The article on any given frame is shorter than the original works on that frame.
Magic engineering usually requires reference to example spells: but abstract definitions of better - Platonic or Aristotelian - shouldn't come in.
That is 3ed logic. I like it.
In 4/5ed magic engineering has guidelines, which are abstract and assumed to be authoritative. Such guidelines depend a lot on abstract terms which are tricky to define, not only better but also natural/unnatural and a lot of others.
The 4ed guidelines solved one problem and created another.
You misunderstand me. Of course you start from the guidelines and general descriptions of arts and parameters - which necessarily are brief. But detailed understanding of them often enough comes from spell examples.
Often, yes, but there not enough examples to say always.
The examples are few compared to the complexity of the guidelines, and guidelines are violated in canon often enough to add confusion.
One more issue stands in the way here- that of Plato's remark that he was the wisest man because he knew what the limits of his knowledge were. If we are asking a gaming system to literally define reality to the point of omniscience and deciding what philosophical system is right, then we undercut the most essential aspect of both science and philosophy, knowing that we do not know. At that point all progress ceases because you simply check the rules for the answers and their is no real discovery, development, or mystery.
We may actually find we prefer not having an answer.
1 Like
Indeed, and that is why I object to the guidelines system. Guidelines are too assertive, and most players I meet want to play them exactly as this authoritative and complete understanding of reality. I never saw players treating the rules like that under 3ed.
Yet, we are not quite addressing the same thing. We could have some notion of what Ā«better versionĀ» means in the description of Creo, and still leave it open to interpretation what it means in any particular case. As it is, we do not even have a canon hint to its general meaning.
Yes, ambiguity is what I love about Ars Magica, but some discussion about the philosophical roots of its cosmology would be helpful, and a lot more helpful than some of the material it does have.
Not sure I agree- certainly there could be some discussion about this but at the same time we don't want it to be the equivalent of modern day saying "string theory is truth" or "the standard model is inviolable", there should probably be discussions about which philosophies exist, and more o what known differences there would be that would be evident to someone from our world, but at the same time not get bogged down in the discussion of uncertainties, without asserting certainty that should not be there.
My concern is purely mechanical arbitration. In a game about spontaneous magic, the troupe has to have a common understanding of what can and cannot be done. If SG rejects what is attempted as too high level, and the player does not try what the SG would accept, assuming that it is too high level, then the game never progresses.
This is where this thread started too, and the only thing we have learnt with respect to OP, is that there is no clear-cut answer.
If RAW would just adopt Platonic forms, or define Ā«essential natureĀ», or elaborate on the concept of Ā«propertyĀ» of an object, then this would have been a lot easier. We could house rule, but consistent house ruling is hard, and if it is not consistent we are back without any common understanding of can and cannot be done.
1 Like
Agreed, and to some degree that is the strength and weakness of Ars Majica. It is deliberately vague.
Some people don't take that. If asked how long a turn is, I can answer; long enough to cast a spell, swing a sword, shoot a bow, move a vague distance. For me that's enough. Some people need the absolute answer. 6 seconds, 10 seconds etc.
The nearly 50% split in the answer to the questions shows the vagueness.
I think the key aspect with any magi is have that starting chat about what they think their mage can do, and what they intend for the future. If the SG and PC have a divergence on thought, it needs to be resolved.
Lets say a new player wanted a Mage who was the knowledge guy. Lets even say the magi's magic is a bit weaker than most as they spent a bit on non-magical aspects. The magi has a detailed network of spies and informers in the nearby towns. Has an extensive knowledge of history, science, a collection of banned booked, etc. To close any holes in the collected mundane knowledge, that's where intelligo comes in.
A person new to this system would have every right to feel a bit off when the "I know" technique can't tell this magi what a fork does.
It is rather, that the (ArM5 p.77) "Art of perception" requires Mentem and a user to determine, what a specific fork will or is supposed to be used for.
A thing's purpose is not a property of its matter or form to be magically read from it.
A thing's past uses might have left traces on it that can be perceived, though.
Let's go back to the quote in the OP.
One has to take a large logic leap to suggest "a property that someone with appropriate skills could determine just by looking" does not include it's standard usage.
You can take this to the nth degree. Intelligo advising a certain seed is a daffodil seed is purely a subject of human interpretation. Another interpretation is that it is a Jonquille seed.
It just seems to be some arbitrary blocker based on a peculiar interpretation to nerf a technique.
