Where does this mindset come from?

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Thu May 31, 2012 12:55 pm

tussock wrote:They probably shit rainbows.

and wipe using (magic) leaves:

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Thu May 31, 2012 1:21 pm

TheFlatline, your definition of magic as something that breaks the laws of reality is completely nonsensical, but I have a feeling I should agree with whatever you're trying to say.

LotR is full of things that have the [magic] tag, yet is still operates on the VAH logic. Also, plot-relevant magic-users are all Steves (meaning unique monsters.)

The ringwraiths are magically tough dudes who fight with swords. The tree dudes are talking animated trees who fight with limbs. Same goes for the sex offender tree, sorta. The balrog is a huge fiery dude who fights with a whip. Elves live unnaturally long and fight with normal weapons. The undead army is just *there*. Trolls turn to stone. Talking eagles talk without vocal chords. Sauron and Saruman are just army commanders; Sauron is a load-bearing boss but, again, that's just who he is. Big spider is unnaturally big and eats people. Most of that shit wouldn't rank higher than the [Ex] conceptual space in D&D, if it warranted even that.

Magical creatures are:
- strong
- tough
- long-(un)living
- talking
And that's it.

Actual magical actions:
- Gandalf casts spells.
- Tree guy brews a strength potion or something.
- Elf chick calls up water.
- Werebear dude is a werebear.
- probably something else I forgot, cut me some slack, it's been 11 years since I last saw the movie.

Orc detecting sword, elven flashlight, elven cloaks, magic TV, the ring itself, the password-protected door are for all intents and purposes artifacts. Of course someone made them, but no one's making any more. Essentially, using magic is Gandalf's protected schtick.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Thu May 31, 2012 7:23 pm

What the hell?

Artifacts are magic items. Therefore, any setting which has artifacts contains magic. Thus, if fantasy is defined by containing magic, then the One Ring by itself is sufficient for inclusion.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Thu May 31, 2012 7:56 pm

The world of Lord of the Rings has magic in it - clearly as a feature of the world. The funny thing about some magic is that you can't actually tell if it works or not. Belief in magic is still strong in the modern world, and may have been stronger in earlier times. Tying a charm around your neck that may or may not protect you makes it hard to prove if it is really magical or not... In real life, we can't see if we get a +1 deflection bonus or not.

Most of the 'magic' described in the book(s) falls into this difficult to ascertain area. A rope that seems to 'magically' come untied could be the result of shitty knot tying... The characters could never be certain.

While Gandalf may be a God (as are the other wizards in his order) he's less impressive magically than most 3rd level wizards in D&D. His most advanced mode of transportation, after all, is riding a horse. He may magically augment the mount (?) but there's no indication of it. Some people believe he COULD have done more impressive magical feats, but I'm not convinced. I would think that if he could have done more, he probably would have - since he appeared to be uncertain about the final outcome throughout.

In any case, while Middle Earth was clearly a magical world, I think most people use high-magic to describe power in the player's hands (or at least available to them). While the 'magic items' proved useful, it does not appear that they significantly augmented the power of the heroes - instead most of them fall squarely into the 'utility' category. Even the magic swords are not clearly better than a standard sword - other than providing a source of light. They probably were better, but how much so is certainly unclear.

K · Post by K » Thu May 31, 2012 8:21 pm

LotR is low-level, not low magic.

So while everyone and their brother has magic, it's always shitty.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Thu May 31, 2012 8:58 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
TheFlatline wrote:*We* would call all that "magic" if that transplanted into our world, but in my book magic has always needed to break the rules of the reality that it's based in.

TheFlatline wrote:I mean low magic in that there are two groups that can use "magic". First, there's the Valar, aka the wizards....Second is Sauron and his old master.
Even if I grant your premise, which is a stupid redefinition of a term until it agrees with you, you are wrong. Beorn turns into a giant bear. The dwarves of Thorin's company are explicitly described as casting spells. If you're going to argue with the omniscient third-person narrator when he describes things as magical (like hobbit stealth and dwarven crafts) then our only recourse is to point and laugh at you.

