worlds of magic

[oneda]

As the title suggests there are some fantasies (e.g. in games, books, movies) that implement a considerable amount of depth to the whole idea of magic, its role in fictional societies, the origin and how it affects the struggle of good vs. evil.

 

What I'm getting at is the importance that is ascribed to the existence of magic and how it contributes to or enhances a fiction.

 

Magic must have a great impact on a world.  It stands for the unknowable, the interface granting glimpses of godlike knowledge to some, while reducing those without it to powerless pawns. Building the potential for greatness or corruption an arena obviously too fantastic for the ungifted to grasp, as it encompasses what we fear and/or don't understand. Empowering those able to wield superhuman forces to either unbalance the world of life or strengthen it. And I like the idea that the scale of what magic can accomplish is limitless and thus because of its volatile nature already a major part of the overall story.

 

Take earth nowadays:

 

Mere differences in religion, ethnicity or ideology have caused no end of grief. Yet those differences do not reach the fundamental controversy properties of magic would induce a society with. The belief that magic is the means to salvation or ultimate misuse would inevitably split any society into either fierce supporters or those that fear it, condemning it as powers that man has no right to wield or simply those that want to live their lifes unaffected by it, in or outside a magical realm.

 

A few examples for, in my opinion enticing as well as disturbing ( in a goodway) properties allocated to magic's potential effect on a world:

 

In the Sword of Truth series the fear of and hate for magic was instrumentalized and part of the mechanism that enabled the assemby of a military force large enough to dominate the rest of the world. At the same time the sheer limitless power of magic is balanced by fear and blind faith,  non-magical emotional or intelectual dispositions, which surprisingly rival and even surpass magic's destructive potential, constantly reminding the reader that not power in istelf, be it of magical or non-magical nature, but it's interpretatoin and use is of relevance.

 

Fruit for thought from a reader's point of view but negligible regarding magic's ascribed effectiveness when it comes to its use in warfare by those with power and ambition.

 

As some follow the ultimate goal to destroy all magic, they neglect or willingly risk the possibility  of unforseen consequences for a world without magic, as some fraction of any magically touched civilization would be apprehensive concerning life's dependency on magic as in The Sword of Truth. As cryptic as I write, I do it for those that have not read those books and maybe plan to. Great books. I envy anbody who hasn't read them.

 

Still, in the case of the series this struggle is an obvious but convenient realization of how the fear of the otherworldly would be utilized to influence people's ideological and political disposition.

 

Here, anything that is causatively connected to magic is an integral part of the overall struggle.

 

In The Wheel of Time, another good series of  fantasy books, some elements of magic have been corrupted throughout and because of this struggle, guiding the reader through a world in which half of the 'gifted' eventually go insane. Little seems worse than losing ones mind and the underlying implication that those living are undeserving of such potential - and were thus punished - enrichens the reading experience with a constant looming threat to the characters we begin to identify with as the plot progresses. In both cases magic in itself is introduced as one of the major reasons for hostilities in the past. Unavoidably some trace of that struggle would have to be left in the present fictional world (the time the player enters the world in an fantasy set in an rpg).

 

In any struggle, the previously existing nature of those elements comprising the heart of the confrontation ( be it the political system, resources, culture, land, beliefs, you name it...) undergoes sometimes slight but mostly considerable changes which could lead to the destruction of the entire world or the mere replacment of a king and anything in between be it phsyical or intellectual.

 

Societies, ideas, lifes, lands, etc. are inevitably changed by wars. The same goes for magic. If the fictional world is at least partially based on human interaction and motivation in the history of our real world, then magic must have been at the center of probably every confrontation in that fiction as it is the embodiment of opposing lifestyles and...simply put: power.

 

As a consequence magic in itself must have undergone changes that in turn might affect the spread of magic, or how often those with magic are born,  or the way magic manifests in creatures, or simply the societal or authoritatively introduced lmitations or cencessions to magic. It would be nice to see a world that, as stated above, has been touched, if not violently strangled by this controversy revolving around supporters and those opposing magic.

 

Those are just two examples, but I think that this are great ways to give magic a more appropriate and deserving role, compared to let's say a role where it is reduced to being simply an inherent trait in some creatures where its usage is limited to creating fireballs (I luv fireballs). Giving too little credit to the impact magic must have had on a world and itself.

 

Afterall, if you compare the sheer destructive potential of magic to nuclear power as represantations of fictional and real ultimate military prowess, then it seems prudent to attribute some of the same qualtities to it. Namely: Every major power desperately wants to control it while denying any potential adversary access to it.

 

Make a world where magic doesn't simply 'exist' seemingly unaffected by its own power.

