ParanetOnline
McAnally's (The Community Pub) => Author Craft => Topic started by: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on April 27, 2009, 02:40:33 PM
-
Something I am kicking around for a project that may be the next thing I do once the current WiP is done:
Lots of urban fantasies, including the Dresden Files, have faith as a power working such that, for example, a devout Christian can drive away the forces of darkness by wielding a cross which they have faith has power over said forces. And where magic requires the caster to believe in it in order to work.
I'm interested in a universe where the way that works is inverted. Where what matters to drive a vampire away with a cross is not what the person holding the cross believes, but what the vampire believes and how strongly. And where the efficacy of spells depends entirely on what the subject believes.
The consequences here are IMO interesting. For one thing, it would mean black magic works equally well on devout Christians as devout Satanists, and not at all on rationalists. It means that the more you know about magic, the more experience you have of using it and working with it, the more vulnerable you become to its effects. It means that rationalists will be immune to magic unless they see something happen that for which they can't find a rational explanation, in which case having to acknowledge that makes them more vulnerable. It means that it's essentially impossible to use magic against someone unless they know you are doing so. It also adds a whole new weight to the dynamic of not telling people about things for their own good.
Thoughts ?
-
Interesting. It will be a challenge to make the magic not be underpowered by the rampant disbelief in a modern setting, but I'd be curious to see how you go about it.
You may take a look at Mage: the Ascension rules (a Whitewolf World of Darkness RPG). From Wiki:
In the Mage setting, everyday reality is governed by commonsense rules derived from the collective beliefs of sleepers. This is called the consensus. Most Mages' paradigms differ substantially from the consensus. When a mage performs an act of magic that does not seriously violate this commonsense version of reality, in game terms this is called coincidental magic. Magic that deviates wildly from consensus is called vulgar magic. When it is performed ineptly, or is vulgar, and especially if it is vulgar and witnessed by sleepers, magic can cause Paradox, a phenomenon in which reality tries to resolve contradictions between the consensus and the Mage's efforts. Paradox is difficult to predict and almost always bad for the mage.
Its not the same thing as what youre talking about, but it may give you some inspiration for how the belief and disbelief will interact and/or reconcile.
-
I'm interested in a universe where the way that works is inverted. Where what matters to drive a vampire away with a cross is not what the person holding the cross believes, but what the vampire believes and how strongly. And where the efficacy of spells depends entirely on what the subject believes.
You're brushing up real close to the framework of CS Friedmans' Coldfire Trilogy.
Granted, that was not an urban setting; she made it fairly obvious that the beliefs of the populace as a whole could barely sustain an urban setting let alone technology. Because we none of us have the completeness of knowledge required to affirm belief in the technology we use each day, and the most momentary lack of belief or faith cripples said tech.
One of the difficult bits comes in when you attempt to sort out what exactly is responding to the subject's belief. Here is a bit of recursion for you: Does the subject believe that an embodied actor is casting the magic, and, if so, will an embodied actor be created or an existing one be compelled to act?
Obviously, there is also vast potential for self-enchantment, of the sort I associate with CJ Cherryh's Rusalka, where they're all just walking around in the woods until they achieve a firm mindset that allows the achievement of a goal.
-
You're brushing up real close to the framework of CS Friedmans' Coldfire Trilogy.
No, I don't think so, though that's my own fault for inclarity of presentation.
I'm not envisioning anything like the bits in the Coldfire books where Vryce's own nightmares come to life and he has to hack them up.
Because we none of us have the completeness of knowledge required to affirm belief in the technology we use each day, and the most momentary lack of belief or faith cripples said tech.
Nor am I proposing the operation of technology being inherently faith-based. Though faith-affected is an interesting question without an obvious answer; it would seem to make sense that technology should be notably hard to effect with magic, and the more sophisticated, the harder to effect.
One of the difficult bits comes in when you attempt to sort out what exactly is responding to the subject's belief. Here is a bit of recursion for you: Does the subject believe that an embodied actor is casting the magic, and, if so, will an embodied actor be created or an existing one be compelled to act?
