This is from Runequest 1st edition:
What if you're not a practical minded person? What if you like disputation?
Havoc made a very interesting post on religions in dungeonland that really planted a seed in my brain, really rattled around the old noggin. This post is a riff on that one, it presents three possible ways of contextualizing magic into a worldview in dungeonland. This is a theoryslop post.
Fantasy worlds tend to have a lot of Bad Stuff. Monsters in the woods. Cults. Demons, Undead, Dragons, and god knows what else the DM has cooked up this week. People are gonna have questions that need answering. Where does this shit come from? The denizens of these worlds will see certain people apparently 'breaking the rules' that everyone else has to follow, performing extraordinary feats and miracles. How does this happen? Are they talking to supernatural beings, or are they supernatural beings themselves?
Believism
The theory that the power of belief is the fundamental operative principle of reality. Reality is sustained through a consensus mechanism, and if enough people believe something, then that thing is true. Gods exist because people believe they do, not the other way round. Gods have the powers people believe they do. Some believists claim Clerics can draw on nonexistent deities if their faith is strong enough; most believists would say that magic consists of channeling the powers of really existant supernatural beings, just ones that ultimately are dreamed into existance.
Believism has a few interesting implications:
- A person could become godlike by convincing enough people that they are a divine being.
- or of individual belief so strong it overrides the consensus reality.
- Believism holds that 'arcane' magic users are not actually discovering laws of magic, but are tricking themselves into believing they can do these things (or are secretly channeling demons).
- an insane person could begin warping reality around them to match their fervent irrational beliefs.
- religions and gods could be practical jokes that got out of hand
- Illusionism works by 'tricking' things into existence
A strict believist would probably argue that demons and dragons are really the same kind of thing, and are a result of humanity's subconscious, antisocial urges. A "Sleep of reason brings forth monsters" type situation. Our desire for accumulation brings forth a 'god' of accumulation - dragons and their hoards. But humanity's need for justice also creates good gods which can oppose the demons.
In the World: Believists tend to promote 'noble lies' that encourage everyone to syncretize their beliefs in good gods. They hope to create one super powerful God of good who can wipe out the Bad Stuff forever. To that end they will try to convince people that the universe is fundamentally good (having everyone on the same page presumably is more effective, like focusing a lens). Believists endorse any ritual that promotes a happy society, but having as many people as possible doing the same ritual promotes uniformity of belief, which will empower their God (if believism is true).
Some believists will do lots of good deeds and get really famous, in the hope of becoming a living saint due to the power of thousands of believers. Some people might try to "game the system" by conquering large numbers of people and then promoting their own godlike status using state propaganda.
Examples: This is how magic works in the Coldfire novels, the Discworld series, the Tyrant Philosopher series, and many others focused on the trope of gods deriving power from worship. The Malazan novels and the Orden campaign setting imply that individuals can gain power through believism. The Eberron campaign setting implies divine magic works like this.
Rationalism
In this context, rationalism is the belief that the world operates according to mechanical laws that are knowable by rational beings. 'Magic' works according to the same laws the rest of reality does, just in a way that is not obvious. It is possible to learn the way spells work through experimentation and logic, and anything with a rational faculty has the potential to comprehend and use magic.
Rationalists argue that "gods" are simply beings that can manipulate the laws of reality and magic in a way that people do not understand. Clerics and Druids are using the same underlying system and principles, just in a way that looks different from an academic mage. They are either calling on a being that uses the magical rules for them, or are invoking the fundamental laws of reality in a mechanical without understanding what they are doing. It's like someone worshipping a functioning television, creating rituals around the remote control.
A rationalist would claim that demons are beings that know the secrets of magic, and that dragons and monsters are simply animals that operate on rules of reality that humans don't understand yet. For instance, dragons might breathe fire through a flammable gas they exude, and might use gold as part of their life cycle. Perhaps they eat it?
Rationalism implies that there is no reason to worship gods. Instead, people should devote themselves to studying the principles of reality so that humans can gain the 'god's powers for themselves. If people believe they are communicating with higher powers, they are either delusional or are being mislead by an entity with better command of the 'inner workings' of reality than they understand. Religions are either wishful thinking or intentional methods of social control designed to keep humanity from finding out about the secrets of magic.
