Thread 96106229

How does magic schooling work in your setting? Apprenticeships or magic universities?

>>96106229 (OP)
Academia is riddled with a disenchantment narrative, so open, public academies of magic aren’t a thing. It’s hidden and obscure *within* academia itself. Certain professors dabble, and they might favour some students, sharing in their secrets.

What is open and accepted often isn’t magic. What is isolated and hidden and conducted behind closed doors is magic.

>>96106239
>Academia is riddled with a disenchantment narrative
This. Nerds are annoying. “Heh, that’s not magic. It’s just nature!”. “Well if you don’t consider nature to be magical then you don’t actually love nature, do you?”. “Shut up scumbag. Everything is voting and grey!”. “Keep coping and keep being unable to confront a force of beauty without your amygdala freaking out, I guess.”.

The real magic was the friends you made along the way.

>>96106229 (OP)
Sort of apprenticeships?
Being able to cast any magic at all requires being able to perform a ritual to destroy a part of your own soul first, which can easily go very wrong.
Sorcerers who have already succeeded at the ritual sometimes do teach it to others, but it requires considerable investment for possibly little benefit, so these mentor sorcerers are very selective, so that potential apprentices are only those who actually have chances to succeed at the ritual (determined, intelligent) but are also useful enough for the mentor sorcerer.

>>96106229 (OP)
You first.

>>96106405
Why are you talking to yourself?

>>96106405
There are both magic universities and archwizards who take on apprentices to pass on their philosophy.

>>96106229 (OP)
apprenticeship-cum-marriages

>>96106229 (OP)
Traditionally, apprenticeships. Sorcery isn't effectively taught to large groups at once, as the shape of each prospective student's soul is different, thus the steps necessary to manipulate magic in a certain way vary from person to person. Necromancy (separate from sorcery) requires a connection to the dead, and the spiritual fetters are typically either a bloodline or a particular mentality; in either case, those traits are rare enough to make teaching large groups of necromancers impractical, ignoring the fact that trying to conjure up the same spirit simultaneously to different masters simply doesn't work.

>>96106613
Wh-what does this mean?

>>96106675
Cum is Latin for "with", so it's an apprenticeship that doubles as a marriage.
They also share cum with each other during and between lessons.

>>96106239
>>96106266
First posts best posts
Magic schools need more tact

>>96106239
Keep it mysterious and occult. Make the school a mystery school. Make them look weird to other schools.

>>96106229 (OP)
Basic aspects of using psychic powers are taught in grade school a number of organizations and professions will begin scouting potential candidates.

People are conditioned as children to accept being funneled into job roles if their psychic apitutde leans that way due to the hefty financial compensation and social status it brings. People who don't measure up often get shifted into Auxiliary and support functions that are still important.

This system exists because they are often called upon to go into a dangerous space to access special materials as well as the possibility of permanent Human presence in the space.

>>96106229 (OP)
It works more like a mystical eastern religious esoteric tradition than scholarly research. Scholars in my setting study history, mathematics and philosophy, there is some overlap between philosophy and magic but it’s not inherently the same thing.

>>96106772
If all apprenticeships are marriages, then how do once-students become masters to pass on their knowledge? Are all magic teachers also widows/widowers? Are divorces or polycules involved?

>>96106801
This too. I like how in Game of Thrones the Maesters organization is for the most part an organization of the learned, but it still has its kooks who dabble in taboo or arcane matters. Whether they see it as a form of magic is irrelevant when viewers see them as indistinguishably wizardly.

>>96106229 (OP)
Depends. Most forms of magic don't exactly have clout or much respect from non-practitioners, so they get by on apprenticeships, passed down in families, or rarely taught to select children who learn only the basics and must work out the rest of the secrets themselves or develop a new form of it. But the ones that do find favor, like say a particularly potent/regarded mage in service to the royal family may get the chance to expand their craft and research of it to a dedicated team of apprentices, and at the highest regard may be allowed to open a school that studies and teaches their particular form of magic to spread it across the kingdom. So far it's only happened a few times, like with arithmancy, cleromancy, cartomancy and astrology, though there are some that are becoming more well-known through the countryside by more secretive practitioners via word of mouth.

