Re: Spell symbols

Subject: Re: Spell symbols
From: Ari Miettinen (
Date: Wed Sep 08 1999 - 20:37:23 EEST

>On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Atte Koivula wrote:
>> This is our current symbol list. Balance them or whatever.
>Humm okay lets see.
>> Alteration    \\
>> Control        \\
>> Creation        - Technique
>> Destruction    /
>> Detection     /
>Hum.. why do we need techniques or forms at all.. why not just create
>different spheres - symbols that automatically include all techniques -
>everything involved with that symbol... humm.. maybe its wise to keep
>techniques but power/form isnt that vital, could be only one of
>them/neither of them. and it would work better.

The reason for all three kinds of arts is this:
Technique selects what the spell caster intends to do in general.
Power (This is known as Form in Ars Magica) is used to select to
what you intend to manipulate with your spell and
Form (which I called Power in the beginning) is used to
select specific spell.

>those are 100% rip from arms magica - but its a damn good system :) made
>so simple and logical it is a good rip. Creo, Intellego, Muto, Rego, Perdo
>- as techniques suit just fine, they cover just about everything.
>> Fire        \\     
>> Air          \\
>> Earth         \\
>> Water          \\
>> Flesh           - Power
>> Nature         /
>> Plantkind     /
>> Magic        /
>> Mind        /
>> Spirit     \\
>> Image       \\
>> Arrow        \\
>> Being         \\
>> Essence       / Form
>> Key          /
>> Sphere      /
>> Weapon     /
>Now these do need to be put in tune.. we dont need powers and forms. Only
>spheres. I see no point in separating the elements - not in symbols but
>maybe in actual spell as an argument, otherwise its going to bee too hard
>to code a system that allows fireballs or waterbolts - if there would not
>even be an argument for it. 
>and whats with that arrow-form? or key?.. or weapon? huoh.. 
Arrow form would be used in any bolt spell:
* Firebolt, Icebolt, Waterbolt, Earthbolt, Lightningbolt...

>earth, water can be combined to "matter" symbol
If you do so, how are you going to separate the spell which
summon Water Elemental and another which summons Fire Elemental?

>flesh, nature, spirit, being, essence,  plantkind to "life" or "spirit" symbol
This is Mage approach. imho it would be nicer if you would need one spell to
control plants, another to control animals and third one to control 
intelligent beings. If they are combined, we lose flexibility.

>fire and air (as in electricity) can be put into "force"
See above, how are you going to separate Firebolt from Lightningbolt?

>magic need its own symbol, as does mind.
In my original plans there was magic and mind. I guess they have been
omitted for one reason or another. I agree. Those two symbols are needed.
>image isnt a symbol at all since all illusions exist either A) inside some
>persons mind (which puts in to mind symbo) or B) as optical/holographic
>illusions which puts image symbol to "force"..
B) If we don't have Force, we need image.

>essence, being etc symbols can be put to life, spirit or soul - which ever
>you want to call it. 

>one very good option would be make an ars magica rip for techniques and
>mage the ascension rip for symbols. that would create :
>Creo, (i create) - creation
>Rego, (i control) - control
>Intellego, (i perceive) - detection
>Muto, (i transform) - changing
>Perdo, (i destroy) - destruction
>Vim, (prime/vis) - the force of magic - building parts of magical force.
>Correspondence, (space/dimensions) - the consept of abstract space.
>Entropy, (chaos/order - decay) - progressive disorder
>Forces, (fire,lightning,etc,etc) - all forces
>Life, (animal,human,body,etc) - life force
>Matter, (earth,water,plants,etc) - all matter
>Mind, (human and animal mind alike) - study of sentience
>Spirit, (soul/essence/etc) - study of the ethereal
>Time, (time :)) - just that - time.
>with those 5 tehcniques and 9 symbols it is possible to cast any possible
>spell. we dont need more symbosl than that - instead of symbols we need
>arguments that can be given.. like targets or form.. THEN we might need
>those arrows and weapons etc.. but not as actual symbols.
>Like 'create-life' would be a heal spell, or a ressurect spell, or a spell
>that creates life to a golem.. we dont know if we dont create arguments
>(NOT symbols - arguments) then it could be cast like : 'create-life-golem'
>etc.. and even without arguments those techniques and symbols can be
>combined any-way-around-and-across.. like :
So you intend to let caster cast 'Create-Forces' Plasma / Gravity ?
How do you define the shape? Another argument for that?
I agree that it would be very flexible that way, but how do you intend
to code it?

Apprentice asks from his master: "I want to make a magical
effects which creates a ball of fire, a bolt of lightning and
a cone of cold. How do I do these? Please help master?"

>create destruction (abstract magic)
>control creation
>destroy time spirit
>create life matter
>anything is possible.
Anything is possible with my suggestion as well. You just need enough 
Form symbols. (I still would prefer Power symbols);

Sorry if you needed an asbestos suit to read the mail.

Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, 
	for they are subtle and quick to anger.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
	for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Feb 12 2002 - 00:03:17 EET