigance, however. The symbols and materials used to satisfy 1st and 2nd rules are not themselves subject to 4th rule. So you could have, for example, a belt made from a giant's hair, adorned by symbol of strength, such as Atlas carrying the sky.

Anyone who understands the symbol and can seriously wish to possess strength of a giant, satisfying dual demands of 1st and 3rd rules, can create the magical effect desired. Winged boots, made with feathers of a flying creature and adorned with proper, understood symbols will work just as well. So reactivable items, are easy.

However, remember the rule of thumb based on 3rd rule: "there are no accidents in magic". Unindentified objects are nigh-useless for magic. Blindly putting on an item, with no knowledge of what it is, what it symbolizes and where it came from, should have no effect.

So what if it apparently has?

Then you are dealing with an Oracle. An Oracle is a mind with full (magically relevant) knowledge of the object in question, with the sole purpose of observing the object and making it fullfill a specific magical purpose. Oracles are necessary to give an item Black Box functionality.

The Oracle could be a literal Oracle. Religious relics, that is, things connected to genuine miracles, make for astoundingly powerfull symbols and material components. A religious sect founded on continuosly ritually observing some relic could create magical effects lasting untill every member of that sect is dead or otherwise rendered unable to continue the ritual. An example would be a monastery in possession of a crucifix made from the cross upon which Yeshua of Nazaret was crucified, with at least one monk always attending the relic.

An even more devious way would be to incorporate the Oracle into the object itself. If you find, say, a sword glowing with magic flame in a vault that has not been entered by anyone in years, then based on rules of magic, that sword would need to have a mind of its own to explain its capabilities. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one, and this is literally true.

Wise magicians typically avoid such items like a plague, however. Because using such items means putting your faith in an unknown actor. Those magicians who do wish to use them, typically "break the Oracle" as a first thing, meaning persuading, bribing or coercing the Oracle to surrender all it knows.

A malicious Oracle is called a Demon. The most famous Demonic magic item, which also happens to be 99% four-rules-compliant, is Sauron's One Ring.


Along a similar line of thought, would mindless creatures like animated skeletons or zombies cease to function if their controlling necromancer was killed? They can't perpetuate their own existence without sapience. Golems might be able to get away with it because they are powered by a bound elemental of some kind.

Correct on both accounts. You may recognize this "undead falling down when their master is killed" as a classic fantasy trope. It is an example of many tales of magic being explainable by the four rules, even if those tales never explicitly name them or follow them inconsistently.

Golems are an example of placing an Oracle or a Demon in an object to animate it. As with animals, the simple and single-mindedness of the Oracle/Demon is likely the source of their massive magic resistance.

The Glyphstone
2017-11-24, 05:05 PM
How subjective can the First Law be when it comes to magical items and the properties they bestow? Obviously, the application of the Laws in this way means you don't have to be a wizard/sorcerer to collect the hair of a giant to weave a belt, but can an item produce different magical effects for different people depending on the symbolism they draw from it? Say, that giant-hair belt - at a baseline, it could imbue its wearer with the strength of a giant if they believe in it, according to the First and Third Laws. But if the wearer was knowledgeable enough to identify the hairs as belonging to a storm giant, could they gain a storm-giant-like ability to throw lightning bolts at their enemies (either in addition to or in place of the supernatural strength)? Could a different wearer from a culture who saw giants as symbols of immense toughness instead of strength become tougher by wearing it?

Frozen_Feet
2017-11-24, 08:41 PM
How subjective can the First Law be when it comes to magical items and the properties they bestow?

Very. However, once no-one can get your finger is pointing at the Moon, then you've crossed the line to uselessness.

Generally speaking, the more recognizable the symbol is, the more like the thing being invoked it is, and the more widespread it is, the more powerfull it becomes. But, at the same time it also becomes easier to counter. Magicians rarely want their symbols to be universally comprehensible, as that means surrendering part of their power to others.

So it's a balance and depends on what the item is wanted to achieve. This conundrum exists in real life just as well. For something like a Stop sign, you want and need it to be recognized by everyone in traffic. For an encrypted message, you only want it recognized by just you and the intended recipient, and useless to anyone else.


Obviously, the application of the Laws in this way means you don't have to be a wizard/sorcerer to collect the hair of a giant to weave a belt, but can an item produce different magical effects for different people depending on the symbolism they draw from it?