>>96106229 (OP)
>How does magic schooling work in your setting?
You go to school and learn to cast spells.
>Apprenticeships or magic universities?
Both. Magic universities are in all countries, with some being very, very old. Each has a unique focus on spellcraft, such as the Clockwork Cathedral where they focus on the sciences and magecraft of clockwork and constructs or the Venicaan College of Medicaments and Chirurgery which focuses on advancing the curative sciences and magic.

Apprenticeships are generally simple affairs but offer lesser educations, often leading to mages who only learn the ways their master cast and often lacking in broader theories of spellcraft and magic. It can be quite expensive to send your children off to learn proper magecraft at a university, so most small towns prefer apprenticeships to the local mage or priest.

>>96106786
More like idiocy and bullshit from a known samefag and troll desperate to force everyone into a retarded idea of how magic should be.

>>96106229 (OP)
>AI slop

https://www.reddit.com/r/ImaginaryCharacters/comments/1m1li2z/phineas_gavran_wizard_apprentice_by_dennis/
>puckee thread

>>96107289
>More like idiocy and bullshit from a known samefag and troll desperate to force everyone into a retarded idea of how magic should be.
Obsessed much, faggot?

>>96107476
>crossposting shit from reddit the moment it drops
This has become somewhat of an obsession for you guys huh?

>>96106229 (OP)
>>96106405
>>96106613
>>96106675
>>96106786
Stop spamming your garbage commissions on /tg/ with your worthless fake questions, then samefagging when no one replies, you fucking troon.
>>96107476
puck the cuck won't stop until the mods perma him.

>>96106575
Many of the archwizards who take apprentices are or used to professors at these magic universities.

>>96106229 (OP)
What do you consider schooling?
Acolytes of a reclusive mystic who develop their transcendental enlightenment through intensive and constant silent meditation for decades?

>>96108340
I guess buddhist monks do a sort of schooling.

>>96108349
I'm trying to get an actual meaning for schooling. Because if you just distort and stretch the term to mean learning or developing in any way or style or manner in any environment by any means whatsoever... then what's even the point of asking the question?

And after you think about that for a minute, we can begin to talk about the foundations of your conceptualization of magic as something that just assumes a need or use for schooling... or even as something teachable or learnable in the first place.

>>96108449
The wizard form of magic is at least teachable or learnable in some way. Not like natural bloodline sorcery magic etc. (If you're playing D&D or PF)

>>96108462
So you admit that you were thinking about D&D specifically. Which means this entire thread is pointless because all of this shit is already explicitly explained and described in great detail in D&D source books.

A thread died for this.

>>96108584
Huh? Is it? I meant for specific settings not FR.

>>96106239
Like the occult?

No magic schools. My setting is a low population points of light sword and sorcery world.
You find spells by acquiring it from another magic user or finding forgotten tomes in ruins.
Players can freely share spells with each other, but that's how you attract warlocks and such who will learn from you then kill you so keep the knowledge for themselves. You are a lot less afraid of fireballs when you're the only one who can cast it.

Magic schooling has nothing to do with my games, so I generally don't think about how it works.

>>96106229 (OP)
It doesn't. Pick up a tome and figure that shit out yourself

>>96106229 (OP)
Go ask worldbuilding general.

>>96106405
>>96106229 (OP)
Who would make a better party member?

>>96106229 (OP)
A bit of both. While there are magical universities and academies to become wizards while most people learn from apprenticeships. Often the most skilled apprentices or those of noble birth tend to go to the magical academies. The rest tend to serve as an assistant to a wizard before going as their own as a magician or mage.

