Subject: Re: magic and magical arts
From: Ari Miettinen (emiettin@hytti.uku.fi)
Date: Wed Oct 13 1999 - 14:46:24 EEST
Very nice points down there, but I have some questions (I try to answer them too, but you may have different things in mind...) >(Eleril) eleril@majik3d.org > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Beregar <beregar@majik3d.org> >To: <majik-design@majik3d.org> >Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 10:13 AM >Subject: magic and magical arts > > >> Magic is pretty much figured already, it is based on combining symbols >> which (imho) were made by elder gods to control magic. That's why >> symbolic magic is so powerful, it alterss the force (magic) that is behind >> everything. So in theory a mage could destroy whole Majik, but only >> in theory, for as I said in my previous mail, mortals can never truly >> understand, or form, true symbols and they never can back up enough >> power to cause the change. In my opinion gods know all the symbols and that is what makes them powerful. That also means that if a mortal learns all the symbols, he becomes practically a god. (And in my opinion, it should be possible for a mortal to do so) He cannot destroy the world, because the other (true) gods won't let him. Of course they know spells which stop the mortal mage from destroying the world. Also, there are mortals who don't want to see the world destroyed and would also fight the destroyer. This creates balance, which is good. What do you mean with: 'mortals can never form true symbols'? a) They cannot create new symbols. b) They cannot use true symbols. c) Something totally different. >> >> Actually God magic is same symbolic magic as what mortals use, but >> Gods know how to form true symbols which enhances their spells >> greatly for they don't have to use words, gestures or components to >> make their spells. Also mortals usually drain power to their spells from >> components or surrounding nature and even if they use their own >> essence as a source they never can give their spells as much power >> as the Gods can. Gods on the other hand use their own essence as >> source of the spells so divine points actually descripe amount of >> essence which a God can spend to his or her spell. The least important question: Why would god not use outside energies to power his spells like mortals do? That way they don't need to use their own energy/essence to fuel their spells. (In my opinion it diminishes the god in question) >> >> I got a sidetracks but in general: There are three ways to cast a spell: >> gestures, words and component. Each symbol can be "imitated" by >> these three ways. There are also multiple versions of a one symbol >> (for example two different creation symbols). So, symbols are >> divided into a groups and symbols of these different groups can't be >> mixed. Not all groups have all symbols. The most important question: Why are there two (or more) different symbols meaning the same thing? Why cannot they be combined? What makes 'creation symbol 1' different from 'creation symbol 2'? The only reason I can see for this is if they are alignment based, but even that makes very little sense to me. If Namhas used one set of symbols to create whatever he created, Aluna used different set of symbols to create good things and Sinister used third set of symbols to create evil things, that would mean that everybody would have different sets of symbols for themselves (or at least there would be one set for good things, one set for neutral things and one set for evil things.) I don't see much sense in this because in the end, there is no good or evil. (Example: Paladin slays an orc. Paladin may think it is good act, the orc definitely thinks it as evil act.) Therefore it only leaves two options imo (If you have a third reason which explains why we need several symbols of each type, please explain it. I am troubled. ;) a) there is one set of symbols (the one Namhas used) b) there is different set of symbols for everyone (maybe because everybody is built from different Prime Particles?) Each symbol would have gesture-component, verbal-component and material-component. If we use option a, we will have limited number of components, which is good. If we use option b, we will have many components. Both have their uses: a offers: * simplicity->teachability->schools of magic * more magi, if someone becomes too powerful, some mage organization will stomp on him. * Mage organizations would compete with each other->more roleplaying than in option b * Danger: All mage organizations group into one big one, if this happens, there would still be infighting - perhaps. b offers: * chaos->everyone must study magic on their own->mages are solitary and no two mage uses the same magic * Less magi, but the few might be very powerful->rule the world? * Mages would compete with each other * Danger: One supremely powerful mage kills all the other mages Here were some of my thoughts. Hopefully someone understood my ramblings. Aluna. -------------------------------------------------------- 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 - 00:03:21 EET