In the World: Rationalists will attempt to establish academies of learning, in the lands which allow them. The idea that gods are fake and that humanity can master their power is obviously a direct threat to believism, so rationalist wizards would probably be forced underground in lands ruled by a believist religion, spreading their knowledge of spells to the common people.
Examples: "Arcane" magic explicitly works like this in D&D. The yankee Queen Vlaakith is what rationalists claim all gods are - simply a high level Wizard who controls with false consciousness those she rules, exploiting them. Quite a few fantasy novels have magic that works according to mechanical rules. Anything with a 'magic system' should count. Off the top of my head, Harry Potter, most Bandon Sanderson books, and The Kingkiller Chronicles have 'rational' magic. Many settings and modules endorse some version of this - the gods are actually computers or satellites. Worlds Without Number states that spells are invocations of misunderstood computer (?) programs.
Innatism
Innatists believe that magic is, by definition, something that violates the principles that normally govern the universe. This means that magic is not comprehensible through reason and an empirical study into magic is inherently fruitless (contra rationalism). Innatists also don't agree with believism, which holds that belief is the fundamental law of reality. If that were true, the principle of magic would be rationally knowable. Innatists believe magic is fundamentally paradoxical and mysterious, and usable by people only through substantial spiritual practice. There are quite a few practices and belief systems that qualify as innatist, but most innatists hold that living beings have some kind of energy inside them, and some individuals can manipulate this energy.
At the same time, the shift in focus away from supernatural beings towards self development puts innatist ideas in tension with your average pseudo-catholic or pseudo-polytheistic fantasy religion. Gods might be supremely powerful and moral beings that deserve worship, or might be the subset of beings that are capable of developing their powers fully. Any religion that claims that magic comes from gods, and that sorcerers serve demons, is going to view innatists as subversive. A believist on a quest to merge the various religions to create one powerful God of good will view innatists as an obstacle, someone putting false ideas in peoples heads and holding humanity back.
In the World: Innatism implies that spiritual training is more importance than worship. If the right practice can give you magical powers to solve your problems, the need to implore gods for miracles is reduced. Innatists will tend to form monasteries and wandering orders to foster spiritual development, helping each other in their self discipline and spreading whatever benefits they have attained among the people. By definition, innatists think that magic isn't mass producible, so there's no question of "teaching a man to fish" - they will purify water, cure disease, and perform other miracles, but attaining the capability to do these things requires a rarified talent.
An innatist order will probably have internal tension between a more democratic and more elitist element. One side will argue in favour of going out into the world, using their powers for good and helping the common people attain a higher spiritual state, while the other will argue in favour of seclusion and of raising the power level of existing members.
A specific form of innatism could hold that all beings have the same magical potential, and that with sufficient training could have powers similar to a God. The Blood of Vol religion in the Eberron campaign setting claims something like this; it says that the secret to divinity lies inside every person, but the 'gods' stole that secret and are keeping it to themselves, maintaining humanity in poverty. The members of that religion are theoretically dedicated to revealing this secret and 'taking back' this power.
Examples: This is how magic works in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, the Earthsea novels by Ursula Leguin, the Wheel of Time series, the Eragon series, and many others.
Is this gameable?
Maybe? I think it's an avenue for religious conflict/debate in a game beyond "my god is better than your god!". I tried to present the more extreme versions of these ideas to highlight the possibility for conflict between these ideas, but obviously D&D is a hodgepoge of various magic "systems". Eberron, for instance, has various levels of textual support for all of these theories. As Havoc said, "debating the question is more interesting than knowing the answer". I hope you found something interesting in this post.
Questions to ponder:
- A rationalist wizard has discovered that saying a specific sequence of words reliably produces a consistent effect. How do you, a believist, convince him it only works because he believes it does?
- A believist hears a personality speaking to him in his head and seems to be able to draw on it to change the world around her. How do you, an innatist monk, convince him that he is actually communicating with his alter-self and is channeling his own energy?
- An innatist practitioner seems to be able to call rain and cause wounds to firm up. How do you, a rationalist, convince her she is not spiritually enlightened but has simply discovered a 'cheat code' to the universe?
No comments:
Post a Comment