>>96110621
So like Ivy league?

Traditional games?

>>96110826
Pretty much. Though, a Wizard, (someone who graduated from a university,) and a mage are mostly the same and most use the terms interchangeably. Though easier to find jobs and standing when you can back your skills with a university. (Or a circle/noble/etc.)

>>96108011
he's either a janny or fucking the jannies. Calling it out gives out bans.

It is occult and arcanum. Secret knowledge passed down from a master to a disciple through generations. No schools, nothing official about it.
There are tietäjät and noidat, but also velhot and myrrysmiehet. All of them trust in the power of song and poetry. Like the blind poet Homer or Greek warrior-poets. Like Väinämöinen or Bragi Odinsson.

>>96106229 (OP)
It's the bell curve meme, just like real life education.
Magical retards and giga-geniuses get apprenticed according to their respective skills. Magical midwits go to magic university, take the standard classes, then go into low level government or take a clerical position with the guilds.

If magic isn’t occult or arcane then it’s not actually magic it’s just a trademarked name brand.

Magic is extremely rare in my world. Potions and monsters are powered with the small amount of magic in the environment, crafted together by common folk. To become a wizard, you would have to be trained by one of the few wizards in the world. Cha casters just have natural talent, Divine is gifted by the gods.

>>96106229 (OP)
Most magic is seen as taboo, the basic stuff is ok in certain places, but you can't be using it everywhere, so, no such thing as universities. Here are your options:
- Your family might already know some tricks and might be able to teach you some stuff, however its usually very basic stuff
- You can pay someone to teach you, however that's seen as shameful and there is no guarantee that they will actually be able to teach you what they know
- You can join the army as they are formally taught and given permission to use it more freely even within civilian zones in certain situations
- You can join the army and then become a researcher, you will get to learn the craziest aspects of magic, however you can't be using it freely
- You can sell your soul to an entity, however their powers are usually very specific to something
- You can join the army to learn as much as possible and then desert to join one of the rebel factions that will offer you some protection, however expect tons of backstabbing attempts and, of course, to be hunt down by the army
- Get lucky and have an mental, physical or spiritual awakening

>>96106229 (OP)
Ars magica. It's the whole goddam thing. Aprenticeship. Guild. The order of fucking hermes, hedge magic, fey doing fey shit. Deep eldrich unknowns willing to make trades that no mortal can understand.

>>96106229 (OP)
It's a gimmick for nobles. The empire was founded by mages and nobles are legitimized by being spellcasters, but in reality magic is hard, boring, dangerous and expensive; so nobles learn a few cantrips and fuck off to parties or poetry classes. The "real" mages are either talented commoners who marry into royalty and bootstrap into it or murderhobos who speedrun leveling by bartering with demons and digging up artifacts, aka the PCs.

>>96113341
So you would say apprenticeship method? Like Merlin and Morgana?

>>96114055
Sounds lame.
>murderhobos who speedrun leveling (...) aka the PCs.
Sounds SUPER lame.

>>96111631
>Magical midwits go to magic university, take the standard classes, then go into low level government or take a clerical position with the guilds.
Kek

>>96110120
Trick question, they are the same person. Reversing sex is the most basic of transformation magics, something you learn as a stepping stone to more complicated transformations like turning into an animal or something.

>>96106229 (OP)
Apprenticeship to a bound demon or other magical spirit who has a magical contract forcing them to teach you what they know. Each such spirit is guarded by keepers who teach what they can to mortal students and make sure that the rituals binding the entity are not broken, but humans can at best pass down basic cantrips with traditional teaching methods. You can't really understand magic without glimpsing the realms beyond this world, and you can't do that without the help a being native to those higher planes. Not without a catastrophically high failure rate, at least.