Provided the interpretation of the symbol is valid for the materials and intent used, to satisfy trial demands of 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws, yes.


Say, that giant-hair belt - at a baseline, it could imbue its wearer with the strength of a giant if they believe in it, according to the First and Third Laws. But if the wearer was knowledgeable enough to identify the hairs as belonging to a storm giant, could they gain a storm-giant-like ability to throw lightning bolts at their enemies (either in addition to or in place of the supernatural strength)? Could a different wearer from a culture who saw giants as symbols of immense toughness instead of strength become tougher by wearing it?

Provided that Storm Giants are capable of throwing lightning bolts, and provided they are both strong and tough, then yes, your example is correct. It's a good example of how a person's knowledge of the symbols and materials used for 1st and 2nd laws may influence what magic they are able to use them for, and how.

pwykersotz
2017-11-29, 05:55 PM
Just posting to say that I really like the ideas in this thread. They don't interfere with whatever mechanical system is used, but they deepen it with lore and possibility. It provides an explanation as to why people would pray to the gods, believe in talismans, and have rituals for significant events.

Nice work, I will definitely be thinking more on this.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-01, 04:51 PM
Thank you.

Moving on:

Spelling it out - why are words magically signficant?

The reason is simple: because words, specifically names, are symbols. As per the 1st rule, control over a symbol is to control what is symbolized. Hence, knowing and speaking out the name of a thing gives power over that thing.

But equally importantly, words express and codify thought. Once a human has learned a language, they will also think in that language, and only through language can some concepts and abstractions be expressed and thought off. Hence, to control language is to control thoughts, emotions and intent of people, giving power over the 3rd rule which fuels magic.

However, natural languages are ambiguous and subjective. This diminishes their usability. Even the most clever rhetoric can only work on someone who understands you.

Because of this, a concept is born: a set of names which are universally comprehended and exact, that is, True Names, spoken in some universal True language. Whether such a language exists is left open by the four rules, but the search for True Names and an Universal language is one of the most sought-out Holy Grails of magic.

Yet, magicians are also the first people to rely on ambiguity and incompleteness of language. Fake names and euphenisms are common as dirt among them. Many magicians guard their real names with extreme jealousy, to avoid giving the tiniest advantage to their enemies. Just as well, they avoid open reference to theit superiors, lest they conjure something they cannot control. "Speak of the Devil and he shall appear" and "Speak not thy Lord's in vain" are both warnings about the power of Names.

When the number and level of organization of mages exceeds some treshold, it is common for them to develop their own, secret language that is only taught between initiates of their tradition. This language may be a proper constructed language, or just a set of impenetrable specialist jargon, but most commonly, it is a dead or dying minority language that the tradition feels nostalgic about for some reason. They may think it is closest to True, Universal language, for example.

Quite often, an impression is given, and sometimes deliberately reinforced, that magic can only be invoked using this specific language. This is of course false, but if people believe it anyway, it will appear to become true as their belief does away with the confidence they would need to satisfy the 3rd law. In truth, in absence of such self-limiting beliefs, the best language for magic is always the magician's primary one, as it is with that language they naturally think and express their thoughts.

Writing it down - how the written word changes use of magic

If words are powerfull, it should surprise no-one then that writing is so as well. As explained above, words are symbols, and words are thought - so writing, then, is giving a visible, lasting shape to two important elements of magic. In fact, three important elements, as a person writing by hand will leave their personal handprint all over the text, hence creating a connection relevant for the 2nd law.

Every handwritten piece of text hence is, in a magical sense, a direct window into a person's thoughts. Even better: words put on paper can last decades. Words etched on stone can last centuries. Unlike the thoughts and spoken words of people, written things will not necessarily fade into nothing. So writing can be used to give magic much of the permanence it otherwise lacks.

Hence, invention of writing is a paradigm shift in magic, perhaps even more than in other endeavors. One type of magic which is greatly influenced by writing is that of contract. As noted, each name is a symbol. And writing down one's name also creates a connection. Writing down one's name under a contract is, furthermore, a declaration of intent. Hence, each signed contract is magically significant, and magicians who understand this can be wary to the point of paranoia of putting their real name down on anything.