Zero credibility reached.

Fair point about Beorn, but what spells do Thorin's company cast?

And it's interesting that all of the "it's magic!" arguments come from The Hobbit and the movie treatments. Your arguments aren't coming from LOTR.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:01 pm

K wrote:LotR is low-level, not low magic.

So while everyone and their brother has magic, it's always shitty.

Again, we've listed all the people who have access to magic. You couldn't fill up a Denny's diner with them all.

That's hardly "everyone". It's mainly the characters of the story, who of course are exceptional.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:04 pm

*We* would call all that "magic" if that transplanted into our world, but in my book magic has always needed to break the rules of the reality that it's based in.

That definition is stupid. By that "logic", Mistborn contains no magic because the rules of the reality of the setting permit Allomancy and the other Metallic Arts. And that goes for all other settings as well. The rules of reality DnD operates under permit wizard spellcasting or it would be impossible for wizards to cast spells.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:09 pm

Starmaker wrote:TheFlatline, your definition of magic as something that breaks the laws of reality is completely nonsensical, but I have a feeling I should agree with whatever you're trying to say.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I have to ask generally, how *do* you define magic other than "it breaks the laws of reality"? The whole point of magic is that it's "supernatural", beyond nature.

So please. Someone tell me the definition of magic. I'd love to know.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:11 pm

name_here wrote:
*We* would call all that "magic" if that transplanted into our world, but in my book magic has always needed to break the rules of the reality that it's based in.
That definition is stupid. By that "logic", Mistborn contains no magic because the rules of the reality of the setting permit Allomancy and the other Metallic Arts. And that goes for all other settings as well. The rules of reality DnD operates under permit wizard spellcasting or it would be impossible for wizards to cast spells.

See now we're into a paradox, especially in D&D. What you're saying is that there's no such thing as supernatural. If it exists, it's natural. Which means anything that's considered supernatural (like magic in D&D) actually isn't. And thus isn't magic.

My rule of thumb for magic is that if nobody engages in it, the results don't occur naturally in the setting. That's all.

K · Post by K » Thu May 31, 2012 9:16 pm

TheFlatline wrote:
K wrote:LotR is low-level, not low magic.

So while everyone and their brother has magic, it's always shitty.
Again, we've listed all the people who have access to magic. You couldn't fill up a Denny's diner with them all.

That's hardly "everyone". It's mainly the characters of the story, who of course are exceptional.

Lots of races in LotR's are created by magic, use magic, or have magic items as common equipment. That being said, I think I could fill up a Denny's diner with the undead army, all the elves, the ents, and maybe the orc cross-breeds and dwarves.

That's hardly a low-magic setting.

It is low level. Magic is small and weak and not much more powerful than basic equipment. I mean, the Ent's ability to brew a magic potion that makes you taller is useful, but it's not particularly powerful, and we see this everywhere like the magic defenses of Rivendale which is on par with having a decent dam system.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:18 pm

My rule of thumb for magic is that if nobody engages in it, the results don't occur naturally in the setting. That's all.

So chipped flint rocks are magic?

And yes, by my definition magic cannot exist in the real world. But the Lord Of The Rings is about things that do not exist in the real world.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:27 pm

TheFlatline wrote:
Starmaker wrote:TheFlatline, your definition of magic as something that breaks the laws of reality is completely nonsensical, but I have a feeling I should agree with whatever you're trying to say.
I appreciate what you're saying, but I have to ask generally, how *do* you define magic other than "it breaks the laws of reality"? The whole point of magic is that it's "supernatural", beyond nature.

So please. Someone tell me the definition of magic. I'd love to know.

