Minor Magic Adjustment

[FinePoint]

@Phoenks brought to my attention that the current definition we use for magic is "The ability to allow manipulating aspects of reality (or all of them), bypassing the known laws of physics."

Now, I think it's most people's understanding that magic is incredibly vague, and how it interacts with abstracts like laws and concepts depends heavily on the verse.

For that reason, I propose the small change of simply adding 'often' before the second part of the sentence, as well as changing the grammar to be a little smoother while we're here:

"The ability to manipulate certain aspects of reality (or all of them), often bypassing the known laws of physics."

I have problems with the definition in general too, but I'll save that for a different thread.

Updated Proposal:
"The ability to manipulate aspects of reality, bypassing real-life laws of physics, using a system reliably referred to as 'magic' or some synonym (e.g. witchcraft, sorcery)."

 

[Phoenks]

I was pinged here so I'm going to assume I can comment at least 1 time. If that isn't how it works, then rip I guess.

In any case, while I do agree the magic page itself is in rough shape, I think this change is slightly unnecessary.

The premise of magic is that it's a power that goes against the natural order (physical laws): A "supernatural" power. Oxford defines magic as "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

The definition of "supernatural" as defined by Oxford is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

And well, going into actual fiction and fantasy. Typically, every magic system involves the manipulation of some supernatural force or property (like mana) that allows characters to do things that shouldn't be physically possible (creating physical phenomena from nothing. Warping reality. Etc)

So, I am pretty sure "bypassing physics" is literally a pre-requisite to something being considered magic in the first place.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Mr. Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Celestial_Pegasus @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

What do you think about this?

 

[DontTalkDT]

As Phoenks said, I have a hard time seeing something rightfully classified as magic if it entirely follows (real life) physics.

 

[Agnaa]

ig "known laws of physics" is unclear about whether it refers to the real laws of physics, or the laws of physics within that piece of fiction.

I'd change it to "known laws of real-world physics", and I think that should satisfy everyone.

 

[FinePoint]

ig "known laws of physics" is unclear about whether it refers to the real laws of physics, or the laws of physics within that piece of fiction.

I'd change it to "known laws of real-world physics", and I think that should satisfy everyone.

I think that's a reasonable compromise.

I assume the grammatical change is uncontroversial in either case.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The word "Magic" in general is broad. You don't even really need to manipulate something related or unrelated to physics, or even ones that bypass some laws of physics but not others also counts. Such as a generic telekinesis ability. Some might argue that anything that is supernatural and not just raw superhuman physical characteristics can be classified as "Magic." Another historical term for "Magic/Witchcraft/Sorcery" was also simply just a fancy term for "Art of Deception" and does not involve any sort of supernatural powers.

But the grammatical change Agnaa is proposing sounds fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Maybe we should add the requirement that it should be referred to as magic, or a synonym for magic, within the story or in official descriptions of it?

 

[Agnaa]

Maybe we should add the requirement that it should be referred to as magic, or a synonym for magic, within the story or in official descriptions of it?

Yeah that sounds fine, although I'd say it should reliably be referred to that way. A clueless civilian saying "Is that magic?!" shouldn't be enough, imo.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. That is perfectly fine.

 

[FinePoint]

Maybe we should add the requirement that it should be referred to as magic, or a synonym for magic, within the story or in official descriptions of it?

Yeah that sounds fine, although I'd say it should reliably be referred to that way. A clueless civilian saying "Is that magic?!" shouldn't be enough, imo.

Should that be a note, or baked into the definition?

My general idea for a new definition which isn't just identical to Reality Warping would be sort of along those lines.

 

[Agnaa]

I think it should be baked in.

 

[FinePoint]

I think it should be baked in.

Alright, let me try:

The ability to manipulate certain aspects of reality (or all of them) using a system referred to as 'magic' or some synonym (e.g. witchcraft, sorcery), bypassing real-life laws of physics.

I also personally feel like the first parenthesis only even exists because 'certain' is invoked for seemingly no reason. So I think it could even be:

The ability to manipulate aspects of reality using a system referred to as 'magic' or some synonym (e.g. witchcraft, sorcery), bypassing real-life laws of physics.

 

[Agnaa]

As mentioned above, I'd say "reliably referred to", but other than that, seems good.

Also, I think it'd work better structurally if the "bypassing real-life laws of physics" clause was placed directly after "aspects of reality", since they're related to each other.