Similarly, while writing down one's magical knowledge and revelations can be greatly usefull to a magician, it is also a massive risk. Hence, magical diaries, research notes and other written-down magical works are some of the most jealously guarded possessions of every magician who has them. Obscure symbolism and encryption are a rule rather than an exception. The more legible a work is, the more usefull it is to potential adversaries, and magicians can take steps to the point of self-defeat to prevent this. This is also why "reading magic" is a skill all to its own. Broad knowledge of symbolism, code-breaking skill, psychology and ability to make intuitive leaps are often necessary to get any use out of another's magical work.

Of course, not everyone is happy with connections to people's thoughts lying around forever and ever. Especially dangerous thoughts. Hence, many magicians and especially those who fear magicians can go to extreme lenghts to destroy such "dangerous" written works. And unfortunately, due to the 1st and 2nd laws, they are often justified. A cynical person might argue they only want to consolidate power in their own hands while keeping it out of hands of ordinary people - and they would be correct. But just as well, deliberate destruction of information is often necessary to prevent world-ending information getting into hands of a person unwise enough to put it into use.

A common practice, especially with contractual magic, is to erase, burn, deface or otherwise ritually destroy ! magical text and even the medium it is written in after use, to signify the spell truly has ended. Such measure may even be included in the terms of a contractual spell, without which the spell won't be completed; this is where the idea of expendable scrolls come from. Sometimes, an Oracle or Demon is employed to make the contract magically binding, and the Oracle or Demon will leave or die when the contract is fulfilled, hence preventing any further magic being done with that piece of text.

The Glyphstone
2017-12-01, 06:23 PM
On the bit about magicians and language, its interesting that you say a magicians best language for magic is their native tongue since its the language they think in by default. In the Dresden Files books, it's generally accepted that the worst language a wizard can learn magic in is their native tongue for that exact same reason, with the logic being that an emotional or off balance wizard could cast a spell instinctively/ accidentally. They specifically learn a foreign language to use as symbolic casting triggers to reduce that risk; that philosophy does seem to follow your First and Third laws, but to a very different conclusion regarding language.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-02, 05:18 AM
That is a very good point from the Dresden Files. I'd say the danger does not outweigh the benefits, because you still need the material component, but I could see this being a point of contention and distinction between various magical traditions.

It almost reminds me of Yoda and Luke discussing merits of the Dark Side of Force.

Student: "so is using one's native language stronger?"
Teacher: "NO! No. Quicker... more seductive it is."

JeenLeen
2017-12-02, 11:23 PM
From 1st law & 3rd law: could a person who can sufficiently delude themselves into believing things are related use almost anything as a symbolic link?

I'm envisioning someone who can posit a lie in their head, and then sufficiently delude themself into believing it. While this sounds rather absurd, I think some people do it in minor ways. A simple thing can be realizing you said or did something wrong, then re/mis-remembering the details so that you are in the right. As shown in XKCD. (https://xkcd.com/1731/)

I am guessing the answer is no since your 1st law can be broken by a link not being true, e.g., the hair sample doesn't really belong to your target. You can't delude yourself into powering a belt by thinking horse hair is giant hair.

BUT what if you have a 'delusional' philosophy that enables you to create true symbolic links between things most would not think to be linked?
For example, believing that a dead body is sufficiently like another living person, so you slit the dead person's throat to kill the target. Then repeat as needed to kill multiple people. (This idea was drawn from a book, where a character does something like this, but as he repeatibly slits the throat, the dead body becomes less and less viable a link, drawing more of his own energy. The source is in spoilers.)
one of the Kingkiller books. Kvothe does this to some bad guys.

Some people would not be able to think a dead body is sufficiently like a living one. But what if someone views all bodies as just collections of atoms, with being alive being a rather unimportant trait, so a corpse is perfect symbolic link for that person. Or, to press it further, any thing made of atoms is a sufficient link for another thing, to someone so detached that they can equate them fully in their mind.

I could see a magical tradition (probably one frowned upon) that brainwashes its 'shock troops' into a worldview where things are equivalent, to enable them to do strong kills with what most would think weak symbolic links. I guess you can either have a philosophy that equates things most would not (i.e., truly believe no difference between a living and dead body).

IF the above should not work, how objectively separate is symbolism (1st law) from belief in symbolism (3rd law)?

As a related question: could someone apply 2nd law to most anything by the concept that electrons 'fly' far from their atoms, so you probably have recently touched anything close to you. (I forget what I had in high school physics, but, if it was true and I'm remembering it correctly, I can see someone believing their sword has touched everyone in a room, so cutting them with it magically shouldn't be too hard.)

