Sympathetic Magic

[clehrich]

This is really an historical question, so I'm not sure which forum it belongs in, but this one seems relatively open.

I've been teaching Sir James Frazer's The Golden Bough lately, focusing primarily on chapters 3 and 4 (we don't have time to deal with most of it --- we're moving on to Durkheim next week).  As you may know, Frazer, in this book (final edition 1922) more or less invents the notion of (and certainly the terms for) Sympathetic Magic, with the Law of Similarity and the Law of Contact (or Contagion).

As a reminder, the Law of Similarity says that like affects like, so a voodoo doll that looks like Ron can be used to harm him (sorry Ron).  The Law of Contact says that things once in contact are always in contact, so if I can steal some of Ron's hair or fingernails, I can harm him through those.1

Now I remember as a callow youth playing AD&D, where I don't think this sort of thing ever really came up.  Then later on, I sort of turned around and every game's magic system presumed these laws.  Clearly this happened along with the shift to more "occult" feeling magic systems, in a broad sense, but when?

Can anyone name the game where Sympathy first became the issue in magic?  I really wonder how it happened, and why it was chosen, i.e. what the game designers' sources were.

1. I don't know why I chose Ron; maybe because he's got demons on his side and so is well-defended.

[John Kim]

Can anyone name the game where Sympathy first became the issue in magic?  I really wonder how it happened, and why it was chosen, i.e. what the game designers' sources were.

I don't think it was a game per se -- but my sense is that Isaac Bonewits' 1979 book "Authentic Thaumaturgy" was a significant factor.  His book codified a whole bunch of laws like the Law of Sympathy, the Law of Contagion, etc.  And of course he knows what he's talking about, because he has a degree in magic from the University of California.  :-)  (Please note the smiley, Chris, and don't have a heart attack.)

[wraeththu]

Wow, Excellent topic/question.  

I'd have to go through my library and start checking for publication dates and the like to really get any concrete data, but I've got my own theories.

I think the overall trend was just a side effect of the maturation process of RPG's in general.  We went from the childlike "oooooh, Magic" to a much more indepth and "realistic" approach.  That's likely impacted as well by various cultural media - movies, rock and roll mythology (led zep, anyone?), etc.

I really wish I had some of my books here, but I'd start looking at the copyright dates on things like Nephilim, Kult, ArsMagica, Chill, and CoC.  Nephilim and Kult in particular are fiendishly devoted to real world occult analogies.  For a while there I was certain some jewish group would take real affront at Kult, for instance.  Many of those books also list out influences and suggested reading/viewing.  Take a look through those and see if you can't find any commonalities.  

As a side note, Chill had a Players Companion that listed out a tremedously useful guide to Horror Types that might help you out.  

That's about all I can think of at the moment.

-wade jones
dialectic LLC

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi guys.

While I can't put what I'm about to write about in historical perspective (which games game first, or at the same time), I know that when I wrote the Orrorsh source book for West End's Torg RPG, I specifically added Sympathetic magic for the "Occult Rules".  Essentially, by employing contagion or similarity, a occultist could get cool bonuses when he cast his spell.

This was vital, because magic in one "genre" had to feel completely different than magic in other genres in the same game.  This was my attempt to stake out my territory for Orrorsh.

Plus, I wanted Orrorsh, a Victorian horror genre mapped out across the islands of the pacific, to be creepy as hell.  I imagined PCs trying to use Occult powers carving voodoo dolls from the bones of a woman's dead baby to get bonuses on spells against her.

I doubt anything I wrote had any of the kind of influence you're asking about, chleric, but it was strongly there in that supplement.

Christopher

[Jere]

I can go back to 1st edition Chivalry and Sorcery on this one.

[Ron Edwards]

I'm with Jere - I was just thinkin' about all those elaborate magical rules in Chivalry & Sorcery in its eeny-weeny eye-strain-O vision. The authors must have dug into quite a lot of occultish hoo-ha.

Interestingly, RuneQuest magic didn't have any such stuff at all.

I'm also wondering just when and how spell components got into D&D. I'm remembering them from the first hardbacks, but not from the boxed sets that preceded them.

Getting ahead of myself - I'm composing the opening post for a D&D history thread now.

Best,
Ron

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hmmm.

As far as D&D spell components, I never caught on to any intuitive magical logic.  It seemed mostly a "delay" tactic to make spells more complicated and challenging to cast.  ("Yes, we could cast that spell.  But do we have a Red Dragon's Egg?")  I never got any sense of *magic* off them, but more like the items that would later become standard in video games: first get this, then this, then use them together to aquire this.