 

[FinePoint]

As mentioned above, I'd say "reliably referred to", but other than that, seems good.

Also, I think it'd work better structurally if the "bypassing real-life laws of physics" clause was placed directly after "aspects of reality", since they're related to each other.

The ability to manipulate aspects of reality, bypassing real-life laws of physics, using a system reliably referred to as 'magic' or some synonym (e.g. witchcraft, sorcery).

 

[Agnaa]

Precisely.

 

[FinePoint]

The ability to manipulate aspects of reality, bypassing real-life laws of physics, using a system reliably referred to as 'magic' or some synonym (e.g. witchcraft, sorcery).

@Antvasima @DarkDragonMedeus @DontTalkDT @Phoenks

Thoughts on the revised proposal?

 

[Antvasima]

I think that it seems good. Thank you.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The ability to manipulate aspects of reality, bypassing real-life laws of physics, using a system reliably referred to as 'magic' or some synonym (e.g. witchcraft, sorcery).

Looks good to me.

 

[Bobsican]

Got permission to post here

Anyways, the current definition being proposed has quite a ton of overlap with Reality Warping, with the key difference at present being that it requires being reliably being stated to be magic or similar, therefore, perhaps it'd be ideal to also clarify that cases that have the qualities of Magic without actually being properly explained as such falling instead as Reality Warping?

Additionally, on a related topic I'd also want to ask on if it'd be worthwhile to clarify that abilities being enhanced by Magic by default aren't any more powerful than ones without it, in the same line of thought as type 3 Conceptual Manipulation, aka, a sentence that goes like "Abilities originating from Magic can be resisted by those who resist sufficiently similar abilities, even if the exact mechanics may differ".

More specifically, with the whole intent of the ability being a vague one that at most uses a related power source to inflict all sort of different effects, it'd be fair to claim that any arguments of potency would need more behind them than "it's Magic", especially when dealing against resistances of certain effects, as it's really just a catch-all for misc. abilities by a particular source that doesn't inherently turn them more fundamental as to render them harder to resist.

 

[Agnaa]

Got permission to post here

Anyways, the current definition being proposed has quite a ton of overlap with Reality Warping, with the key difference at present being that it requires being reliably being stated to be magic or similar, therefore, perhaps it'd be ideal to also clarify that cases that have the qualities of Magic without actually being properly explained as such falling instead as Reality Warping?

Yeah, I imagine that's already the case without us needing to specify it.

Additionally, on a related topic I'd also want to ask on if it'd be worthwhile to clarify that abilities being enhanced by Magic by default aren't any more powerful than ones without it, in the same line of thought as type 3 Conceptual Manipulation, aka, a sentence that goes like "Abilities originating from Magic can be resisted by those who resist sufficiently similar abilities, even if the exact mechanics may differ".

More specifically, with the whole intent of the ability being a vague one that at most uses a related power source to inflict all sort of different effects, it'd be fair to claim that any arguments of potency would need more behind them than "it's Magic", especially when dealing against resistances of certain effects, as it's really just a catch-all for misc. abilities by a particular source that doesn't inherently turn them more fundamental as to render them harder to resist.

Have people actually been doing this such that it's something to worry about?

Who seriously argues that someone with a fireball created by magic has that fire be unresistable, outside of other magic users?

Generally, my view for resistances is that a character either needs to resist the effect (i.e. fire, in the example of a magic fireball) or the source, from a source that operates sufficiently similarly (i.e. magic, in the example of a magic fireball).

I wouldn't want to put the sort of wording you suggest, since it sounds like it would compromise the latter case.

 

[Bobsican]

Yeah, I imagine that's already the case without us needing to specify it.

Well, one of the possible mechanisms currently listed on the Magic page list Reality Warping, and while not exactly incorrect, that can get confusing to say the least, hence why I'm proposing that.

Have people actually been doing this such that it's something to worry about?

Who seriously argues that someone with a fireball created by magic has that fire be unresistable, outside of other magic users?

I've seen that happen for Subjective Reality and Reality Warping at least, which are fairly similar on this regard, I could name more specific examples, but that'd then just derail the thread into the particulars, it doesn't really hurt to play it safe IMO.

Edit: Got another permission for the undeletion of this post here plus an extra post to reply if needed after this, also the wording could be reworked as needed, I really just took the pertinent bit from type 3 CM and did a quick edit as a basic starting proposal.

 

[Antvasima]

So should we apply FinePoint's updated definition then?