2 Likes
Define:
Whose standard?
EDIT: Look here:
The Byzantine stravaganza of Theodora was reflected not only in the colossal retinue she led or the impressive tiara she wore at the ceremony (the one worn by her brother Michael VII, who had just inherited the imperial throne) but also in her own daily behaviour, which included such whims as bathing in the dew that his servants collected or ā and here is what interests us ā the refusal to touch food with her hands, so that she made use of a golden fork to prick the bites that her eunuchs had previously cut off.
The ostentation of this fork was the drop that filled the glass and led Saint Peter Damien to pronounce forceful criticism against it in his sermons, qualifying it as an instrument of excessive delicacy and even an instrument of the devil .
On the contrary, it would take a large leap of logic to suggest that some could tell the "standard usage", because such a "standard usage" would not be a constant.
How items are used will vary over time, and be different in different places. It is strictly a matter of human convention, and not a property of the item.
Even when looking only at forks used for eating, exactly how they are used when eating is different in different cultures.
No, there is no universal "standard usage" of a fork.
2 Likes
I'm not sure if this makes the fork a bad example, or a really perfect example.
How many here have ever tried to read up on the history of the fork, and how it has changed over time?
Eg. it is believed that the fork dates back to several millennia, but was used as a cooking utensil. Apparently it's use as an eating utensil dates to around AD 1000 (Venice).
So is it really 'obvious' that it's for eating?
A related and interesting question is what information you would get if a sufficiently ignorant person used hermetic magic to get information on for exasmple what kind of rock one specific rock is. Such as is it granite, limestone, sandstone, marble, or what? That is something an expert can tell just by looking at it.
But, what if the mage casting the spell has never heard of those terms before? They are vaguely aware that there are different kinds of rock, but have no idea what kinds exist other than "large rocks and small rocks". What information would they get when "limestone" doesn't mean anything to them?
I can see how this can be a large leap for some, but you are making a statement about your starting point, not an answer to the question..
The distinction between property and purpose is important to understand methodology and problem solving, particularly in engineering, design, and science, which in turn is critical to improving education in these subjects. For this reason there is a rich literature and a huge community from which it would take an enormous leap to imagine purpose as a property.
This thread is not concerned about obviosity, though, but with the Limits of Hermetic Magic.
Playing a Fantasy game, I do not have a problem imagining a World of Forms, where purpose is part of the form. Even if this idea would be alien to every philosopher of our history, I can accept it for a fantasy game. Such philosophy would be completely bonkers in my work, seeking to make sense of education and practise in engineering, but frankly, it is as conceivable as a world of magic, and totally fit for an RPG.
I don't think anyone is arguing Intellego magic can't tell the magi what the fork is for. The question is whether being a eating ustensil is a property of an object, which I don't believe it is. There are other guidelines that can be used to find out what an object was used for - including those to speak and commune with the fork, or if the fork is still an arcane connection to someone - because it was used regularly or was crafted recently, intellego mentem can also work.
The Grimoire has the following exemples for what a property of an item is under intellego terram:
*Base 2 (visible property) - Searching for a specific type of mineral; the terrain is dangerous;
*Base 4 (mundane property) - age.
Those are physical properties. If you want to learn that the fork was designed to be a eating ustensil rather than some other sort of tools, speak to it. There's a good chance it knows what it was designed for.
I contend that in 1220, in (at least certain areas of) Mythic Europe, there is, according to the following operative definition (very unmythic, but I think it defeats the arguments "oh, this is too nebulous").
Count the number of people in a given area of Mythic Europe who would be familiar with such an item - i.e. who would claim to have seen in use an item they recognize as similar. The majority of them, if asked how the item was used, given a choice between "as a tool to handle food" and "something else" woud choose the former.
In modern culture, mostly yes (note however, that you can e.g. provide an objective operative definition of whether something is a "weapon", according to the law in a particular country). But as was pointed out earlier, according to Ars Magica cosmology, many items do have "a standard use", and that is an objective, measurable property for Hermetic Magic - in the sense that one can design situations where the fact that an item is, or is not, e.g. a crown produces two easily distinguishable outcomes.
And it takes an enormous leap to change a cow in to a cat, or to call lightning from a clear blue sky, however, hermetic magic can do this. Intelligo, "I know" should be able to make some leaps. If magic can't do something special, what is it's point?
1 Like