I definitely did not specify things clearly enough then.
What I have in mind for the operation of magic is that there exist spells and spell-casters. And that the spells must be initiated by someone casting them. The subject's belief governs the efficacy of the magic rather than its existence, is I think the distinction for which I am looking; magic cannot be generated ex nihilo by the belief of a subject. The belief effect is reactive rather than proactive.
-
Interesting. It will be a challenge to make the magic not be underpowered by the rampant disbelief in a modern setting, but I'd be curious to see how you go about it.
"Underpowered" on what grounds ? I don't think all urban fantasies need to have so much magic present as, say, the Dresden Files in order to work; and it's not as if there aren't an awful lot of devout Christians in the world who would be vulnerable to magic working this way.
You may take a look at Mage: the Ascension rules (a Whitewolf World of Darkness RPG).
I am familiar with the setting; it's not quite what I want to do, though you are right, it is related.
-
I'm reminded of the Jewish vampire in Fearless Vampire Killers who was unaffected by a cross; also the Australian Aboriginal alleged practice of killing one's enemy long distance by "singing the bone", the efficacy of which seemed to be directly proportional to the victim's belief.
It also sounds similar to treating a medical condition with a placebo; as long as the patient believes in the cure, he/she starts to feel better.
-
So, if I'm understanding this right, basically how a spell affects a person depends more on what that person believes than on how talented the spellcaster actually is. Bad example, I'm sure, but like someone cursing a person who believes in voodoo would be more effectual than cursing a scientist who believes more in science than anything else?
-
"Underpowered" on what grounds ? I don't think all urban fantasies need to have so much magic present as, say, the Dresden Files in order to work; and it's not as if there aren't an awful lot of devout Christians in the world who would be vulnerable to magic working this way.
Just that any old pigheaded joe shmoe is all but immune to magic simply by not believing in it, and that would be the majority of the populace. Even most die-hard christian, or to a further extreme orthodox Muslims (who believe that they cannot choose what to believe in their holy texts and must take in in total, including the stories of demons and djinn abroad in the world) can have a very real and strong faith, but when face-to-face with an angel will wet themselves and start the rationalization cycle that humans are so good at. You tell a christian that you felt the presence of an angel protecting you during a car wreck and they nod sagely and mutter blessings. You say you actually saw and spoke to it, and they get the padded room ready. Its just one of those human contradictions.
That being said all this only applies to magic that actually targets a human (or sentient being, at least). What about the more physical magics? Are they fine, or do the beliefs of say witnesses matter. Like if I wanted to conjure a chair, would I be able to do it in front of a non-believer without difficulty, or would their disbelief still hamper me?
-
What I have in mind for the operation of magic is that there exist spells and spell-casters. And that the spells must be initiated by someone casting them. The subject's belief governs the efficacy of the magic rather than its existence, is I think the distinction for which I am looking; magic cannot be generated ex nihilo by the belief of a subject. The belief effect is reactive rather than proactive.
Ah. Yes, that is different. I see an interesting little area of possibilities between what you describe and commonplace hypnosis mechanisms.
-
So, if I'm understanding this right, basically how a spell affects a person depends more on what that person believes than on how talented the spellcaster actually is. Bad example, I'm sure, but like someone cursing a person who believes in voodoo would be more effectual than cursing a scientist who believes more in science than anything else?
Exactly.
-
Just that any old pigheaded joe shmoe is all but immune to magic simply by not believing in it, and that would be the majority of the populace.
I'm not sure that not believing in magic is enough. I'm thinking that maybe any degree of faith in anything supernatural - be it organised religion, organised magic, astrology, whatever - is a handle.
You tell a christian that you felt the presence of an angel protecting you during a car wreck and they nod sagely and mutter blessings. You say you actually saw and spoke to it, and they get the padded room ready. Its just one of those human contradictions.
There will certainly be problems with convincing anyone that what you saw that was weird was actually real.