Christopher

[simon_hibbs]

Some of my points may be tangential to your main question, but I think are still cogent to the discussion.

I've been teaching Sir James Frazer's The Golden Bough lately, focusing primarily on chapters 3 and 4 (we don't have time to deal with most of it --- we're moving on to Durkheim next week).  As you may know, Frazer, in this book (final edition 1922) more or less invents the notion of (and certainly the terms for) Sympathetic Magic, with the Law of Similarity and the Law of Contact (or Contagion).

Frazer is worthwhile reading, but he hardly orriginated the notion of laws of magic. 'The Principles of Higher Knowledge' by Karl von Eckartshausen (Paracelsus) in 1788 contains copious rules and principles supposed to govern magical practices. Even before that the Seven Hermetic Principles (such as ''The All Is Mind; The Universe Is Mental.'' ''As Above, So Below; As Below, So Above.'') have their origins in texts first translated into latin in around 1463 by Marsilio Ficino, but supposedly date back to the 2nd or 3rd century.

We can even date back the concept of formal magical principles to the golden age of greek philosophy, when Plato floated the idea of an otherworldly realm containing ideal archetypes of earthly concepts such as the sphere, perfect solids and such, that connect somehow to their material equivalents. Magicians attempted to find ways to use such connections with ideal archetypes to achieve physical effects long before the formal concept of a law of similarity was expressed. It also seems likely that greek thought along these lines cross-polinated into Jewish Qabalism.

Now I remember as a callow youth playing AD&D, where I don't think this sort of thing ever really came up.  Then later on, I sort of turned around and every game's magic system presumed these laws.  Clearly this happened along with the shift to more "occult" feeling magic systems, in a broad sense, but when?

I think the key term here is 'presumed these laws'. Many games profess to model realistic magic, or magic based on real world theories of magic. That deosn't necesserily mean they explicitly contain huge tracts of magical theory in the rulebook. To my mind if a game designer says or imples that magic in the game is based on magic in the real world, then we can safely apply real world magical philosophies and principles to situations in those games.

In fact even if no such statement is made, unless the game designer tells us just what principles magic in the game is based on, shouldn't we assume that the ral world, or obvious parallel elements from it are applicable? After all, if someone writes an SF game we don't expect the game designer to include a physics textbook in the appendices. It's usualy considered sufficient to simply cover any differences ith the real world, and offer advice on how to handle situations likely to come up in play.

Can anyone name the game where Sympathy first became the issue in magic?  I really wonder how it happened, and why it was chosen, i.e. what the game designers' sources were.

This is tricky, because as I have said few game designers include treatises on magical philosophy in their games. However 'Authentic Thaumaturgy' by Isaac Bonewits was first published by Steve Jackson games in 1979. While it's not an actual magic system for roleplaying, it is a manual on applying magical theory to designing RPG magic systems.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

While I can't put what I'm about to write about in historical perspective (which games game first, or at the same time), I know that when I wrote the Orrorsh source book for West End's Torg RPG, I specifically added Sympathetic magic for the "Occult Rules".  

That was yours? Heh, maybe my favorite Torg setting. Was the Gaunt Man yours, or Thratchen, or both? Anyhow, I wouldn't say that it was seminal in setting the occult feel in RPGs, but, OTOH, it wasn't insignificant, either.

Mike

[clehrich]

Simon,

I'd make a distinction here between Frazer and (say) Ficino.  For Frazer, the essential point is that magic divides into two absolute groups: theoretical and practical.  Practical magic, for him, involves anyone actually doing magic.  Theoretical magic is a series of abstractions discovered by the "philosophic student" or scholar who is interested in what other people do.  He thinks that magicians do not, ever, talk or think about theoretical magic, while scholars like him do not, ever, do practical magic.  He's wrong, of course, but that's his approach.

So his theoretical magic, the two Laws (Similarity and Contagion), is a meta-concern, a model for analysis rather than a way of doing things.  This model, in its specifics, is largely original to him, although he got hints of it from F. Max Muller and Edward Tylor.  At any rate, to say, "My RPG uses realistic, historical magic because it has these two Laws" is to take Frazer out of context entirely.  But this is precisely what happened, I think probably in Chivalry and Sorcery (as someone suggested).  And once this idea caught on, quite likely because of the influence of Bonewits and other practicing magicians, the idea arose in RPGs that Frazer's Laws were "historical" or "realistic."

