What do I know about magic?
Posted May 12th, 2008 by Howard Tayler
This week’s Writing Excuses is one of our very best episodes to date (if not our flat-out best.) We discuss magic in fiction, and specifically we cover rules-based magic systems, their strengths, weaknesses, and where to use them.
It’s one of those podcasts which makes me want to write fantasy books when I listen to it. That is saying a lot.
In completely unrelated news, I’m back from Leprecon 34, I owe you a con report with photos, and if you’ve pre-ordered shirts or mousepads, they’ll be shipping out in about 10 days. It’s not too late to buy some…
Explore posts in the same categories: Merchandise, Podcasts
May 12th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
For all german speaking in here (I know there are some), here’s a resource for creating magic systems in roleplaying games:
http://rollenspielmagie.de
-> Articles on magic and society, summoners magic (and how it fits almost every system), difference between what the mages believe and what the rules say, many ideas for magic beliefs, etc.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Wow, all around awesome. I’m also excited to listen to the podcast, I enjoy reading your convention reports, and my shirt is being shipped soon.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
One of my favorite topics in RPG theory is the interaction between magic and miracles. In a game where Gods or gods can grant miracles to the faithful, how do they interact with magic and magicians? Are all magicians competitors, or are white magicians tolerated and dark magicians persecuted? And how about the dark gods (AKA demons, devils, and tax collectors)?
May 14th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
A long time ago in collage I had a discussion / argument going with my fellow gamers. That a Good God(s) would grant more power and abilities to a Good wizard or cleric than an Evil God(s) would grant to an Evil wizard or cleric. The reason behind this position was the Good wizard or cleric could be counted on to stay in the Good camp and not try to over throw the God(s) granting the power. The Evil wizard or cleric on the other hand could be counted on to get too big for his/her britches and try to over throw the God(s) and set themselves up as the Boss and or new God. Therefore the Evil God would wisely use some of the power that would have been granted to the Evil wizard to maintain a ‘Backdoor’ into the wizards / cleric’s inner source of power to act as an failsafe switch to destroy the would be usurper when it became necessary. The gamers who played Lawful Good characters mostly agreed with this thesis. The gamers who played Chaotic Evil never accepted the idea.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Curt: Firstly, your “collage” typo creates a weird but fun mental image.
Secondly, I’d argue that a good wizard or cleric can’t necessarily be counted on to stay good, but you’re almost right, in that if one (or a few) turn evil, the loyalty of the others is predictable. Whereas if a few evil wizards and clerics decide to overthrow their god, their god can’t be certain of the support of the others (unless of course there’s a backdoor, as you said).
So an evil god will need to reserve some power for maintaining backdoors, but will be able to distribute the remainder with few restrictions, while a good god will be able to allocate power more efficiently, as long as no individual wizard or cleric has too large a share of the power.
Which means that Good has the advantage, but to exploit it requires abiding by a (fairly minor) restriction that has nothing to do with alignment per se.
It may also be worth noting that any side that sincerely considers themselves good has that advantage, even if their concept of morality is a bit warped.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:50 am
A thought-provoking podcast, if a little disorganised.
I think the ‘rules’ depend on your target audience - some people want to be dazzled and blinded by the fantasy world, for their hero to surprise them with strange & inexplicable new powers, etc. They don’t care if last weeks amazing special power would have solved this weeks terrible threat, they’d rather see a new and amazing solution.
You can make these people happy while sticking to ‘Sandersons First Law’, but you don’t have to, and there’s a lot less book-keeping if you dont. Some people can’t manage a ‘Sense of Wonder’ at the same time as memory & logic, perhaps…
May 15th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Summary of what Parkway just said:
Wildly imaginative crap can still get an audience, and is easier to write.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Take a look at “The Dresden Files” and the “Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter” book series. The first book of each reads a bit shaky, but they keep building and I haven’t noticed anything in later books that contradicts what went before as they follow their main characters’ progress through increasing magical power.
