by VorJack
I am a geek.
I sense your incredulity. As evidence, I hold up my screen name. VorJack was the name of my first roleplaying character — in the Marvel Comics Roleplaying game, of all things.
Have I established my bona fides? Let’s move on.
During high school, one of my friends was a fantasy geek. Like most teens of that type, he was working on a novel. Mind you, he wasn’t working on the plot or the characters. He was working on the most important part for a geek: the magic system.
Magical Realism
It was surprisingly difficult. At the time it was popular to treat magic as a science, and so the magic system had to be rational. No Harry Potter wand waving allowed. It had to start from some basic premises about the nature of magic, such as where magical energy came from and how people could manipulate it. From there it had to logically develop into magical practices, practitioners and traditions. The goal was a system of magic that was roughly self-consistent.
Everything should naturally flow from the premises: once you’d accepted them, everything else should make sense. But of course, my friend had complete control over what those premises were. This was, after all, fiction. These premises could also be vague. What is magical energy? Why, it’s energy that is magical. Nor did these premises have to be justified. Why does magic run in ley-lines and form pools of magic at the junctures? Because that is its nature.
The final result had to allow my friend to write the incredible scenes he had in his head, but not be so powerful that it threw the world he was creating out of balance. As long as he got that right, everything else could be molded to suit.
Wave Your Theological Wand
Pullquote: The goal of theology is to sound plausible without providing real information.
Now, at this point we were attending a Catholic high school with classes on introductory theology. Over time, I began to see a resemblance. Like a magic system, theology seemed to begin with certain premises. Like the magic system, these seemed to be vague. God is omnipotent. Well, what does the mean exactly? They claim God is timeless. How can something be timeless?
These questions didn’t have answers because these words didn’t have meaning. Like “magical energy” and “ley-lines,” their goal is to sound plausible without providing real information. These were the premises that the theologian could bend to suit the need. And the result of this process was to describe an active, interventionist God while still accurately describing the world we live in.
I think that’s why Stephen Law’s God of Eth example works so well. Law takes the “Problem of Evil” argument and turns it into the “Problem of Good” argument. The arguments the reconcile the premise of a good deity to our reality work just as well for the premise of an evil deity. The premises and the resulting arguments are unfixed from reality. Nothing pins them them down.
I was just reading through that God of Eth post. Seems to me there’s a serious flaw in it. Even though the assertion on Eth is that God is all-evil, the people themselves value good, just like we do here. You would expect the whole Ethian psychology to be turned upside down in relation to our own. (In fact, wouldn’t their definition of “evil” match our definition of “good”?) Note that here even evil people tend to think of good as preferable to evil, even if only for themselves. One argument for an all-good god, then, would be that people’s own preference for good is a reflection of their Creator’s. And it wouldn’t be good enough, I think, to object that people also have evil proclivities. They don’t, as I said, prize evil. (I’ll grant that last thought is a little wobbly. It might be possible to show that some people really do prize evil. I think they would be outliers, though.)
Interesting.Not read the item in question but:
Maybe the people don’t think of what they prize as evil.
The people in this world for example prize good for themselves. Every human is programmed for that. So that there is an awareness that something that harms is bad for the person harmed. Evil enters the picture when the person is indifferent to the harm caused to others while simultaneously making sure that harm does not come to him. Such a person would value injustice and greed -though they would call it something else -oh, say, Capitalism. But they would not think of it as evil. It would seem the will of God; and therefore, good.
Nice article, VorJack. Your reference to Harry Potter reminded me about something:
Are there any Harry Potter fans out there who can explain an inconsistency that bugs the hell out of me, please? Here it is:
Do they need the wand, or not?
In some parts of the story, a wizard is helpless without his wand, but in other parts of the story (picking one at random) they can wave their hand over a cup of tea, and the spoon stirs it for them! (I have to say, that’s a extraordinarily stupid use of magic. I mean, the circular motion this particular guy makes with his hand is more than adequate to actually stir the tea in the normal sense..)
So. You can’t have it both ways. Do you need a wand or not to control and use your magic?
