This is a first stab at trying to map out the possible metaphysics of magic in gaming. This list is in no way normative and if anyone comes up with something that I have missed, please let me know. I have looked to rp games and literature which feature magic, as well as the real world. It should be pointed out that that these categories can be in-game and/or out-of-game explanations. And the two may not be the same; the characters may believe that magic works in one way, while the players know that it actually works in another way. And, of course, there may be multiple out-of-game explanations as easily as multiple in-game explanations. The original MAGE was an example of multiple in-game explanations with one out-of-game metaphysic. Subsequent editions only complicated that (needlessly, IMHO, but let’s skip that).

My hope is that a source such as this will aid designers when devising magic systems. It could be just a checklist to work through, but I would hope that it prompts more thought than that. As many others have said before, magic should be an integral part of any game which uses it. Magic is not just a whiz-bang add-on to a system (as some have suggested is the case with a game like Fulminata). Thinking about why and how magic works, should provoke some serious thought about the gaming world itself and the game being played within it. Whatever else it is about, magic is about power and any game featuring magic is a game about power: who has it and who does not, who wants it and what he’ll do to get it; what it can and what it can’t do. Magic should be meaningful to a game; even if the meaning is that it is ultimately meaningless.

I have set-up a hierarchy of distinctions in this scheme, such that a large flowchart might be the ideal representation; ideal, that is, except in this format. So, I’ll use something like an outline. It should be noted that the very choice of which distinction is primary and which secondary is contingent upon game priorities. The Internal-External distinction which I make primary might be secondary to another designer, with Natural-Unnatural taking its place. I don’t see this as particularly problematic as long as all distinctions are considered at some point. It’s just an attempt to make all possibilities clear to those designing magic systems.

--The first distinction is the source of magical power--

I. Externally-powered Magic
In this scheme, humans are essentially powerless, but in some manner or another are able to influence more powerful entities to produce effects. The nature of those entities and of the means of influencing them provides further distinctions. It should be noted that merely dealing with extra-dimensional beings and the like is not necessarily Type I magic; if the magus has some ability to summon these beings, then he is likely operating in Type II territory. True Type I magic allows no magical power to the human.

--The second distinction is the naturalness of the entities with power--

I.A. Natural Entities
The beings influenced are in some broad sense natural to the setting. They belong there (wherever there is) and there influence in the world is to be expected, if not necessarily common. These beings are usually gods, angels, or spirits. The influencing of them for magical effects may be considered praiseworthy and even a normal part of religion, as in shamanic healings or the miracles of the saints.

But these magics are generally considered at least potentially dangerous and may be actively discouraged. The “real” middle ages are full of magical texts on how to summon angels and get them to do things for you; they are often filled with the sternest warnings. The in-out game explanations are evoked here as well: medieval practitioners of the Ars Notoria and the like believed that they were summoning angels to help them or the ghosts of the departed to communicate; theologians generally explained that these being were actually demons masquerading as angels or ghosts. I see a lot of gaming potential in situations like this.

I.B. Unnatural Entities
The flip side of the previous category, these beings are alien in some way to the setting and their influence is to be feared or avoided by most people. They are frequently called “demons” in the literature and in games, but that term may be considered as generic as “unnatural entities”. In Judeo-Christianity and settings inspired by such (Middle-earth as perhaps the best example), demons are perversions of nature; natural entities who have twisted themselves or been twisted into unnatural beings. In the pulp settings typified by R E Howard and H P Lovecraft, demons are aliens, invaders from another reality, whether distinguished by time or space (and thus possibly natural in a different setting).

The S&S work of Michael Moorcock is difficult to place in this context: are the Lords of the Higher Worlds natural or unnatural entities? They seem to be the only gods going, and thus somehow natural, but the descriptions of them and the effects of dealing with them seem to me squarely in the “unnatural” category. I don’t think separating Law and Chaos will suffice. In the _Elric_ stories, the Elemental Gods and the Beast Lords almost seem to be the natural gods of the world, with the Higher Gods as late-coming invaders, but that distinction wouldn’t work for the world of Corum; the eventless destruction of all the gods at the end of the first trilogy and the rise of the Cold Gods in the second seem straight-forwardly unnatural to me.

--The third distinction is the means or method of manipualtion--

I.A/B.i. Supplication
The practitioner has no real power over the entities, but can only ask for favors or aid. This system thus relies on entities which have the interests of (some) people at heart. One might suggest that worship is a part of supplication and that the “gods” do favors for worship and praise. A more cynical perspective would place this in the category of “bargaining”, however. The classical Protestant stance is that God can do anything for people, but he will only do so when He wants to, thus the most people can do is ask. Some may not feel that this is a magic system at all, but I feel that it is, although never named as such. If you ask the gods to come smite your enemies—and they do—I’d call that magic.