The Glyphstone
2017-12-02, 11:43 PM
Somehow, I suspect that if your wizards understand subatomic physics, you've probably already diverged significantly from any recognizable non-urban fantasy setting. Though it would remain a valid question in said modern/urban fantasy stories, alongside all the other implications of the Laws presented when maintained alongside modern technology and communication (for example, The Ring, a symbolic link for a death spell transmitted via videotape).

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-03, 09:47 AM
Let's try and answer those:

1) Can you delude yourself to believe there is a symbolic connection no-one else would see? Definitely yes. But as noted above, this can be a weakness as much as it's a strength. Symbols become more powerfull as their understanding becomes more widespread. Magic based on a symbol understood by just one person may suffer severe backlash when interacting with those who do not see nor believe in it.

There's also issues with 2nd and 3rd laws, as you already guessed. Just seeing connections everywhere is not enough if no real connection exists. Also, there is a limit to self delusion. A sane person cannot see arbitrary connections between all things, their intuitive and rational minds will protest sooner or later. An insane person might be able to, but then their functionality begins to suffer in all fields of life, not just magic.

2) Can worth of a symbol be measured objectively independent of its subjective worth? This is one of those difficult questions which give birth to such concepts as True Names (=universal, objective set of symbols). Answering it requires, at minimum, acknowledging that subjective and objective are not hard antonyms, and if there is an objective reality to begin with, then the subjective experience can be measured in an objective way. Of course, the questions of the nature of reality are not answered by laws of magic, and the different views on those questions create different magical traditions. More on this later.

3) Could someone who knows of subatomic physics abuse it to get around the 2nd law? In theory. In practice, there is a massive practical hurdle: humans cannot directly perceive electrons. So from the viewpoint of a human, this electron-based connection is more hypothetical than anything, it cannot be verified. So someone who relies on such a belief for doing magic might unexpectedly and randomly fail in their spellcasting because quantum fluctuations weren't on their side that day.

In a scientific setting, I could totally see magicians use electrons and quantum entanglement as explanations for why the 2nd law exists at all. Of course, most physicist would likely consider such explanations BS. As noted above, combining magic and science in a rigorous manner is bloody hard, because one requires you to commit to beliefs and practices which are harmfull for the other.

This said:

4) Could a magical tradition brainwash initiates to believe in ten impossible thing before breakfast to make them magically powerfull? Yes, this is in fact something pretty much all magical and religious traditions do. See also: cult.

5) Could a human body be used as a symbol for another human? Yes. This isn't even a stretch. Even normal medicine is founded on the idea that human bodies are homologues to one another. A human body could also double as a material component for the 2nd law. The connection between relatives is an obvious one. Connections between siblings, especially twins, is powerfull. Connection between biological parent and child, almost as much so. The concept of Blood Magic is more or less founded on these ideas. Note that "Blood magic" here doesn't just mean sacrificing people or blood, it just as well refers to ideas such as Blue Blood of Nobility (where the right to rule and other positive traits are inherited through blood) and ritual cannibalism where humans consume other humans to gain their abilities. Vampirism is a special form of the last one.

6) Could a sword which was in the same room as some people, be used to satisfy the 2nd law? Yes. However, if all it did was rest on a table or something, this link is weak. Additional steps may be required to make it magically workable.

One way would be to get the sword back into the room where it was, and then stab the spot where a person stood when both were present. The room fills the missing link and allows magic to be worked. Even ritual recreation of the room and the people in it might suffice - here the idea is that the sword is not a connection to the people, but rather that specific point of time and place when the sword and the victim were both present. So when the magician picks up the blade and stabs it in a dummy (etc.) symbolizing the victim, they are symbolically travelling back in time to affect what once was. Due to the 4th law, this may be really inefficient way to kill people, but it is a great way to create false memories and obfuscate what really happened. The ultimate expression could be a sort of parallel dream world, where events happened differently according to the magician's will.

The hilarous corollary to the above is that roleplaying games, especially live-action roleplaying and historical re-enactment, are just one step shy of being ritual magic. So in a world where the four laws are in effect, it is totally justified to think D&D is work of Satan and that GMing is a gateway drug to being a cult leader. :smalltongue:

7) Could a mage exploit the fact that in their home, they have touched anything and everything and are hence connected to them by 2nd law? Yes. In fact, this where such concepts as a Wizard's seclusium, sanctuaries and genius loci come from. A mage might carry a symbol for their home both on their body (such as a map, or pictures of common items printed on their clothes) and mind (a memory palace; a memorization techniqur) so that if need comes, they can summon tools they require or possibly escape to the safety of their home, or just keep tabs on their home when they're not physically there. Many classic spells, such as Instant Summons, Tiny Hut, Word of Recall, Magnificent Mansions and Teleport are founded on this idea.