Depends a great deal on the setting, but certainly not 'breaks the laws of reality.' It certainly breaks the laws of real-world physics, but I've yet to see a fantasy setting that doesn't have either a specific set rules for magic that allow it to work in that setting, or just a general handwaved implication that such rules exist, even if they aren't explained to the audience.

Whether it is demon pacts, bloodlines, Words, or Tolkien style 'only angels wandering around the mortal world can cast spells,' magic is part of a fantasy setting's 'reality'.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:32 pm

TheFlatline wrote:So please. Someone tell me the definition of magic. I'd love to know.

How about the fucking dictionary?

'2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.'

Emphasis mine. Just to extra refute your nonsense.

(For the record, definition #1 is about stage magic, and the rest reference this entry.)

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:38 pm

TheFlatline wrote:I appreciate what you're saying, but I have to ask generally, how *do* you define magic other than "it breaks the laws of reality"? The whole point of magic is that it's "supernatural", beyond nature.

So are Ex abilities in dnd 3,5 magic?

The discription says this:

Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:46 pm

name_here wrote:
My rule of thumb for magic is that if nobody engages in it, the results don't occur naturally in the setting. That's all.
So chipped flint rocks are magic?

And yes, by my definition magic cannot exist in the real world. But the Lord Of The Rings is about things that do not exist in the real world.

What, one rock has never fallen on another rock and chipped/sparked?

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:53 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
TheFlatline wrote:So please. Someone tell me the definition of magic. I'd love to know.
How about the fucking dictionary?

'2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.'

Emphasis mine. Just to extra refute your nonsense.

(For the record, definition #1 is about stage magic, and the rest reference this entry.)

Talk about a vague nonsensical definition yourself. By that definition, animal husbandry, agriculture, stormwalls and my air conditioner in my office are magic. You need a better definition.

And over lunch I thought of one further. In LOTR, all the "elven magic" cloaks and ropes and shit came from one person: Galadrial. Hell we even had Galadrial's mirror, which was obvious magic. BUT. She also has one of the three uber elven rings that came from Sauron that we've established as magic. A perfectly valid argument could be made that she enchanted all that shit, which would make the elves being confused about the items being magical make more sense.

I still stand by my original two assertions that Middle Earth is a low-magic setting (which, if I recall, was generally agreed on when we were bitching about low-magic campaigns some time ago), and that fantasy does not require magic to be fantasy.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Thu May 31, 2012 11:06 pm

K wrote:LotR is low-level, not low magic.

I'll take that. There is a fair amount of 'magic' that PROBABLY exists, but isn't definitive. But there's enough definitely there that it doesn't qualify as low-magic. I don't buy that Ents have to be a magical race (or that other races were necessarily created by magic). Claiming orcs were made by bad mojo isn't that much different than claiming the first man and woman sprang full formed from the tears of the first god.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Thu May 31, 2012 11:12 pm

As a general rule, speculative fiction can be divided up between sci-fi that runs off of fictional science, fantasy that runs off of magic, and horror that runs off of ghosts. Fictional science posits non-existent but plausible technological advances that allow people to achieve things that are currently impossible. The further into the future you go, the more spectacular your effects can be, because accurately estimating technology levels of the 25th century isn't really doable.

Magic blatantly contradicts laws of physics with no other explanation beyond "it's magic." Allomancy isn't a theoretical technology, it's just an alternative set of physical laws that applies to an alternate universe, i.e. magic. Lord of the Rings also falls under this category. The properties of mithril are not scientifically explained or implied to have a scientific explanation in even the flimsiest sense. It's just magic (to say nothing of ghosts and walking trees). Magic is required to follow its own rules, but can completely ignore those of reality.

"Ghosts" is a catch-all term for things which not only don't make sense but are even allowed to contradict their own rules or previously established capabilities. The protagonists either do not or cannot understand the supernatural forces they're fighting with. Horror movies that decide to become fantasy instead by offering some kind of explanation for the dark forces ("Satan did it" is especially popular) often become immensely less scary as soon as they do so. The exact source of Silent Hill's powers are never explained, it's simply established as having always been a place that was ridiculously evil and continues to be evil today, warping everything it comes into contact with into a survival horror game. Why was the town of Silent Hill able to exist for centuries before it started murdering everyone who walked into it? Because ghosts.