I.A/B.ii. Bargaining
The practitioner has no direct power, but has agency in relation to the entities. In the real world, supplication often slides into implicit bargaining: “I’ll be a good person if you just help me out”. Although the practitioner could understand this as Supplication, it isn’t if the entity expects the practitioner to hold up his end. Some consider the offering and withholding of worship to be a form of bargaining.

Literature and games more often feature explicit bargaining and more frequently with unnatural entities. The archetypal “dark cultist” strikes bargains with demons, often promising blood or souls in return for magical favors. Elric generally falls into this category of activity in relation to Arioch. With other beings, he influences them by means of ancient pacts and treaties, which are other forms of bargains, although his summoning of them places him in Type II category. The sorcerer Thoth-amon in Howard possessed a magical Ring which allows him to call demons; one might argue that the Ring is the sign and seal of his bargainings with Set and that he cannot actually summon them, just as the Ark is said to be the sign and the seal of Yahweh’s covenant with the Israelites (and the Ark is truly powerful magic).

I.A/B.iii. Control
Although the magus has no magical power, he possesses some other form of power which allows him to control those beings who do possess magical power. This often results in coercion of magical beings, although the exercise of power needn’t necessarily be adversarial. The use of True Names to compel beings is found in Le Guin and numerous real world sources. Sometimes magical circles constrain demons and they can only leave if they agree to serve the magus: this could be seen as a bargain, but effected under duress and thus properly coercive. In “The Tower of the Elephant”, the sorcerer possesses the alien being’s heart and has an explicitly coercive relationship.

Medieval magic is again quite interesting in this regard. Forgetting this issue of summoning for the moment, medieval demonology generally explains itself as functioning with God’s power: the mere sound of Christ’s name compels demons to agree with whatever the magus demands. Thomas Aquinas, however, worked out the theory of the implicit pact to counter this. The Angelic Doctor explained that demons only pretend to be compelled, but are actually acting on their own initiative. Moreover, the mere action of dealing with a demon is an implicit pact (bargain) with them, since the magus obviously wants something from them and does not, in fact, possess the ability to coerce demons. Another example of in-out game distinctions with the theologians definitely out-.

II. Internal-External Magic
The magus has some kind of power which lets him personally manipulate real-world forces. This is far-and-away the most common metaphysic in literature and gaming and represented by the “spell-caster”. By his knowledge, study, and/or magical initiation, the magus is able to create a spell, which, in turn, produces magical effects. This sequence is easy to overlook, but important. The internal component is supplied by the figure of the mage who does not call upon other beings to affect his working. The external component is supplied by the spell, which operates according to some kind of rules or formula. If the magus could do anything that he wanted he would be in the next category (purely internal). Magic is this category is always a technology, although it is frequently not acknowledged as such.

This metaphysic dominates the game scene, due, in part, to the influence of Vance and Tolkien. Vance made the technological nature of magic very clear; the definition in _Rhialto the Marvelous_ is perfect in this regard. D&D and its many successors followed his route such that the magus in D&D is, essentially, a fantasy equivalent of Batman’s utility belt. Though not quite so coherent as Vance’s, Gygax’s metaphysic in the _Player’s Handbook_ is decidedly technological.

Tolkien, on the other, hand is much more folkloric in his treatment of magic (for obvious reasons) and his spells are often more akin to poems than Bat-grenades, but he is quite willing to discuss Dooms and Enchantments as “things” enacted by people. Poetry is a technology just as much as Bat-grenades are.

Most real world magic falls into this category, from Roman curse-scrolls to medieval grimoires to modern Wicca; all see the magus as accessing some force. And mentioning that, I should add that the Force is in this category as well, as the force manipulated by the Jedi (that was a bit confusing).

II.A/B. Natural-Unnatural Forces
I’m not entirely sure that this distinction holds much weight in this category; all of the examples that come to mind are natural forces. The Earthsea books are a good example of this category with the added interest of opposing the wizards to those who serve the Old Powers (Type II.A. vs. Type I.B.i). There might be some examples of magi manipulating unnatural forces, but I can’t think of any as such. One could argue that the powers of Sauron in the Lord of the Rings are perversions of natural forces, much as he himself is the perversion of a natural being, but I’m unclear on this.

