So....let's talk about the price of amgic. What are some well or poorly done stories you've read in relation to this? What ideas do you have yourself for the price of magic?
The price of magic is whatever you decide to make up, just part of the rules of what can be done with magic.
Some of the very best fantasy has magic that doesn't have a cost even remotely proportional to the gains for the magic user. In fact, unless you make it so that the thing you gain is the exact same thing you pay (the spell that gives you 1000000 gil per cast, but costs 1000000 gil to cast), it will almost always be the case that spells will only be cast when the relative gain outweighs the cost. But that's a matter of economics and human nature.
The point is that in any case, the fact that something is possible given a fixed cost must have an impact on the story itself (if I can cut my finger to make a potion that melts stone--yeah, I got the idea from Aliens, now pay attention--what sense does it ever make for me to be stuck in a dungeon? Or for anyone to put me there in the first place?), and it must have a profound effect on the milieu (why does anyone even have dungeons if the most desperate criminals can always escape?).
The very best fantasy uses profoundly unbalanced magic systems to address fundamental questions of philosophy and morality, like...okay, you know what I'm talking about, so why say it? But the magic doesn't have to be free or unlimited...it is just a matter of concentrating more on what having that magic available does to the characters, their world, and their story.
The key to balance in a Fantasy story is that the magic users have to have a certain drawback to using there magic. A point in which they are weak, so that they can't just go out and enslave everyone to do their bidding.
As much as he gets bashed around here, Robert Jordan does a pretty good job of having consequenses and balances for magic use. If he makes one person more powerful, there is usually another that can be just as powerful to take him/her out.
Terry Brooks usually shows a fledgling type of character that finally finds the full use of hidden powers to destroy the wicked-bad-nasty villian. He uses youth, doubt,
physical weakness and others as drawbacks to the characters, so they don't become all-powerful beings.
Even though I kind of liked the story, Michael Moorcock's Elric series, is not a good example of balance in a magic system. There were too many characters that could go anywhere and do pretty much anything they wanted to do. The fact that Elric was supposed to be cursed didn't make up for the bonuses he got for his magic. He was able to travel to any plane, world, or time and do some overly incredible things when he got there. In my opinion it was too far fetched, maybe a bit too "fantastical" even for fantasy?
On the subject of TV magic, I have to admit I loved the idea from Buffy of Willow becoming a magic-addict...
It's a very different concept than the relatively simple D&D system. Which is, in a nutshell, complete short-term memory loss.
Has anyone else seen "Carnivale" on HBO? Hawkins has an interesting magic power. He can heal any injury, even death. The magic requires a transfer of life energy from one thing to another. The thing is, Hawkins hates to use it, because he understands the cost.
Since this topic has surfaced I've put some thought into magic having a price, but I don't feel that for my world it is needed. Now for the most powerful uses of magic there is risk, and some cost. Overall magic is used everywhere for almost anything. But how could I have a world filled with people with magic, and no one use it. Now it might not be as interesting as other worlds that have high prices for magic, but I think the character and his situation is where the story truly resides.
So I can agree that "price" has a place, and can add more depth, and restrict its usage. That would make the story more interesting, but I don't think price is an absolute to useing magic in a story. As long as the story has some balance and purpose, and written well, it can work.
LDS
I feel it works like filling a glass, you can only fill it with as much as it will hold. As a mage grows in ability his/her glass gets bigger and can hold more. That is where magic items come into play, that would allow the "thirsty" mage to raise his/her ability. It depends upon the system that the writer has set up how each of these aspects work. But they have to seem plausible.
Nexus defined D&D type of magic as short term memory loss, which is in part true. Because mages had to study spells after a time or forget how to use them. Since most spells are difficult and some have verbal skills or components that must be used in a specific way, or a combination of both, the mage had to study or forget. This was used in this manner for gaming use so the guys with swords could have a fighting chance against the magic user types. But along with that came magic resistance from opposing characters which makes battle more accurate. In short, one mage couldn't just walk up to another mage and turn him into a newt, he would have to overcome his/her opponents magic resistance in order for the spell to work. Also, alignment (good, evil, neutral) played a part in this too, the character shouldn't deviate from his/her alignment.