My question, then, is simply when did this happen, why, and who was involved?  That's a complex question about the history of gaming.

As to whether the move toward "historicism" in RPG magic systems is a related phenomenon, I would guess that it's sort of an extension, but only quite indirectly so.  Furthermore, I would point out that I have yet to see a game which seriously tries to simulate pre-modern historical magic --- and I mean simulate.  As I've said on another thread, I think what happens is you get a little history used for color, and a mechanical system.  But that's for another thread (historicism in magic or some such).

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I think Nephilim offers the most extreme version of simulating "real" magic, in terms of modern-day occultism.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

I think Nephilim offers the most extreme version of simulating "real" magic, in terms of modern-day occultism.

Certainly if we're talking about Liber Ka, which is quite brilliant.  There was also an Indy supplement to CoC about the Golden Dawn which wasn't half bad.

[simon_hibbs]

First of all, I think we're in broad agreement here, with some differences in perspective.

...  He thinks that magicians do not, ever, talk or think about theoretical magic, while scholars like him do not, ever, do practical magic.  He's wrong, of course, but that's his approach.

Quite.

...At any rate, to say, "My RPG uses realistic, historical magic because it has these two Laws" is to take Frazer out of context entirely.  But this is precisely what happened, I think probably in Chivalry and Sorcery (as someone suggested).  And once this idea caught on, quite likely because of the influence of Bonewits and other practicing magicians, the idea arose in RPGs that Frazer's Laws were "historical" or "realistic."

I have a different view on this. Roman engineers built catapults and water wheels without any understanding of the laws of motion or materials science. They were developing techology without using scientific analysis. Later, Newton and others developed scientific analytical methods and applied them to the same activities.

Does this mean that using the laws of motion to analyse the performance and characteristics of roman engineering is ahistorical and irrelevent? If we are developing a believable RPG setting is it an absolute requirement that we must ignore everything we know about physics when coming up with fantasy siege engines?

Of cousre it's optional. Many fantasy settings include fantastic creatures and structures that defy physics, but is it realy wrong to say 'in this setting the basic laws of physics apply, except in certain circumstances'?

I believe it isn't. Some fantasy settings are more fantastical than others, and there's nothing inherently wrong in designing a more realistic setting bearing in mind what we now know about physics and materials science. Whether we choose to do so is surely a matter of taste?

I believe the same goes for magic. One option might be to reproduce historical magical practices almost verbatim in our fantasy games. This would surely produce a historicaly valid magic system, at the cost of some freedom of creativity. Alternatively, why not use modern analyses of historical magic systems to produce an imagimnary one that also conforms with the analyses. That way we at least know that our fantasy magic system is similar to historical models.

I'd use a similar argument in support of using Joseph Campbell as a source when developing fantasy mythologies. I'm not suggesting that Campbell is the only valid analysis of historical mythologies, or even that his analysis is accurate. Merely that at least if we use Campbell as a basis we have some kind of analysis to work from.

Furthermore, I would point out that I have yet to see a game which seriously tries to simulate pre-modern historical magic --- and I mean simulate.  As I've said on another thread, I think what happens is you get a little history used for color, and a mechanical system.  But that's for another thread (historicism in magic or some such).

Runequest 2 included a shamanic magic system, which was much expanded in RQ3. Shaman characters discorporated, sending their incorporeal spirist into the otherworld where they sought out magical allies or places to learn spells. There were even rules for playing out the shamanic initiation, and spirit cults to add cultural variation to the basic rules.

I believe this was a deliberate attempt to simulate real world shamanic initiation and ritual practices. That's hardly suprising, considering that one of the authors (and orriginal designer of the game world) is, and was then a practicing shaman.


Simon Hibbs

[clehrich]

As you say, we're in broad agreement here.  Just a few points:

Does this mean that using the laws of motion to analyse the performance and characteristics of roman engineering is ahistorical and irrelevent? If we are developing a believable RPG setting is it an absolute requirement that we must ignore everything we know about physics when coming up with fantasy siege engines?

I honestly don't understand what you're getting at here.  Can you re-explain?  I'm just missing some basic point, and when I get it, I'll be able to respond intelligently.