 

If you have great ideas for, or examples of how magic could be realized adequately in a world (and a game), please share.

[Lephys]

Ahh, The Wheel of Time has a lot of inspiration for verisimilitude in a world filled with powerful magic. The Aes Sedai (basically the coalition of female channelers in the "known world") see themselves as a beacon of order for the entire world, and believe anyone who isn't trained by them or a part of them to be dangerous, out of control, or simply useless and ignorant. One faction in the world literally believes everything associated with the One Power (basically magic itself) is pure evil. Another faction believes all channelers MUST be essentially controlled and owned. Most people in the world have any first hand experience with channelers or the One Power, and therefore rely ferociously upon rumor and pure speculation for all their beliefs about it, much the same way people in the real world do about technology.

 

Good stuff.

[oneda]

You liked those books, didn't you ! )

 

Yea, i think it's a good example of how complex a magical society must be.

 

In so many games magic's potential to be a central and intriguing part of the main plot is neglected. I remember while reading the wheel of time how I often sympathized with the main characters because they might turn insane at some point.

[Lephys]

You liked those books, didn't you ! )

... Maybe a little...

 

Yea, i think it's a good example of how complex a magical society must be.

 

In so many games magic's potential to be a central and intriguing part of the main plot is neglected. I remember while reading the wheel of time how I often sympathized with the main characters because they might turn insane at some point.

Yes! In a lot of worlds, it's just kind of "Well, just know that the workings of magic are understood by these 3 characters, and no one else has any bloody clue about it at all. And the use of magic never presents any dilemmas or implications to the magical characters! 8D!"

 

I mean, at the very most, a lot of them just have "Ohhhhh, the magic users can get tired. RELATE TO THEIR FATIGUE!", and they call it a day. Heh.

 

I also loved how, in those books, The One Power was like a technology that people could actually work with and discover improvements and utility with, like working with Physics or something. "Oh, hey, I figured out if you cool this a lot, then heat it rapidly, it will cause a violent explosion-like reaction!", rather than simply "There's totally a magic spell that summons explosions when you point at things." Like how (MINOR SPOILER for anyone planning on reading the Wheel of Time books!) male channelers could actually channel Fire to extinguish flames (basically by creating negative fire), while female channelers ccouldn't really do that (it would only result in harming them) and had to channel Water or Air to extinguish the flames using regular, physics-based effects, even if those effects were magically created.

 

It felt a lot more like a part of the world, than some foreign thing that just happens to be visiting.

[oneda]

I totally agree. It should be an important part of the world. There is so much room for depth here. And placing magic as a force that must divide a society is a nice touch. What you said about magic as a technique is cool. There could be so much more. Like if you use too much of a certain kind of magic you could unintentionally invoke bad effects like calling demons or opening portals to other worlds or so many other things. Male and female should have different strenghtes and weaknesses. Characters that do not themselves cast offensive magic but are imune to most or even any magic.

 

if you haven't yet, you should really check out Wizard's First Rule, as it is, in my opinion, even better than The Wheel of Time.

 

One game that at least began - if superficially - to incorporate how magic would be interpreted by some fractions in a fantasy world is Baldur's Gate 2. In the city of Atkathla the party is initially very limited concerning the use of magic, as the Cowled Wizards (sharing some similarities to the Aes Sedai mentioned by you) try to control the use of magic and hunt down anybody using it and thus putting much effort into consolidating their monopol on magic.

 

As this limitation is circumvented relatively easily early on in the game, restricted to only one city (even though Atkathla is rather big), the potential for an ambivalent impact of magic on magic istelf is sadly not exhausted but, given the game's epic story, forgiven. Nevertheless, as it should be, some party would ultimatley try to control magic and would thus enforce their doctrine upon any potential adversary.

 

Condemning those using magic, while using magic themselves to subdue wizards and sorceresses, puts the lie to those morally and forcefully sanctioning the use and spread of magic which would in and off itself result in a never ending controversy, a vicious slipknot tightening ever more around civilizations neck, as it soon begins to touch both, those with and those without magic. And, well, splitting a society.

 

As a third or even main party in such a world, the sudden appearance of fanatic representatives for or against magic, the ensuing, ever present conflict would give most hostile or non-hostile encounters in such a world another comprehensible dimension.

 

My party is in an area with seemingly powerless goblins that serve as cannonfodder? You think you can just blast your way through them? Think twice because that valley is known for those that do not allow anybody to use magic and suddently more and more enforcers start to teleport to your location until you are overrun by their numbers and your party has to teleport away or be captured. Those fantatics shouldn't be simply "bought". It should be harder to avoid their influence if impossible. So you would have to either side with them, work with them or find ways to avoid them which would affect how and where your party travels. Which cities are friendly, neutral or hostile to magic wielders.