This system doesn't always hold true for writing books, but it does provide a set of rules or a basis for magic use in your story.
, I have to say that there is a very large benefit to using a system that has been turned into a successful multiplayer game.Players will have tested the limits of the system (this is less true of GMed RPGs, where you have a sort of arbiter deciding that letting you do something technically allowed would ruin that game so you aren't allowed to do it) and found all the ways the rules as written could be abused.
Check my previous post for an example. If I could transfer life energy from one thing to another and thus heal or kill with my magic, that's one of the first things I'd try. I'd never experience even a momentary angst over using my power, I'd try and figure out ways to get around any apparent limitations.
I like stories that depict a crafty mage, if you have the power, you might as well use it to the best of your ability. As long as it is in line with the characters normal behavior.
Take Zedd in the "Sword of Truth" series for example. He is a very powerful wizard, but his attitude is, the simplest answer is usually the right one. Why cast a fireball spell when a simple magic missile spell will do.(I know I am mixing my examples, but you get the idea) This is very sound advice, be true to your character, and how they would normally act or react.
You may come across like "The Great TIM" in Monty Pythons, "The Holy Grail". Walking around shooting fireballs or lightning from your fingertips just because you can will be a little silly. Unless silly is what you are after, then go for it.
Another good/bad example is in "The Wheel of Time" series. A few of the magic types in that story where going around using BALEFIRE to kill their opponents. It wasn't made known to all of them that in so doing they were possibly altering time and the world in general. Because it totally erased the victims life and everythng attached to it. Robert Jordan still hasn't closed that loop yet, one of many!
This sets up an interesting dilemma...the most powerful guy has been told not to do this, but he's been shown that it can be a really good thing...how do you think he'll react next time someone he really cares about gets killed and he has the culprit in balefire range? Sure, he remembers not to use balefire when nobody important has recently been killed by his current opponent. But sometimes people can 'forget' things under stress.
When you create a 'side-effect' to something, remember that in some situations the 'side-effect' itself is the desirable effect. Like the wizard Frost in those Demon Blade books (I'm not reccomending them as great reads, by the way, but they were interesting). If magic has a cost...sometimes that cost can be the effect you want.
quote:
So, do different things have a different level of life energy?
Yes. It required a field of wheat to heal a little girl's birth defect. A lake-full of fish repaired a broken limb. The price to resurrect a person was the death of another person.
quote:
And could you maybe overcharge one thing...like go out and work as an exterminator for a couple of days then go and have enough extra HP to heal someone from your reserves?
This hasn't been completely revealed, yet. It seems Hawkins can manually kill things and build up life force to use later. Maybe only short-term.
Considering the dark universe Carnivale is in, I suspect any left-over life force is lost after a healing. It has been shown that if he doesn't have enough, things drop dead around him.
quote:
If I could transfer life energy from one thing to another and thus heal or kill with my magic, that's one of the first things I'd try. I'd never experience even a momentary angst over using my power, I'd try and figure out ways to get around any apparent limitations.
At first this struck me as an overtly evil attitude...
After some reflection, I can see how it could be the point of view of a dedicated scientist.
I'm not saying I wouldn't use it. I'm sure I would try to find ways of diminishing the price. But, I would carry the guilt of each failure (resulting in a human death) for the rest of my life.
[This message has been edited by Nexus Capacitor (edited March 01, 2004).]
Hundreds of thousands die every day from what I failed to do simply because I couldn't do it.
Hawkins is a moron for feeling guilt over not doing what he cannot do, and a moral imbecile for only feeling guilt over the deaths of those he failed to save using this one power.
Harry Potter lost his parents, that is a pretty big payment. He also has trials he must overcome, and he has to survive Dursley's. It's not a great example anyway.
Gandalf paid with his existing life as "Gandalf the Grey" during his fight with the Balrog. He came back as "Gandalf the White". If he would have lost, he might not have come back at all. He also paid with his existance on middle earth. He had a job to do and was the only Wizard who was able to complete his mission. Sauron could not, he was tempted by power and evil and caved in. The same fate could have been Gandalf's. He did what he was supposed to do and then left middle earth. I think that counts for two lives essentially.