Fleegman, it’s been a while since I read the books, but I think the tea stirring is in one of the movies and was just done as part of movie magic, I could be wrong. As far as wands go, if I recall correctly, the wands help focus and strengthen the magic. Basic magic could be done without them, but stronger spells require the wand.
also, a person’s use of a wand tended to decrease as they became more skilled, so it’s probably an aid to make things easier, as well as more powerful.
See? Geeks love talking about this kind of stuff.
A nice theory, but it doesn’t tally with what’s in the books.
[SPOILER ALERT]
Harry could blow up his aunt because he was angry (no wand) but when Dumbledore (sp?) is stripped of his wand he is helpless. The greatest wizard ever known couldn’t do anything because he was disarmed by a little boy. It’s ridiculous to me that this could make any sense to the author.
That’s as bad as writing a story where the chief protagonist has no choice but to sacrifice himself to himself in order to save people from something he inflicted on them in the first place!
Dumbledore wasn’t helpless. He knew what had to happen, so he let it.
And so, some would claim, did Jesus. ;-)
Oh yeah, I’d forgotten about the scabby hand thing he had going, there.
Spoiler Alert
For some reason, that third panel just cracks me up.
Ha! That’s a riot!
And since the topic has been brought up, anyone have theories on the new movies given the past movies have left out pretty much ALL of the horcruxes? (ie. in the books, they see them, in the movies, these scenes were completely left out).
Spoiler Alert, for serious this time.
———
Whatcha mean? Nagini, Gaunt’s Ring, and the diary have all been on screen as of HBP. They fudged a little insofar as they didn’t go into why Gaunt’s ring was significant to Voldemort as they did in the book.
Hufflepuff’s Cup, the Diadem of Ravenclaw, and Slytherin’s Locket (that is, the real one) shouldn’t have been seen yet.
And then there’s Harry himself. Which leads to this description of the stories by a friend of mine.
Harry Potter: The cute children’s tale about a baby that ate a part of a demon’s soul. Hilarity ensues.
“Harry Potter: The cute children’s tale about a baby that ate a part of a demon’s soul. Hilarity ensues.”
LOVE THIS!!!
Continuation of Spoiler Alert:
In the books, they first see the locket when trying to open it (unsuccessfully) when they are cleaning out The Order house. It’s later when they realize that’s what it was that they ask Kreacher to it, which leads them to the “evil – satan’s spawn” current owner.
The Diadem of Ravenclaw Harry saw the 1st time they went into the room of requirement. Which is why he remembers where it is and that he saw it after talking to the Ravenclaw ghost.
The cup however, has not been shown.
But these scenes have not been in the movies. Nor has Hermione’s pushing for House Elf rights – which is what leads to the kiss *smooch*
*Harry Potter: Converting Christian Children Into Pagans and Devil Worshipers since 1998*
You’re right. I forgot about the throwaway scenes with the locket when they are cleaning out Grummauld place and the diadem in the RoR.
You need this in your life:
http://community.livejournal.com/deadlyhollow/2663.html#cutid1
It’s the official Harry Potter sporking community. JK Rowling – good characters, interesting scenarios, shitty writing.
I’ve been pondering for quite some time now the comparison between a role playing game or sc-fi/fantasy fandom and religion. Outward signs of religion, particularly more rigid faiths, remind me a lot of my role playing days. Like your example of your friend, Sci-fi fans try to come up with plausible explanations for the phenomenon in their sci-fi world and sometimes obsess over it. I remember obsessing about how the magic worked in a fantasy novel I was thinking about writing too.
MonolithTMA is also a name from a roel playing game that I played, by the way. ;-)
I suppose this is is sort of a tangent to the subject, but I maintain a site called The Escapist that started out to debunk the myths and lies about RPGs, and has developed into the positive promotion of the hobby in many ways. A few years ago, I put up a humor piece where I tested the claims made by certain religious folks that the spells in the Dungeons & Dragons and Harry Potter books are real rituals Since the subject was on tabletop RPGs and magic, I figured you might enjoy seeing it.
You can see it here: theescapist.com/spells
So if I have a degree in Divinity, am I really a magician?
No, you’re a literary critic of a specific genre.