That being said all this only applies to magic that actually targets a human (or sentient being, at least). What about the more physical magics? Are they fine, or do the beliefs of say witnesses matter. Like if I wanted to conjure a chair, would I be able to do it in front of a non-believer without difficulty, or would their disbelief still hamper me?
That's what I am still mulling on. I am inclined to think that it will depend on how much rationalism had to go into making the object in the first place. Chairs are easy, disk brakes are hard, computers are nigh-impossible.
-
That's what I am still mulling on. I am inclined to think that it will depend on how much rationalism had to go into making the object in the first place. Chairs are easy, disk brakes are hard, computers are nigh-impossible.
So if I cant just slap somebody with magic force because they are a hardcore rationalist, is there anything stopping me from knocking the tree next to them over and splat them that way? And if not why/what circumstances would anybody bother targeting a person directly when its much more effective to target the physical world around them?
It may be cool to have a villain set up as a shrink in an asylum. He'd have this nice big pool of chronically irrational people to do with whatever he wants. Hmmm, how do drugs and other altered states of mind affect a persons Rationality defense? Can it go temporarily down, or does it have to be a deeper belief than that?
-
So if I cant just slap somebody with magic force because they are a hardcore rationalist, is there anything stopping me from knocking the tree next to them over and splat them that way?
Not a tree, no. Which means that people wanting to stay safe from magic want to stay in heavily urban areas where everything around them is tech heavy and hard to affect.
And if not why/what circumstances would anybody bother targeting a person directly when its much more effective to target the physical world around them?
Only in the countryside, I reckon.
It may be cool to have a villain set up as a shrink in an asylum. He'd have this nice big pool of chronically irrational people to do with whatever he wants. Hmmm, how do drugs and other altered states of mind affect a persons Rationality defense? Can it go temporarily down, or does it have to be a deeper belief than that?
Haven't thought that one through in depth, but what feels right is that it's your core beliefs, really. So drunk or high would not make a major difference.
-
Haven't thought that one through in depth, but what feels right is that it's your core beliefs, really. So drunk or high would not make a major difference.
Not thinking so much drunk/high as serious anti psychotics or maybe hallucinogens. LSD was originally a truth serum because it severed your grip on reality so much that you would talk, not even realizing you shouldn't, and was then abandoned because what you said might not actually have anything to do with reality.
-
It means that rationalists will be immune to magic unless they see something happen that for which they can't find a rational explanation, in which case having to acknowledge that makes them more vulnerable.
It seems this would create a base of ever increasing rationalist society, immune. The base premise that I'm having difficulty is the assumption that a rationalist not able to recognize science in a situation would somehow be vulnerable? Wouldn't a rationalist just stay firmly in rationality and acknowledge that all science is not known and be invulnerable to the effect? Sort of a Sherlock Holmes type resistance to magic?
-
It's an interesting proposition. I always applaud somebody who's eager to think outside the box and try something new.
As has been mentioned, I think the issue lies with rationality serving as the trump card. I'm reminded of the movie Boogeyman starring Barry Watson, where the protagonist keeps reminding himself, "Don't be scared...don't be scared..." because if he can face the fear, the boogeyman can't get him.
One thing that I thought might be interesting is to really play up the psychological aspect. You could use some layered versions of reality, akin to the way that Richard Kelly does in his movie Donnie Darko or the way that Ken Kesey did in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere is another example of how two separate levels of reality can coexist.
I think a device like you're suggesting would be more effective if the reader can't always guess which layer of reality the characters are encountering.
I think you could also play up on the fear/paranoia aspect.
Example: Poor Jake beleives in magic and the occult and whatnot. This leads to his being drained by a vampire. The police, rational guardians of rational people living in a ::rational:: society find a human corpse drained of blood. Word leaks out to the press. People begin to talk. They jump at shadows or hang garlic cloves over their doors. This paranoia leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy of somebody else dying, and the paranoia of vampires grows even more...
I dunno if either of those ideas tickle your fancy at all. However you decide to run with it, good luck.