II.A/B.i. Discrete Manipulations
Each effect is a distinct act. Virtually all magics in games fall into this method; this is the classic spell. The magus performs a discrete action (chanting, gesturing, etc.) which produces a corresponding result: doing A, B, and C shoots a big ball of fire, while doing D, E, and F makes you fly. I won’t even bother with the examples since this category is so familiar (if not, go read D&D and then return).

II.A/B.ii. Comprehensive Manipulations
The much-less frequent category has magi manipulating some all-pervasive force rather than individual forces. The obvious example here is the Force, while another, somewhat surprisingly, is the metaphysic from Asprin’s Myth books. The Earthsea magics are a harder case to make; I’m tempted to say that they make a distinction between what seems to most people to be going on (spells) and what the true wizard understands (manipulating the Balance); an in-out game analog. If psychic powers manipulate the laws of the cosmos, such as Phoenix causing fires by speeding up molecular motion, then they would fall into this category as well. If they practitioner’s mind operates directly upon the universe, ignoring any outside laws or forces, then it more properly falls into Type III below.

III. Internally-powered Magic
This is magic which is powered only by the actor without any mediating forces. That is to say, it is the caster directly reshaping reality to his will. This is far and away the least common metaphysic for magic in literature or games, WW’s MAGE being the notable exception. But even here, the in-game explanation is usually Type I or II and constraints are placed upon the free operation of Type III in the form of paradox and the need for foci.

This is much more common among real-world practitioners with Aleister Crowley being perhaps the best-known spokesman if you don’t count Don Juan Matus as real. But note that even in this case, there is a frequent distinction between what is “really” going on to the initiate (out-of-game analog) and the exoteric talk of rituals, angels, naguals, and the like (in-game analog).

III.A/B.
There can be no real Natural-Unnatural distinction in this metaphysic since the reshaping of reality essentially redefines nature. Nevertheless, there is the sense that some workings are in consonance with already-existing reality (just pushing things along a bit) while others workings are horrible twistings of reality that bear correspondingly greater risks. I’ll note here Crowley’s talk about Inner Nature and Casteneda’s similar discussions; the true magus must act in accordance with his Being or Self. I find this logically incoherent, but no one said magic systems need to be logical.

III.A/B.i. Intransitive Methods
The magus manipulated reality to himself, not to the rest of the world. If Type III is the least-frequently employed magic explanation, than this subcategory is the least popular of all. Still, it has received a lot of attention among academics in the real world as a way to explain why perfectly rational people might believe in magic. Magic becomes for them a form of self-hypnosis. Carlos Castenda makes essentially the same point, except the he believes that the results are not necessarily delusory. The episode in _Don Juan_ where Carlos believes himself to be a bird is a good example of intransitive magic.

This magic may be very simple personal suggestion or involve complex rituals, drugs, etc. Since it is so under-used in gaming, I suspect that there are very interesting uses of this metaphysic just waiting for designers.

III.A/B.ii. Transitive Methods

The magus manipulates all of reality, not only his own. Aside from MAGE, the obvious example is _The Matrix_. Another possibility that comes to mind is the French game _Reve de Dragon_, wherein life is a dream and magi have learned to influence the dreamer, although this may be more properly Type II.A.ii.

Well, that's as much as my brain can do today. Hope this proves useful to anyone, if just to disagree with.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't this thread be in RPG Theory?

Ravien is correct that this should be in theory--it's not about the design of a specific game. Welcome to the Forge, Dr. Samsara; it helps to read the stickies and explore a bit, but I'm sure that our moderators will pop this over to the appropriate forum soon enough.

I've got a couple of points to make in response.

The Fiendish Dr. Samsara wrote: Whatever else it is about, magic is about power and any game featuring magic is a game about power: who has it and who does not, who wants it and what he'll do to get it; what it can and what it can't do. Magic should be meaningful to a game; even if the meaning is that it is ultimately meaningless.

--The first distinction is the source of magical power--

I. Externally-powered Magic
In this scheme, humans are essentially powerless, but in some manner or another are able to influence more powerful entities to produce effects.

II. Internal-External Magic
The magus has some kind of power which lets him personally manipulate real-world forces....By his knowledge, study, and/or magical initiation, the magus is able to create a spell, which, in turn, produces magical effects....If the magus could do anything that he wanted he would be in the next category (purely internal). Magic is this category is always a technology, although it is frequently not acknowledged as such.

III. Internally-powered Magic
This is magic which is powered only by the actor without any mediating forces.

magic is a tapping of supernatural laws

Whereas, conversely, I would argue that Magic is, by the definition of natural laws, in line with natural laws, simply because anything that interacts with the physical world at all (even human perception) is explicable by natural law, even if those natural laws require magical or divine assumptions which are out of line with what we consider to be "science."