Of fiction?
Whoa, low blow. Try to keep the gloves up :)
Your genre is called “mythos” in academia. It wasn’t a low blow, it was the truth. :P
Try to see the glass as half full. I called the Bible literature. I could have called it something way worse.
What, you mean like this?
For the record, I didn’t study the Bible. I focused on history, theology, and philosophy …
But I know you’re just jabbing me :)
I think the genre could be something broader than the Bible. “Mythos”, I would think, would encompass religion, especially the God religions. What is religion but myth taken as empirical truth?
Wow, your faith survived a study of history?
That’s impressive. History beat the crap out of my former faith. Science only had to administer the coup de grace.
My former faith survived science. It was philosophy that administered the final coup de grace.
I’m not sure I qualified as having a faith. I guess I was a non-religious theist. Until I tried to take Christianity seriously several years ago. Big mistake.
Very interesting read. VJ must be a FInal Fantasy fan, what with Stella up there.
Daniel is usually the one who finds the pictures, so blame him.
I tried playing FF7, got to that bizarre cross-dressing segment at the beginning, and decided that I haven’t done nearly enough drugs to be playing the series.
I would tell you that’s the high-point of bizarreness for the game, but I’d be lying. But, it is unfortunate, as right after that is when the game really starts getting good.
I think I’ve competed FFVII a good four or five times (and I do mean completed – beaten all the Weapons, mastered every spell and every summon, done every side mission and mini-game). Yes, I too am a geek.
Wow, dude. I was way too lazy to beat emerald and ruby weapons. I am in awe of your geeky perseverance.
I beat the first weapon, but I didn’t get all the correct materias leveled highly enough to beat the 2nd 2.
I played through it twice after it first came out. Part of me has always wanted to play it again, but part of me fears that it won’t hold up to time as well as I would want it to. I think I prefer the pleasant nostalgia that the game evokes rather than actually playing the game itself.
I have the PC version from a bittirrent site. It will run in XP if you get the Gold Saucer patch aswell :-) Unfortunately, I now have a Windows 7 rig (I have the RC, and it pisses all over Vista), and it won’t run even in compatibility mode :-(
I still have FF7 around, I’m playing it for the 2nd time and am up to the Gold Saucer. I never actually did all those “knights of the round”, “gold chocobo”, “weapon fighting” or side quests like that. I was relatively low levelled, not much of a grinder here. I probably still won’t do those because I don’t have THAT much patience.
I liked the Midgar section of FF7 in general. I rather liked that weird section also even if you did have to cross dress there. I’m guessing the music was part of the reason for that.
I share your fears, brgulker. Though, I have completed FFVII before, that was before FF8, which I also completed. And FF9. And 10. And 10-2. And 12. And I’m probably going to buy a PS3 JUST go play FF13, even if I have strong reservations about it since I really didn’t like FF12.
FF7 was good, but I don’t hold it up as the golden game that everyone else does. I don’t worship at the feet of Cloud and Sephiroth, nor do I still cry myself to sleep at night thinking about Aeris. It was good, but so was FF8 (if you got past the annoying Draw system). FF9 was one I really enjoyed, too, except that the Knight was comic relief.
In the end, I am well traveled in the RPG realm. I’ve played every FF, except for FF11, because they tend to be pretty fun, with an involving plot and plenty of minigames.
But, I digress. I too sometimes want to replay FF7. Too much of it has been forgotten. But I also know that the graphics wouldn’t hold up, since they were ugly even for their time. Cloud was a blocky bastard with no digits. Barret was a bigger and darker blocky bastard with no digits. Both of those are fail.
Nah. My first computer was a Sinclair Spectrum 48K. When computers have evolved from their origins through your life, you learn that gameplay is far more important than graphics – and FFVII had it in spades.
Siberia’s also my roleplaying character’s name :D
I must admit. “nomad” is named after a wandering satellite from a Star Trek episode.
I must be a geek.
I thought it was just a backwards “damon.” :)
Oops. Maybe I’m not a geek after all. That should have been demented alien and man-made hybrid space probe bent upon exterminating mankind.