 

This is just an oversimplified example as in in Baldur's Gate, but it would at least partially adress magic's proper role in a world.

 

This would force players to think twice how and where to use magic.

[Lephys]

True enough. A lot of stuff just tends to treat magic-users as completely separate creatures from "normal" people. How does that guy travel? He teleports, obviously. How does he kill? With lightning and death beams. Opens doors? Telekinetically. He's a magical creature, and he does magical things, all the time, with magic. He's like a weapon, or a dragon or something. But not really a person.

 

You don't always get very much (if any) of that ambivalence regarding magic, and the casters aren't usually treated as very complex people. I mean, in Dragon Age, you've got the Mage's Circles/towers. But, even that, they reduced to simply "Oh, look, everyone with magic should be controlled. Or, you're against us if you don't believe that, in which case you should be hunted down and controlled!" And that was it.

 

"Do you sympathize with mages? Or are they dangerous weapons and need to be controlled?" That's about all there was to it. Reminds me of the overly simplified "Do you love orphans, or do you punt kittens?" good/evil dichotomy that oodles of RPGs use.

 

At least the Aes Sedai were actually worked into society pretty well. Extreme stances existed, especially amongst those in outlying small villages and towns who never really dealt with them. But, then, you didn't always know who was one and who wasn't. That was a thing they were very careful about, a lot of the time. And not ONLY for the reason that 50% of people might want to kill them if they knew they were Aes Sedai. Magic was a tool, rather than simply a power.

 

But, anywho... I do need to read the Terry Goodkind books. I haven't yet, but I believe someone in my family has them. I just happen to have read the entire Wheel of Time series now, and I pretty much loved it. So, it's the thing I can most draw example from.

 

I am very much in favor of the existence of factors that cause you to REALLY weigh the pros and cons of magic use in certain situations. Like that "enforcers" example, above. That would be rather interesting. Reminds me of the hitmen coming after you in the Fallout and Elder Scrolls games when you built up a certain reputation or crossed the wrong person. Of course, those implementations were a little bland. "Oh, has it been a week? Queue 'random' deathsquad ambush." Heh... But, anywho. ALSO, that would add some more reason to the "Should Wizards Have Swords?" thread. . If there's a city where your Wizard will be captured and locked up if he blatantly uses magic, it might be prudent for him to have non-magical skills honed just a bit.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Lephys

[oneda]

Read the first book and you will be convinced that (some) wizards are the ultimate sword fighters much as in the star wars saga. In fact there should be swords that are only limited to certain kinds of wizards.

 

Ever since I was a fan of the 'spellsword' classes or the arcane warrior in dragon age or even a jedi. I love that whole idea.

 

Wheel of time is really good. The only thing that I didn't like was that later in the series more and more characters get introduced and at some point you don't read about the original main characters for long passages or even entire books.

 

What is also cool about Wizard's First Rule, and the entire series, is that it gets intense right from the very start. After 20 pages or less you won't be able to stop reading. In some books you have endless introductions of dozens of characters. Sometimes the books are awesome anyways e.g. Peter. F. Hamilton's Commonwealth saga. It takes ages and prolly the introduction of 100 characters and 300 pages of reading before you actually get an idea of what is really going on. As I am not a very patient person I often stopped reading books that take too long to tell the actual story. In many cases I simply got bored. I need an enticing story and cool characters right from the start or after 100 pages at the latest lest I put the book down and don't touch it anymore. Same happened to the game of thrones series that someone recommended to me. I read about 100 pages but nothing happend apart from the introduction of hundreds of characters. I say: if you have a cool story then tell it already. I prolly missed out on some good books because of that attitude...

[Lephys]

^ Hehe, yeah. I hear ya on the Song of Ice and Fire series. I have yet to read the 5th book. I like the others, but they are kind of... I dunno. It's almost like "Did I mention there was chaos everywhere?" every 5 pages. I mean, you've gotta give Martin credit for what he does, but that doesn't mean the books are entirely lacking.

 

The Wheel of Time does tend to have some drawn-out/rough spots (like when Perrin goes on a 15-chapter quest, in like book 10-or-so, to chase down a group of people he's less than a day behind and rescue some people). But, I never really read anything in that whole series that could've been a little better without later finding myself thinking "Nevermind... it has been made up for, good sir." For the most part, .

 

I, too, am a fan of the spellsword idea. I've actually seen the Legend of the Seeker television series (I didn't know about the books when I saw it), which was pretty good (at least in Season 1). I mean, it got a bit weak, and apparently they arbitrarily changed everything they could from the books, heh... BUT, the world/lore presented seemed very interesting to me. That's when I discovered the books behind it. I just haven't gotten to read them yet.