However, in the later ABVH books I can’t help thinking they’d likely have been a lot shorter if a man wrote them. The pages-long sex scenes get so boring.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Are there transcripts of these podcasts? I’m still in the purgatory of dialup. :(
May 16th, 2008 at 8:56 am
The podcast mp3s themselves average at about 3megs each. That’s a reasonably small enough file to just download leisurely on dialup for about 20 minutes, and then listen to in your favorite mp3 player software. the link to the actual MP3 is labeled “Download” and show up right after the streaming link and episode title.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Sam noted a spelling variation in my posting. ‘Collage’ or college, what’s the difference? You were able to figure what I meant. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
In reply to Sam’s second point; the DM of the gaming group was a stickler for role-playing your alignment, to the max. So the Good had to embrace the Good, and never ever crossing the line, even a little bit. The Evil had to really get down and roll in Evil to get any experience points. I mean just stealing a little treasure from the party members wasn’t going to be enough. The Evil really had to work at being Evil, always coming up with new depravities, dirty tricks, and double crosses. This is why some of the players were really enjoying playing Evil characters.
Good had their hands tied in regard to never being allowed to use an Evil method or tactic. Evil was like wise hampered by their need to always take any advantage or opportunity to advance their own fortune. Even at the expense of ruining future alliances with their victims.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
1) Hey, I only mentioned the typo because of the mental image it produced.
2) Ah. So no turncoats, no antiheroes, and all baddies are Chaotic Stupid. I see.
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”
May 16th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
curt, introduce that dm to some con artists. one of the most effective ways to be evil is to be good first, at least seem good. take adolf hitler of world war two repute, he seemed to be a really good guy at first, lifting his country from the depression after the first world war, liberating them from harsh foreign restrictions. turning a small defeated country into a world super power in less than a generation. but i trust his evil does not need illumination?
granted weather or not the means justify the means is a large argument. always gets me in trouble in d&d i play. i prefer neutral it lets me do good things in an evil way. but the d&d alignment system is not to good for people with a different moral compass than their dm.
also, if you are not aware of the distinction (not english speaking) collage is, i believe a collection of pictures cut and pasted together.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:48 am
I’d say that understanding the concept of “necessary evil” is the difference between Good and Lawful Stupid.
Of course, if your means are more evil than necessary, then you’re either Neutral or Evil. Or possibly just misguided, like the Thugs, who apparently believed that, by ritually murdering people, they could postpone the end of the world indefinitely.
That may be why the rules define good and evil alignments.
Of course, “concern for the dignity of sentient beings” is open to interpretation, and as a result one of the major conflicts in a setting I’m working on (mostly when I should be working on my thesis) could be interpreted as Good-versus-Good.
Come to think of it, “respect for life” is open to interpretation too – otherwise there wouldn’t be moral debates about abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, gun control and certain aspects of road safety.
I think the way to handle it is for the game mechanics to accept anyone as Good who fits the definition under any reasonable interpretation, except where there’s a reason for a particular character’s interpretation to be used. So, for example, alignment-dependent magic:
* If divine, follows the relevant deity’s interpretation of the alignments,
* If arcane (is there such a thing as alignment-dependent arcane magic?), allows any reasonable interpretation, unless it was crafted by someone who deliberately built a particular interpretation into it (and then you can have some fun with how well-thought-out their definition is).
May 19th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Is there a “good stupid” alignment for characters who figure there’s absolutely no justifiable reason to ever kill another sapient being, even if said sapient being is a mass murderer? ;) In other words, a character with such an alignment wouldn’t even defend itself against being murdered (or killed by other direct or indirect means) because any defensive action *might* result in the death of another sapient being.
A DM could really mess with such players by putting them in a situation where they must take direct and potentially harmful action in order to save the other members of their party. If they wish to play Ghandi* and watch their compatriots get slaughtered, well that’s a quick end to the game when the werewolf eats them for dessert.
*This only works when the people you’re peacefully resisting really are not willing to press their goals to the point of total extermination.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
You’re not talking about “good stupid.” You’re talking about “passive nice.” There is a time and a place for peaceful, absolutely non-violent resistance, and the D&D game is probably not it. Unless the characters are facing off against a peaceful resistance.
Uruk-Ghandi might make for a frustrating campaign. “Do we get XP for throwing him in jail?”