8) Could electronics and other modern technology be used to work magic? Yes. The videotape from the Ring is actually a pretty good example, as it almost follows the four laws. The concept of musical records containing hidden messages is just as apt. Many technological gadgets, such as smartphones, already make such heavy use of symbolism to control the environment that they start to look magic on their own, without input from the four laws. (Every graphical user interface is a technological implementation of the 1st law.)

Of course, the implications of mixing the four laws with modern communications technology are rather horrifying. The 1st law and the Internet, in particular, more or less lead to the Laundry Files.

Devils_Advocate
2017-12-21, 10:32 PM
I'd like to note that in between pure rational analysis and pure delusion, there's a middle ground dealing with the manipulation of self-justifying beliefs that's particularly relevant to magic. If you know that a spell will work if you believe it will, and also know that the spell won't work if you believe it won't, then the belief that the spell will work and the belief that the spell won't work are both self-justifying. So... knowing that, how easily can you choose to hold whichever of those beliefs you prefer?

This has non-magical applications as well! For example, suppose that a student has been putting off an important essay, building up an appreciable supply of dread and anxiety regarding the task of writing it. As the deadline looms, she forcefully thinks to herself that if she can just adopt a positive attitude and believe she'll manage this, she'll almost certainly do just fine, because based on past experience it's her own negative feelings that are holding her back rather than a lack of time or skill. But at the same time, she knows that if she maintains a negative attitude and believes that she won't accomplish this, then she almost certainly won't. So, knowing that either perspective is self-justifying, can she make herself take the perspective she wants to? How?

Cases like this are tricky for epistemic rationality, and more broadly so are all beliefs about the future. Provided that events are only caused by previous events, you actually can't form beliefs about the future as a result of those beliefs being true. But, while future events can't cause your present beliefs, your present beliefs can cause future events, sometimes even in such a way as to make those very beliefs true, or false! Wild, right?

Anyway, this gives us a new skill to quantify as a basis for magic! I've never been satisfied with the way that D&D has different spellcasters use Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma to determine how good they are at spellcasting, with the relevant score playing the same role in each case. It seems like it would make more sense to have one Magic stat and separate non-magical stuff from that. (Similarly, it's come to the point where having high Strength or Dexterity gives a character high attack accuracy, damage, and Armor Class with the right choice of equipment, and with the other stat then quite dumpable, right? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the different stats do different things, so that a character with high Strength and low Dexterity has significantly different strengths and weaknesses than one with high Dexterity and low Strength?)

And if skill with magic is a matter of manipulating one's own self-justifying beliefs, then it can simply be based on a character's Control Over Self-Indicating Suppositions About Yet-to-occur Suspected Outcomes, or COSISAYSO for short. It's high COSISAYSO that imparts the ability to make the laws of physics sit down and shut up, and when two characters attempt to influence a magical effect in opposed ways, they make contested COSISAYSO checks.


Once a human has learned a language, they will also think in that language, and only through language can some concepts and abstractions be expressed and thought off.
I've seen that claim a few times, and I can't say it makes sense to me. How do you decide what words to use if you don't already have the thought you want to express? Do you just stick related words together at random until you get something meaningful? That's not how I engage in abstract thought...

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-22, 04:03 AM
@Devil's Advocate:

Under these rules of magic, magic is definitely "multiple ability dependent", in that traits filed under all of D&D mental stats (Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma). Magic also definitely needs more than one skill. (Or you could say all skills are magical when practiced in a specific manner; more on this later.)

The mental trait you outline is indeed important and recognized as such even by existing magical traditions. It is the reason a little green guy once said: "Do, or do not. There is no try." However, I'm fairly sure there's already a word for it: confidence. :smallwink:

As far as language and abstract thought go, the key here is realizing that thoughts, words and concepts develop in levels. Abstract, generalized concepts are born from interactions and similarities between more concrete concepts, and some of these interactions and similarities only become apparent after thought has been codified into language. Mathematics is the place I'd look at to see how this works and has worked. I'd specifically look at negative numbers as a fairly intuitive example. The history of zero is another.