Custador is my name on EVE Online, Planetside, Lord of The Rings Online and Second Life. Though I don’t actually play any of them at the moment.
Heh, speaking of our ‘other’ names, my old handle was ireLocus, both loosely taken from latin. ire: wrath or anger (obviously) and locus: focal point.
I was quite a misanthrope in high school. ;)
I love any article that starts out “I am a geek”. And very true, the similarities are there. But one involves getting up TOO DAMN EARLY on Sunday mornings, and one involves playing on the computer until it IS Sunday morning.
I know which one I prefer ;)
As a D&D player I always like the bumper sticker that says “Jesus saves and takes half damage!”
LOL!
I would take no damage, as I have the Evasion feat.
Sometimes it sucks to be a cleric/monk. Sorry, Jesus.
Oh, geek fail! Monks have evasion.
Yep.
Jesus was a cleric. Monks never get spells like Create Food and Water, or Raise Dead, or Cure Disease, all of which Jesus is reported to have cast. And most clerics wear medium or heavy armor, which means they can’t use evasion even if they had it.
Well there are the clerics of Forgotten Realms god Ilmater who don’t usually wear medium or heavy armor and I believe can freely multiclass as monks in 3rd Edition. Ilmater is usually depicted as bleeding at least as much as Jesus does but since he is not nailed to anything can freely wonder around and bleed in other places.
Illmater’s more versatile.
You mean this bumper sticker?
http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F014.jpg
What really makes it for me is that he’s listening to a song about another kind of zombie… :P
“Jesus Saves! Moses takes the rebound – IT’S A GOOOOAAAAALLLL!!!!!”
(or)
JESUS SAVES
The rest of you take damage
Wow … another blast from the past!
I’ve mentioned this before in earlier comments on other pages, but way back when, I helped design a live roleplaying game. During the early stages of deciding how this game would work, we came to a point where we were discussing the (fictional) processes by which magic — and other features of the game — operated. It didn’t take long before we saw we had to choose one of two options:
1. Devise a complete technical scheme for how these things worked (i.e a “science of magic” which operates in our fictional world), make it as complete as possible, then as things happened, see them through to their logical conclusion — whatever that might be.
2. Dispense with the technical discussion, and use a more stylized approach, wherein we only defined the limitations and abilities of “magic” in our fictional world, not concern ourselves with it in a technical manner, but only ensure that it worked for maximum dramatic effect.
Eventually we went down the latter route, the one I advocated, even though some of the veteran “gamers” in the group of designers were against it. I have to say — with all due modesty — this was the smartest choice. Not only did it allow us to devise a lot of great drama, it actually stimulated player interest … as some of the characters within the game they went ahead and devised their own “technical rules” about how magic and other things worked. It gave them something they could do, which made them feel as though they were truly part of this game world. (IOW they were acting almost as though they were “scientists” discovering the rules of their universe from within it.) They even devised experiments which they performed … and we provided the results.
(Of course, creating drama meant that we could not really confirm all of the theories they were testing. We threw more than a few wrenches into their schemes. But then, they understood that … and it made things even more interesting for them and for their characters.)
In short, our decision NOT to tie ourselves into knots over the “in-game” or fictional basis for magic and other things, not only worked out well for us, by not taking up too much of our time and by not restricting what we could do, it worked out well for the players, because they used this to literally carve out their own territory to discover.
Miracles are just another form of magic aren’t they? My sister recently told me about a girl born without eyes. Her mother took her to a Catholic alter, set her at the foot of it, and began praying. Suddenly eyes grew into the little girls head! She could see! Since she used the word prayer it was a miracle – if she had said that the mother began chanting an ancient spell – it would be magic.
I’m enough of a massive geek that I STILL play roleplaying games.
Recently, as the monarch of a large realm I was asked whether I wanted to invest money in building churches to the local deity or whether I wanted to spend time and money on other stuff such as militarry defense, building a court, yada yada yada. I immediately dismissed the churches on the basis of there being no god, and it took me hours to remember that in the world the game was set in the gods were real. Funny that I was fine with buying my mage friend a house in which to conduct his magical learnings, but not with the idea of an existent god.
VorJack- love the post!