It is a gamble really. You weigh the cost versus the reward. If the reward is great enough, somebody is bound to pay the price.
I might spend 20 bucks on lottery tickets, somebody else may spend $1000.00 they must want to pay a higher price for the chance of a reward than I do. That is a pretty loose explanation but you get the picture.
There are a few books where a world is comprised of magical people. But usually there is some poor sucker who doesn't have any magic to offset the whole thing. I refer to it as BALANCE. It is very hard to have a world of magic users and have balance, the story still needs to be believeable. But, after all it is referred to as Fantasy and just about anything goes as long as you set the rules and adhere to them throughout.
[This message has been edited by TruHero (edited March 11, 2004).]
Gandalf didn't necessarily have a price, but he had his limits. Even Sauron was limited to using tangible vessels for his craft. Sauramon was corrupted by the promise of ultimate power.
Magic, like any action, has a cause and effect. Even in biblical account of miracle wrought by Moses there was only so much 'power' granted to him. Men must work things out using their own means.
The problem with magic lies not in it's cost, but in it's application and value. If only a hanful of people can use magic, that's fine. But if they're able to conjur some spell to get themselves out of every single sticky situation that arises, the audience is going to get irritated.
If everyone can use magic, then to what degree? If it's limitless then you have a bunch of quarreling gods where their abilities (relatively speaking) amount to no greater advantage than physical differences between you or I.
So I believe magic can come from any source you can imagine, and can be limited in whichever ways you chose, and can have severe cost or no cost (though it will always have ramifications some of which aren't always what the character intended); but there must always be a structure--an order to it. It comes from somwhere (in-born talent/knack/trait, learned skill, physical or spritual sources, etc.), it has limits (else we're talking about Diety, which is okay, but how many "Godlike" beings can a story support?), and it's always got ramifications when it's used.
So as long as it's not 'convenient' or too simple, I think the rules are wide open.
My 2 pennies
Gandalf didn't pay for his magic with his life when he fought the Balrog. That's equivalent to saying that Boromir paid for his swordsmanship with his life.
My point is this, and I disagree with OSC on this: There doesn't have to be a price to pay for magic use. However, the use of magic must be believable and fair, ie Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, The Shanara series. I'm not saying that there can't be a price for the use of magic, but as an author you have to make it believable enough so that the reader stays in the blissful state of suspension of disbelief. There have to be limitations to it's use. In Middle Earth there were only a select few that could use magic. In Harry Potter's England, a large portion of the world could use magic, but they have to learn it and they have to use their wands.
I agree with rjzeller, magic can't be too "convenient or simple", and it must have balance.
quote:
Gandalf didn't pay for his magic with his life when he fought the Balrog. That's equivalent to saying that Boromir paid for his swordsmanship with his life.
And yet, Boromir's swordsmanship was not free. He had to pay a price to become that good with a sword. It was a price paid in countless hours of training, in forgone opportunities to pursue other activities.
Imagine a world where there was no cost of swordsmanship. Anyone who wanted could pick up a sword for the first time and instantly be capable of fighting Aragorn (or anyone else) to a draw.
That would seem pretty ridiculous, wouldn't it, particularly if that was the case in a story that involved a lot of swordfighting.
Or imagine a world where there is no cost for physical strength. A small child could lift a mountain and hold it up indefinitely, and his strength would not fail even if he didn't eat anything.
If there is no cost for magic, then everyone could do everything they want via magic.
Now, you can prevent such chaos by having limits on who can use magic and what they can do with it. But even then, the use of magic will have its costs.
Maybe users of magic will be feared because of their power. That fear is a cost.
Maybe users of magic will be considered highly respected leaders. With that respect and leaderhip comes responsibility, and that, too, is a cost.
But if there is no cost at all to the magic, if having magic is all upside and no downside, then it's really not very interesting, is it? Sure, you might wish that you had such magic because it would make your life much easier, but interesting stories are generally not written about easy lives.
My personal view of magic is that of power. It's addictive. It makes you strong. It gives you what you want. And, oh God, it's tempting. For me at least, magic is a tool exactly like power.
You must mean something exact when you say, "magic is a tool exactly like" something.