EDIT: Flatline, are you seriously arguing that Middle-Earth is an example of how fantasy doesn't need to have magic because Middle-Earth is a fantasy setting with magic? That's a contradictory argument unless you're trying to say that Middle-Earth has no magic at all.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Thu May 31, 2012 11:28 pm

Arguing about whether a setting's backstory is low magic is completely different from arguing over whether a setting is low magic. Everyone would think I was loony if I asserted "shadowrun is low magic, because it's set on Earth, which has no magic right now". Likewise, arguing that LotR is/is not low magic based on someone forging rings in the backstory simply does not make sense.
It's like an Andre Norton story:it was definitely high-tech in the past, but the relics that remain don't really affect that everyone fights with swords and shits in the woods.

Edit:DYAC

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Thu May 31, 2012 11:40 pm

fectin wrote:Arguing about whether a setting's backstory is low magic is completely different from arguing over whether a setting is low magic. Everyone would think I was loony if I asserted "shadowrun is low magic, because it's set on Earth, which has no magic right now". Likewise, arguing that LotR is/is not low magic based on someone forging rings in the backstory simply does not make sense.

Not to mention that "there's lots of magic, but the heroes get jack shit" is the same as "low magic" from the heroes' point of view. At the very least, if the GM described a game as "high magic" and then said "here, enjoy your goddamn +1 dagger", I'd consider that a bait and switch.

Post by **fbmf** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:33 am

TheFlatline wrote:
Starmaker wrote:TheFlatline, your definition of magic as something that breaks the laws of reality is completely nonsensical, but I have a feeling I should agree with whatever you're trying to say.
I appreciate what you're saying, but I have to ask generally, how *do* you define magic other than "it breaks the laws of reality"? The whole point of magic is that it's "supernatural", beyond nature.

So please. Someone tell me the definition of magic. I'd love to know.

So D&D doesn't contain magic, because magic is a part of the reality of the default D&D world?

Game On,
fbmf

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:01 am

name_here wrote:What the hell?

Artifacts are magic items. Therefore, any setting which has artifacts contains magic. Thus, if fantasy is defined by containing magic, then the One Ring by itself is sufficient for inclusion.

I don't deny they are magic items. What I mean is that this shit is not being made any longer, it's not powerful and most importantly does not have an impact on the plot. Even the ring of invisibility is seriously just a bonus to hiding, no one goes on a stealing/killing/eavesdropping spree with it. Galadriel has a magic mirror that shows the future. Does anyone see anything useful in it? Fuck no!

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:30 am

Ah, I think I'm seeing the heart of the problem, which is that we're talking past eachother.

See, the magic items exist, and I judge things in which magic exists to be fantasy. If it doesn't have an impact on the plot (which I sort of dispute, but whatever) it's low-magic fantasy, but still fantasy.

Desdan_Mervolam · Post by **Desdan_Mervolam** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:26 pm

Starmaker wrote:
name_here wrote:What the hell?

Artifacts are magic items. Therefore, any setting which has artifacts contains magic. Thus, if fantasy is defined by containing magic, then the One Ring by itself is sufficient for inclusion.
I don't deny they are magic items. What I mean is that this shit is not being made any longer, it's not powerful and most importantly does not have an impact on the plot. Even the ring of invisibility is seriously just a bonus to hiding, no one goes on a stealing/killing/eavesdropping spree with it. Galadriel has a magic mirror that shows the future. Does anyone see anything useful in it? Fuck no!

Because all the One Ring did was turn people invisible. It didn't have any corrupting power that tugged on the people around Frodo, and certainly didn't turn Frodo to Sauron's side at the mouth of Mt. Doom.