If magic works, it is natural.

Dr. Samsara, I think (perhaps pursuant to this) that I don't understand the difference between your type II and type III magics -- they both seem like different sorts of internally generated magic... Further, how would you classify something like a granted prayer where there is no prayer or ritual -- you just think it and it is done by God. That looks a lot like type II or III, but is in fact type I. Is the line drawn solely by the intention of the practioner? In that case, what if someone believes that they are supplicating an external power but are actually merely using their internal abilities?

yrs--
--Ben

I feel compelled to come to Dr. Samsara's defence...

M. J. Young wrote: That is, my distinction would lie here: if the power that causes the results comes from outside the natural realm, from another dimension (presumably a supernatural one, that is, one above this and so able to make direct impact on it) then it is magical. If the power is inherent in this world, then it is not magic.

Thus the problem I have with your distinction at this level is that I don't see how type II magic is different from technology, even though clearly it is in many cases

Greyorm wrote: And to throw a whole 'nother bone into this discussion: I consider truly fantastical magic to be circumvention of laws (whether those be natural or supernatural (whatever that might be)).

I'm with Ben. Nature in this context is just another way of talking about the world, or creation and the processes thereof. Whenever people talk about somethign being un-natural, it's always because they have some political, moral or philosophical (or in this case metaphysical) agenda.

A few things to add to the discussion:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic." That's a paraphrase of an Arthur C. Clarke quote, because I don't want to Google it up. Jack Chalker's Flux novels are about this exactly: <<spoiler?>> A "magic" system in the first two books is explaned as incomplete terraforming by nanobots in the third book.

And

"Magic is just circumventing the Laws of Physics," which I will attribute to my dad, although he may have "borrowed" that quote from somewhere :) For him, all powers that broke the laws of Inertia, Conservation of Matter/Energy, and other such physics things counted as "magic." So he could enjoy some fantasy novels where the Magic had a defined set of rules, even if the author never fleshed them out.

And

"Magic is just another set of tools." No attribution. Some games have "Magic" as another way to get results. For example, a mechanic might fix the car with his Mechanic skill, and a Wizard might fix it with a Repair spell. Same outcome, different methods. The Hero System (re: Champions) does a lot of this : the "special effect" and some of the modifiers is all that separates the fireball spell from the flamethrower.

Maybe this categorization of how Magic Systems might compare in the game will help:

Resource-based, Fixed Direction : The Mage casts spells controlled solely by the resource : Blue Power Crystals make a Create Water Spells, and only those. Blue-White Crystals make Ice Storm Spells, and only those.

Skill-Based, Fixed Direction : The Mage uses a Fortune Mechanic modified by various things to determine whether or not the spell (chosen from a fixed list of effects) was successful. The Mage can continue to do this as often as the skill roll (*) is successful.

Resource-based, Open Direction : The Mage casts spells powered by how much of Resource X they want to sacrifice. The form of the spell is chosen at casting time Example "I use 3 Blue Water Crystals, and cast a strength 3 Water spell. I want the water to wash out the stables."

Skill-Based, Open Direction : The mage uses a modified Fortune mechanic to determine if the casting was successful, and describes the effect at the time of casting.

Note that many games limit magic by both Resources and Skills. For example, a caster might need to succeed at a Casting Roll and have the necessary Components.

So in this model, AD&D says that a "level 3" spell slot is a daily resource, which the player can allocate to casting a Fireball or a Cure Serious Wounds, but only to an effect chosen of one of the available listings. It's Resource-Based, Fixed Direction, with a few exceptions (Clerics & Healing Spells). But I don't remember any roll to cast spells, unless it's a Concentration roll to avoid being distracted.
also:
White Wolf's Mage is a Skill-Based, Open Direction system.

So what would Sorcerer be? or Multiverser, using these distinctions? Or one of the other indie-games be?

-Fred

(*) note my inherent default to "Skill Roll." This could just as easily be any other Fortune Mechanic, meaning there is a chance of failure.

I think the point of Clarke's Law (which I think you stated accurately) is actually supposed to be that there is no magic, just science that we haven't yet understood. An example that points this direction would be that after Sir Isaac Newton expounded his laws of motion explaining that the planets did not move around the sun because angels were pushing them in their orbits but because of the law of conservation of momentum he had just presented, he then proceeded to say that he had moved the angels from behind the planets to outside them, in essence using a supernatural explanation for gravity once he had eliminated it for motion. Clarke would point to comments like this and observe that "magical" answers were used to explain anything not yet understood scientifically, and thus that there really was no magic at all.

Rev. Daegmorgan and I would of course disagree with Clarke.