 

The challenge with magic (and the spellsword idea even illustrates this pretty well) is in how you give a believable character in a believable world such powers while keeping them believable and "human" (they might be a different race.) If they were just ubermages who won at life, why would they even use a sword, much less train enough with it to master it?

 

That's one thing I loved, when it happened, in the Wheel of Time world. Some people were SO powerful with magic, and they'd be facing someone else who could channel as well. When all seemed lost, the loser would do something like throw a nearby rock at them. They'd be SO unfocused on anything non-magic-related, their only instinct was to try to cut the weave controlling the rock. SURELY it was a magical attack. But, alas, the rock was controlled by simple physics at that point. Obviously, they'd be fully capable of stopping the rock in mid-flight with a weave of their own. Or simply dodging it. But, by the time they realized that, it would be striking them in the face. Basically, a super-powerful mage was defeated by an abruptly-thrown rock. Heh.

[oneda]

I hear you. In the series i praise so much some wizards learn to master swords for that very reason. In many instances you cannot use magic or the adversary is protected against certain kinds of magic. For those instances those with magic would be defensless.

 

There's one 'class' in those books ( I dont wanne spoil too much) that was created by wizards to counter wizards. Those individuals don't wield magic in the conventional sense but are immune to magic and if it is used against them they can control that individuals magic and use it against them. So you have a conventional melee class that maybe isnt as strong as a pure fighter but is immune to most magic attacks and can then 'control' that persons magic. Pretty awesome. There are many ways to balance this I think.

 

In such a world you would have to try to balance each class at least to some extent. If you have a pure caster that class would be totally defensless when facing such opponents or when magic is blocked by some other means. So no one class is powerful or effective in every situation. That's what the party is for. You need balanced personell as well as specialists.

 

A powerful non magic melee only party would win against a slightly weaker (melee wise) magic absorbing party that would maybe be defeated by a balanced party with some specialists of each categorie and so on.  So the most powerful melee classes are weak against powerful magicians while those are defenseless against medium melee, magic absorbing classes. There are countless variations.

 

If you prefer casters only then maybe you won't be able to travel to certain areas on the map, certain cities or towns or you cant finish certain quests. A non magic party on the other hand couldn't attack the wizards stronghold etc. All alternatives should be viable but then you have certain drawbacks. It should be possible to implement such a system.

 

Say your in need of some information. 3 Ppl have that information and are located in areas that are accessible only through theh ability to adapt to specific situations that some classes simply don't have.

 

Well, I dont worry too much about the "believable" aspect as long as nobody is omnipotent. Of course, there will be heroes or villains and probably elements of your party, that are more powerful than your average mage or figther simply becasue they are exceptional individuals.

 

In that respect a game should't be overbalanced. Some ppl should be exceptional while not over the top powerful. Say the enemy uses other creatures as weapons of magic. Changing them through magic, removing certain attributes while giving them other qualties they formerly didnt have. The other fraction cannot defeat those constructs by conventional means, be it with magic or swords and finally manages to create a different kind of creature specifically to counter that creature.

 

That way you won't always be able to master encounters through combat all the time but by using the protagonists (your party) ability to outsmart your enemies. You acquire the information on how to create a counter but that takes time. Meanwhile you have to avoid streets, mountain passages, cities and so on. And on your map it shows how far those creatures have gotton on the map. Finally and after days of stealth and research you are able to conjur the counter. So indirectly you bested those foes by thinking and not simply by killing everything.

 

Don't get me wrong I loved the combat in Bg 2 or icewind dale but it is much more immersive and realistic to be forced to sometimes outsmart your foe. A game should incorporate a conflict on all dimensions not just the battlefield.

 

What I would also love to see is that your party is hunted at some point. Say you have a certain time to acquire some means to hide your location or make you untraceable by magic means. In the meantime, first just a few every third day, then groups every 12 hours and finally whole armies every few hours that hunt you down and if you are slow in acquiring those means you have to do a lot of combat. On the highest difficulties it would be nice to see game over more often. Give me the impression that I can die just like anybody else if I dont react adequatley for too long.

 

That would create cool situations where you were hunted through cities and quests, facing more and more enemies all the time. And just before you get overrun you barely managed to acquire the means to hide your tracks  so to speak. It would also serve as a believable threat that could crush you easily if they would just find you. Ah, there are so many cool ideas. I just think that the classic mission of kill x and gather y is simply too outdated. Fetch missions are mostly boring too except if they are accompanied by a believable threat or some other dramatic motivation.