-
It seems this would create a base of ever increasing rationalist society, immune. The base premise that I'm having difficulty is the assumption that a rationalist not able to recognize science in a situation would somehow be vulnerable? Wouldn't a rationalist just stay firmly in rationality and acknowledge that all science is not known and be invulnerable to the effect? Sort of a Sherlock Holmes type resistance to magic?
I was thinking that seeing something inexplicable and acknowledging that it is inexplicable in the terms you have is what makes you vulnerable to it. Whether you think of it as being magic that is science-like and works rationally or inexplicable miraculous magic being of secondary import there.
-
It seems this would create a base of ever increasing rationalist society, immune.
Yep. This seems to me to fit rather well with a "secret history" that exists alongside our real history; one of the problems I often have with urban fantasy is that it seems implausible for all these supernatural powers to have existed alongside our own for centuries and never had any real impact, and in this case, the premise gives me that for free.
-
It's an interesting proposition. I always applaud somebody who's eager to think outside the box and try something new.
Thank you.
As has been mentioned, I think the issue lies with rationality serving as the trump card. I'm reminded of the movie Boogeyman starring Barry Watson, where the protagonist keeps reminding himself, "Don't be scared...don't be scared..." because if he can face the fear, the boogeyman can't get him.
I'm thinking that if you've got so far as having to remind yourself, you're already lost. It's about underlying fundamental axioms rather than things you can easily consciously choose at that level.
One thing that I thought might be interesting is to really play up the psychological aspect.
I think a device like you're suggesting would be more effective if the reader can't always guess which layer of reality the characters are encountering.
Depends a lot on whose viewpoint I'm using; I think it might well want more than one, a rationalist and someone who is steeped in the magic.
Example: Poor Jake beleives in magic and the occult and whatnot. This leads to his being drained by a vampire. The police, rational guardians of rational people living in a ::rational:: society find a human corpse drained of blood. Word leaks out to the press. People begin to talk. They jump at shadows or hang garlic cloves over their doors. This paranoia leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy of somebody else dying, and the paranoia of vampires grows even more...
That is a direction in which things could go, yes. I think the balance needs to be slightly different, though; if this fictional universe remains on the surface indistinguishable from our reality, it can't be that easy for vampire panics to enable vampires. The counterbalance there is... well, I'm sure I've seen horror movies where the rationalist authority figure looks at a corpse and is sure it's just a corpse and it later becomes a vampire/zombie/whatever and starts killing, whereas in this world if a vampire is imitiating a corpse and a doctor confrims it's a corpse, there's a high likelihood that that would in and of itself transform the vampire into a corpse, perhaps.
-
Your premise is actually pretty close to a movie called Skeleton Key starring Kate Hudson. The evil plot only succeeds in Skeleton Key because Kate Hudson's character has been slowly brought around into believing in Voodoo. If she remained an unbeliever (as she had been in the beginning), it couldn't have worked on her.
-
Not a tree, no. Which means that people wanting to stay safe from magic want to stay in heavily urban areas where everything around them is tech heavy and hard to affect.
Coolness, I hadn't thought of the statistical possibilities of this. You get to think of both the average density of believers, their mean free path between interactions, and the, ahem, 'energy' of their belief. Heck, you might even devise a Cooper-pair analogy, where believers pair up to travel through the lattice of unbelief.
<edit: gigglesnorts at the thought of explaining Gaussian and power curves in SF>
-
There is a novel by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens where a good guy vampire holds off a bad guy vampire with a cross. The bad guy believed that the cross could hurt him.
-
Also, read I Am Legend - a good deal better than the movie, in my opinion. The vampires there were repelled by crosses only when they were Christians in life; whereas Jewish vampires were repelled by Stars of David, and if they had no faith you were stuck with staking them to death and other such violent things. Kind of an interesting 50's-era rendition of vampires, and the author got into some science-type reasons for vampire behavior and traits. Short but sweet.
-
Also, "The Vampire Lestat" includes Armand and his group of flunkies being held at bay when Lestat enters a church. Armand knows that he can enter with no ill effects, but the others don't come inside for fear of their (un)lives. Not quite the same as magic affecting them, but still a similar concept.