I would also tend to agree with Ben that natural laws very much matter to the outworking of magic, if that's what he is saying. That is, the source of the fire falling from the sky is divine, but the fact that the sacrifice, the altar, and all the water in the trench around it are "consumed" by the fire is a perfectly natural outcome, and if anyone's standing too close, there's a good chance that their clothes will catch fire, too. The cause may be supernatural, but the effects are quite predictable within the natural world.

That doesn't mean I can't accept effects that don't make sense given current science, though. I've elsewhere (more than one place, I believe) proposed that in magic, cold and dark are not the absence of energy but competing energy that opposes heat and light. I've given consideration to radiant darkness and non-radiant light, neither of which make sense in our understanding of physics but both of which should be possible within fantasy magic, at least.

Fred Garber wrote: So what would Sorcerer be? or Multiverser, using these distinctions?

Hello all. I'm glad that my piece sparked some discussion, which is what I had intended. I also very much intend to reply, but have been a bit distracted of late by the birth of my daughter. Strange to say, but I have discovered that there really are some things more engrossing than theorizing, like watching a tiny person pass gas :)

Anyway, I hope that you keep the discussion in mind for a few days, because I 'd like to join in when I get more than 2 minutes at a go. But I can say, by way of opening remarks, than the definition of magic is the always the sticking point, and no more so for gamers than for people in the real world. If you haven't read any of the classic Protestant critiques of Catholic ritual, then you should do so with all haste; nothing more clearly expresses the conceptual Bermuda Triangle: magic, religion, and technology. Or consider Classical Greek discussion of the word "magia" and to whom and what it applies. It's all good, thought-provoking stuff.

As I see it, one decent definition of magic is "the manipulation of the world through ultra-mudnane means." Ultra-mundane is preferable to super-natural for a number of reasons, but maybe best because only cultures with a concept of "nature" can have a concept of "above nature". Thus, you could not explain Antique Babylonian magic as supernatural because there is nothing conceptually for it to be above---all phenomena are the work of divine ativities, whether you want to call that natural or not is not really meaningful.

Manipulation is even more important in that definition, since magic is, as I see it, fundamentally operative; magic always *does* something. Another way to attempt to define magic is to put it at one end of a scale with something like "speculation" or "dogma" at the other end: magic is practical religion. Or science. Honestly, what's the difference? (Expects large bolts to come flying at him).

Thus I find technology to be a useful term here: technology is the practical application of a knowledge through tools. A computer is a tool, a cyclotron is a tool, a spell is a tool. And most people don't know how any of them actually work (theory), but they are happy to use them (pratice).

Okay, that was more than I intended. Anyway, I still think that the soruce of the power is very important, but maybe more on that next time and some more pointed responses to the interesting things folks have said. But somebody needs a diaper change now.

First of all, congratulations. My daughter was born only 7 months ago (first child).

The Fiendish Dr. Samsara wrote: Okay, that was more than I intended. Anyway, I still think that the soruce of the power is very important, but maybe more on that next time and some more pointed responses to the interesting things folks have said. But somebody needs a diaper change now.

I think Dr. Samsara's list can be taken as a set of perspectives on what underlies magical activity; this entails that a number of these cannot be true or exist simultaneously. The natural/unnatural/supernatural thing, for example, depends on what you mean by "nature." At the same time, I think drawing this distinction consistently, as Dr. Samsara does, undercuts the value of the categorization.

Let me make some sketch definitions from early modern Europe, and then expand a bit on larger principles. I'll put in some notes at the end for those who care about the historical versions.

Early Modern Europe

Three Worlds
There is the sublunary world, i.e. ours. There is the celestial, which extends from the sphere of the Moon to the sphere of fixed stars (i.e. stars and not planets, but not including the sun). Then there is the divine, which extends beyond that. Forget about devils for the moment; I'll get back to them.

1. Natural Magic
Natural magic is dependent upon the manipulation of occult forces present in nature. Nature here means the sublunary world. An occult force is one with no sensible mechanism, which can only be defined by its effects. For example, gravity or magnetism is an occult force: there is no way to detect it sensibly, in that you cannot see, feel, hear, taste, or touch gravity; all you can do is drop a ball and notice that it does indeed fall. This is by contrast to, for example, wind: when the trees shake, we can feel the wind moving as well. An occult force is non-sensible, and really until Newton the general sense is that occult forces are somehow of a different sort than are sensible forces, because forces are categorized by means rather than effects; Newton's mathematical formulations will shift this so that all forces are classified by effects, blurring the distinction between occult and sensible forces. Interestingly, Newton still used the terminology.