I believe the same goes for magic. One option might be to reproduce historical magical practices almost verbatim in our fantasy games. This would surely produce a historicaly valid magic system, at the cost of some freedom of creativity. Alternatively, why not use modern analyses of historical magic systems to produce an imagimnary one that also conforms with the analyses. That way we at least know that our fantasy magic system is similar to historical models.

I think you're setting up something of a false dichotomy here, for rhetorical purposes.  To reproduce historical magical systems and practices "almost verbatim" would not, I think, cost us "some freedom of creativity" --- it would be almost unplayable, because everyone would have to memorize an extraordinary amount of abstruse information and apply it systematically, something most scholars of the history of magic have remained unable to do even passively.  So from my point of view, that extreme is hardly worth considering; "historical simulation" of magic need not be much more precise than Sim takes on other bits of history, which are necessarily rather fast-and-loose.

As to using modern scholarly perspectives, I entirely agree.  The problem is that Frazer's analysis is almost entirely wrong.  His basic assumptions, his methodology, and his interpretations of his thousands of examples have almost universally been discredited.  So to point to Frazer as in essence a legitimating footnote and say, "See, it's historical!" merely demonstrates confusion or ignorance.  [Mind you, almost nobody teaches Frazer any more except me, so far as I can tell, and I have lots of good things to say about him --- but they're not terribly applicable here.]

My feeling is that a certain perspective in gaming relatively recently has wanted to claim historicity without having to know anything, and so they have leaned on Frazer.  This is why I raised this as an historical question: when did this start, and when did it become this kind of claim?  I don't think that C&S was trying to say, "See, it's historical so we're better."  But that's what I see happening in some more recent games.  As an historian of religions and specialist in the history of magic, I am quite interested in how Frazer, of all people, became so deeply incorporated in the fabric of modern conceptions of magic that pointing to his two Laws could be taken as proof of historicity.  After all, the whole point of the two Laws was to demonstrate the ignorance (and to a considerable degree stupidity) of everyone who ever believed in magic --- and by extension, religion.  How did this become a rallying-point for the NeoPagan-oriented sector of the RPG world?

I'll take a look at RQ2, although I have to say that WhiteWolf's take on shamanism was so offensive that I shudder at the very idea of reading another RPG version.  But I'm willing to hold back my preconceptions and take a look.

[simon_hibbs]

I honestly don't understand what you're getting at here.  Can you re-explain?  I'm just missing some basic point, and when I get it, I'll be able to respond intelligently.

An analysis of historical prctical techniques doesn't need to be historical in order to give usefull insights. Roman engineers didn't know the laws of motion, yet they designed mechanisms that conformed to those principles. Similarly ancient magicians may not have expressed a formal theoretical basis for their practices, but if later analysis can find common principles behind historical religious practices, why not use that analysis in designing pseudo-historical systems of magic?

As an historian of religions and specialist in the history of magic, I am quite interested in how Frazer, of all people, became so deeply incorporated in the fabric of modern conceptions of magic that pointing to his two Laws could be taken as proof of historicity.  After all, the whole point of the two Laws was to demonstrate the ignorance (and to a considerable degree stupidity) of everyone who ever believed in magic --- and by extension, religion.  How did this become a rallying-point for the NeoPagan-oriented sector of the RPG world?

I think Bonewitz' 'Authentic Thaumaturgy' may have had a strong influence, given it's early publication in terms of overall RPG history. Also Frazer's ubiquity mitigates in it's favour - few libraries or well-stocked bookshelves are without a copy.

In any case, while Frazer's analysis might well be flawed, so too are Newton's Laws of Motion (relativity rules these days, although I realise this is a stretched analogy). There is the argument that basing your system on some analysis is better than not using any analysis at all. Sometimes what ou need are some simple rules of thumb to base a system on, and even if those rules are imprecise at least your system will be self-consistent.

I'll take a look at RQ2, although I have to say that WhiteWolf's take on shamanism was so offensive that I shudder at the very idea of reading another RPG version.  But I'm willing to hold back my preconceptions and take a look.

Don't hold your breath. At thetime, the game designer had very little experience of designing RPGs (or even playing them), so the simulation is pretty crude. Nowadays we have a much broader range of game mechanical tools available. The upcoming HeroQuest system should provide a much better model.

Finaly, I ffel that C.J Carella's Witchcraft RPG is worth mentioning. The game mechanics for working magic are based on fairly modern ideas about the theory of ritual magic, which do seem historicaly valid at least at the surface. Nevertheless the game is explicitly 'New-Agey' in many respects.


Simon Hibbs