A classic example of natural magic is this: if you have two harps tuned the same way, and you put them near each other, and then you play a note on one harp, the corresponding string on the other harp begins to vibrate all by itself. There is an occult force of harmony or sympathy here (we now call this harmonic vibration, which is not coincidental), and by setting up the experiment and striking the string we manipulate this occult force as we like. This is natural magic.

Natural magic is commonly used for things like medicine. A plant has the power to make someone sleepy, but there is nothing sensible in the plant that makes it so. Therefore to drug someone with opium, for example, is natural magic.

Natural magic was licit, theologically speaking. It invoked no dangerous powers, and simply accepted the world as God made it, indeed celebrating the wonders which He placed within this Creation.

2. Celestial/Mathematical Magic
This magic manipulates the forces of the celestial world, i.e. the forces of the planets (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) and to some extent the fixed stars. Astrology goes here, for example.

Now the thing is that in a Neoplatonic conception, the planetary spheres are also controlled and run by demons -- note, not devils. They have no specific moral value, but are in effect semi-intelligent forces that just follow the orders of God as He placed them in the universe.

If I have a golden talisman here on earth, that talisman is automatically connected to the Sun by means of invisible (occult) "rays" that project downward from the Sun -- you know it's the Sun because it's gold, and gold is solary. Therefore if I want to draw the effects of the Sun into this world, I can use a golden talisman.

Again, thinking medically. Suppose the patient suffers from melancholia, a kind of depression (to be simplistic). Now true melancholia happens because the influence of Saturn is very strong, and overpowers other influences. This may be because of someone's natal (birth) horoscope, but it may happen for other reasons. The power of Saturn can be tempered by the Sun; this is one of the things that distinguishes between the suicidal and the genius, which is why so many geniuses are so temperamental and may commit suicide. So if I have a melancholic patient, I want him to draw solary power into his life in considerable quantity. I make a golden talisman with the names and images appropriate for the Sun, and I have him wear it. I tell him to wear bright colors, go out in the sun a lot, and generally participate in "bright" activities: daytime romps as opposed to staying in behind curtains, etc. Note that this may well work for the depressive, as a side note.

Celestial magic of this sort was a problem for theological classification. Insofar as it used demonic forces, i.e. intelligent beings, as a mechanism, it was totally illicit; insofar as it drew on the natural influences of the stars, it was totally licit. So it really depended on exactly how open you were about the demons part, and how you formulated your magic. Marsilio Ficino's talismanic magic is a good example of this fine line.

3. Religious/Ceremonial Magic
This is about contacting demons from the divine sphere, which is to say angels or devils. You may ask them to do something, or you may simply wish to participate in their nature, making yourself more like them. The trick is that such beings are by an Aristotelian conception totally beyond us, superior to us in every way; by a Neoplatonic conception, they are subordinate to us, because God made us in His image, and didn't make them so, and there's a reason for that, and similarly His son the Logos was incarnated as a human man, not as an angel, which should tell us something about the special providence afforded to mankind.

Deliberately contacting and manipulating devils is 100% illicit, but that's not to say it's ineffective. One argument says that these things are so dishonest and evil that there's no winning with them, so any deliberate or even unsuspected contact with them puts you in danger. Another says that it's not a question of danger: unless your sole purpose in contacting them is to destroy them, as with exorcism, you have already committed a terrible sin and will certainly burn for it; signing your name to a contract is just icing on the cake.

Contacting angels is by many theories perfectly reasonable, but you have this problem that it's extremely likely to throw you into the Cardinal sin of Pride: who says you, in particular, are important and worthy enough to distract an angel from his proper tasks? If you think you are sufficiently worthy, you are ipso facto not worthy, because that's one hell of a big kind of pride. And if you set out to summon, let's say, Gabriel, and you aren't worthy (because of pride, for example), then either nothing will happen or, far worse, a devil will come and pretend to be Gabriel and deceive you.

If you accept the straight Aristotelian thing, however, you have no right to be talking to angels anyway unless they contact you, because you are lesser than they.

4. Witchcraft
Special powers granted by a pact with Satan, intended or otherwise. Transforms the person into a servant of Satan, deliberately opposed to the kingdom of Christ, a traitor within the gates, a terrorist assassin among us. Burn them before they seduce others -- because Satan is very seductive.

------------

Now having drawn up short sketch versions of these distinctions, what are the implications more broadly for gaming?

A. Natural
If by "nature" you mean the entirety of the universe, then all magic, like everything else, is natural. As someone said, if it works, it's natural. But in that case, the term is worthless. In Europe, at least, "natural" did not mean "it works" -- it meant that the forces involved were from within nature, which was not a given. Miracle, for example, is precisely not natural, and does not obey natural law.

B. Manipulating Entities
The point is what these entities are, what their purposes may be, and what their moral position. If you can control animals because the nature of nature ensures that you are superior to them, this is natural. If you can control them only as equals, through contracts or whatever, then you must deal with the fact that they too are intelligent beings and have some status in the universe.

C. Superior Technology
As M.J. pointed out, Clarke's point was that "magic" doesn't exist; it's simply how others may perceive our technology. If you like this definition, you've shifted "magic" into "that which we do not understand but can make work."

D. The Magician's Progress
A common object here is the progression of the magician towards higher ends. This usually depends on some explicit analogy drawn between the magician and his status and some structures and symbols of the cosmos. Alchemy, for example, intends the transmutation of the alchemist's soul by drawing an analogy between the current state of the soul to the base metal in the crucible; when the metal becomes gold the soul too becomes gold. This all depends further on an analogy between the crucible and the universe: the cycle of planets and so forth observed within the crucible matches a progression in the cosmos and ensures that the transmutation follows divine law.

E. Inherent Power
This essentially does not exist in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), as we are all created equal in the eyes of God. But many cultures do claim that some people are created special in some sense. For them, the exercise of magical power depends on this special gift, which may be of whatever status is appropriate. For example, among the Zande, witches are born with a special organ called a mangu right next to the gall bladder, and because of this their bad intentions towards others actually affect the world. This is nobody's fault, and what we do is figure out who the witch is and then have that person hedge himself around with all sorts of protections to ensure that his power doesn't slip out again. If he decides to act on this deliberately, that is now a crime and can be dealt with as such.

F. Channeled Forces
A special kind of magic -- not called magic in Europe at all -- is when higher forces use a person as a channel for power. In Europe, the higher force is God, and the person so used is a saint. Such a person in a sense does not exist at the time the power is used; he simply stands as a vessel for the Divine.

G. Miracle
Again sticking to the European version, miracle is a special use of power by God that ignores all rules. Substances can be transformed, which cannot happen in nature, and so forth. God made the rules, and He can break them when He likes. Sometimes He explains why, and creates special rules: for example, in Catholic sacraments, God reaches down through the established ritual means and creates a transmutation of a soul or a substance (in the Eucharist), as He promised to do when Jesus walked the earth.

I don't know if any of this helps, but I think we're beating around the bushes for definitions based on very little. Dr. Samsara has made a good start, but I think if we're going to go further we need to delve into the clever constructions of people who've been thinking about this for rather longer and in a more sophisticated manner.

One final note: the remark about modern occultists and the natural. I think this is quite wrong, except for certain types of Neopagans who visualize the universe as entirely subject to natural laws. For them, the manipulation of power has to do with reenacting the nature of nature. For the Golden Dawn folks, however, or the OTO (Crowleyites), the manipulation is not precisely natural.

References:
D. P. Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella (1958); reprint (University Park, PA: Penn. State UP, 2000).
Christopher I. Lehrich, The Language of Demons and Angels: Cornelius Agrippa's Occult Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

Lovely post Chris.

One theory knocking about during that time was that a magician could gain power over elemental beings, spirits, angels and demons by balancing all the constituent elements, or humours within him. This ideal state was identified with Adam Kadmon, the perfect man created by god to be the natural ruler of the cosmos before the Fall. This was of course as much a spiritual as a physical perfection, but many students of the occult lost sight of the goal of spiritual balance in their search for power. One theory is that the Golem was an attempt to create a physicaly perfect being, and you could build a superhero mythology on the concept of alchemicaly perfecting the human body.

For those interested in incorporating elements like this in ther gaming, GURPS Cabal is worth checking out.


Simon Hibbs

clehrich wrote: For the Golden Dawn folks, however, or the OTO (Crowleyites), the manipulation is not precisely natural.

BPetroff93 wrote: Seriously though this thread is quite interesting in it's evolution, it's gone from a classification system of RPG magic to disscussions of "real" magick theory. As evidenced by the religion birthday thread, Forgites are a pretty diverse lot, so I'm sure that plenty of us could wax philosophical. My question is, do we want to go there? If so, I'd be MORE than happy to blather on, but before I open my big trap how "real" do we want to get?

BTW Clehrich the term is "Thelemite" not "Crowleyite", similar in concept to calling a Muslim a "Mohammadean" The difference being worship of the person, rather than the philosophy he is connected with, no worries though :)

I wasn't trying to suggest anything about your post my friend. I noticed that this thread was drifting into an area that I have some experience in. To me this is a subject just as real or scientific as physics. I realize most people do not feel that way about it, but I thought I would offer some imput. However, I was concerned about how on topic such input would be. I thought perhaps if some posters were interested, we could start a child thread in Indie design about using modern magickal theory as an RPG basis. The entire thrust of my post was to inquire as to what direction this conversation was moving in.

Crowleyite isn't offensive to me, however it is misleading. I was simply passing on the information as most people are not aware of the distinction. (Those few who have heard it)

clehrich wrote:
Now the thing is that in a Neoplatonic conception, the planetary spheres are also controlled and run by demons -- note, not devils. They have no specific moral value, but are in effect semi-intelligent forces that just follow the orders of God as He placed them in the universe.
...
3. Religious/Ceremonial Magic
This is about contacting demons from the divine sphere, which is to say angels or devils. You may ask them to do something, or you may simply wish to participate in their nature, making yourself more like them. The trick is that such beings are by an Aristotelian conception totally beyond us, superior to us in every way; by a Neoplatonic conception, they are subordinate to us, because God made us in His image, and didn't make them so, and there's a reason for that, and similarly His son the Logos was incarnated as a human man, not as an angel, which should tell us something about the special providence afforded to mankind.

Deliberately contacting and manipulating devils is 100% illicit, but that's not to say it's ineffective.
...
References:
...
Christopher I. Lehrich, The Language of Demons and Angels: Cornelius Agrippa's Occult Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

redwalker wrote: My question to you is: do you make a distinction between straight-up pacts with the devil and methods which call the angels first, get the blasting power, and then compel the devils? (And if so, how much of that distinction is Agrippa and how much is more general than Agrippa?)

clehrich wrote:
Basically they went to great lengths to contract the notion of "natural" as much as possible. This was actually one of the influences that helped support the formation of what we now call "science," in that it postulated a notion that the study of nature must be radically divorced from the metaphysical, and that operative work with the metaphysical must be demonic (and hence illicit).

Anyway, hope that helps. Sorry to have derailed this thread; that wasn't my intention. What I wanted to do was to give some sense of just how complex this classification was and is, so that for RPG purposes we could avoid absolute statements.

I know that I have been totally AWOL for a while, but my beautiful daughter has been a huge distraction (11 days old and has Daddy wrapped around her finger). Anyway, this real world discussion of magic is going into interesting places, but I think that it is somewhat off-topic. I’m starting a new thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10995 where we could perhaps more conveniently continue this.

Let me try and steer this conversation back to more gaming territory. I should have made clearer my use of “metaphysic” meant something like “explanation” and has nothing to do with rules per se. That is, I wasn’t making any suggestions on how to create game rules for magic. The metaphysic could correlate to the mechanics, but in no way has to, although I’m not sure that I’d agree that examples are as bleak as has been suggested.

I was, I suppose, implying that any game that uses magic as an element should contain some notion of how and why that magic operates in a narrative sense, not a mechanical sense. That doesn’t mean that they characters know this, but I do believe that the characters must have some explanation for what they are doing. Sane people don’t go around doing things with no theory as to why and how they are doing them. Does that make me a pro-Sim gamer? Probably. But even in a more Narrativist game, I’d think that you would want to have some idea of what is going on. Having no idea of how magic operates would be like playing a swashbuckling game and having no idea how sailing works: sure you could do it and probably tell a good story, but its all a bit odd. “I open my sails the whole way, rush toward the pirates, and then slam on the brakes!” Unless the point of the game is that you can make up all the rules of reality as you go (insert the obvious example here), then there need to be some agreed upon rules for how reality behaves.

Normally we don’t consider this in games because most of the rules are the same as in our lives (well, maybe amped up a bit): we all understand that if your character jumps off the building, he will fall down to the ground. But this is exactly what you don’t have if there is no metaphysic of magic. Just to pick some real simple examples: do I, as a mage, detect the presence of magic around me? Could I attempt to deflect or dispel magics cast against me? Do I have a better chance of working an enchanted object? Is there a moral component to magic, quite apart from social opinion? Even D&D has most of these questions answered, but you have to extract some of them.

Let me ask a question at this point: to those who don’t find *the source* of magic as a principal distinction, I’m curious as to what you think it should be? I am so far unconvinced by arguments, but want to hear more of them. I already suggested why “supernatural” doesn’t work. Chris went to great effort to discuss early modern conceptions of magic: I would note that this is all a Type II magic, which then divides into natural and unnatural categories. Opposing this, the orthodox Church practices a Type I.A. magic and regards occult sciences as really being Type I.B.