>>96116492
>Reversing sex
they're both girls, one just has bigger boobs and is prettier

>>96116665
I would fuck both

>>96106229 (OP)
Both, depending on where you are. In the campaign's main city there's separate academies for Wizardry/Artifice, Witchcraft/Druidism, and Necromancy/Exorcism, with often the best way to advance in all of them is to catch a professor's attention and obtain an apprenticeship parallel to your academic education.

Study for a master of magic never really stops though, so plenty end up apprenticing at the Magus Spires after finishing their primary academic education, paying for the wisdom of elder mages using the labor they can perform with now baseline arcane education.

>>96106239
Anon thats just real life.

>>96106229 (OP)
There aren't any, magic should be rare and mysterious and not something so mundane you can just go to school for it.

>>96115936
It's either this, training times occupying a large chunk of lifespan, or a gaping chasm between system and setting.

>>96120514
Hard to write a game for that.

>>96121432
sucks that you have zero creativity.

>>96120482
And yet, academics refuse to look at it that way. Physicists are in denial of the magic all around them.

“Gravity is borderline magic. We don’t know much about it.”
“Shut up. It’s not magic.”
“If you don’t consider nature magical then you don’t actually love nature, or science, do you? There’s still mystery and wonder out there.”
“Go fuck yourself.”
“Cope.”

>>96121530
Have you truly never stopped to consider that the word "magic" has a wide range of definitions not synonymous with "wonder" and maybe phycisists don't want to associate their work with those other meanings?

>>96121963
Have you truly never stopped to wonder what goes into the recipe that cooks up religion and magic and superstition? The ingredients that lead up to accusations of hocus pocus? What makes something to be supernatural? You never think this?

You are not on my level.

>>96122046
True, most people get past the tutorial.

>>96122046
>You are not on my level.
Yes, I'm far above your grasp of linguistics because I don't shoehorn monist materialist reductivism into my escapist fiction.

>>96122852
>it’s the immaterialist
Fucking Luddite.
>>>/sci/16724654
>>>/sci/16724658

>>96123012
Operative term:
>into my escapist fiction.

And no, "materialism" has a very specific definition that all things are made of matter. It is actively disproven in modern physics by all the massless energy fields littering the equations.

>>96122852
>continues saying he’s better at linguistics and semantics
>keeps failing linguistics and semantics
What did he mean by this I wonder.

>>96123088
>It is actively disproven in modern physics by all the massless energy fields littering the equations.

You are actually r brain dead if you think light isn’t there. There are examples of massless particles you horrendous idiot. Yes they’re there.

I’m not even that guy you’re just a fucking moron. You should do yourself a favour and stop posting. But of course you will, because you have genuine ego rot.

>>96122046
>You never think this?
No, cause I have better things to think about, like actually playing tabletop games instead of shitposting where nobody asked

>>96123088
Is matter made of anything with mass or anything that matters?

I don’t think you realize how dangerous semantics is to science.

Have an example:

Math and science are as inseparable as science and art, or art and math.

Some argue that math is the purest science of all, TOO pure to be a science, even.

“One plus one always equals two. Always.”
“Okay, show me your theory for that.”
“What?”
“What?”

Whether you consider math to be science is irrelevant. It still works. It’s inseparable. It IS the language of science. Everything.

But we can get more annoying:

Google Search: “Matter without mass?”
Google Answer: “Yes, retard. Photons.”

Google Search: “Is light matter?”
Google Answer: “No, retard. Light 0 mass!”

Semantics is the literal bane of all scientific discussion and inquiry, and you are no longer talking about science. You are arguing about something else.

>>96123222
>Google Search: “Matter without mass?”
>Google Answer: “Yes, retard. Photons.”
>Google Search: “Is light matter?”
>Google Answer: “No, retard. Light 0 mass!”
This shit pisses me off to no end.

>>96123222
Science is numerous things.

- a method to apply
- a community consensus
- a base of information
- nature/physics as it is

>>96123088
Materialism isnt about things you can touch. We aren’t actually touching anything, technically speaking.

>>96123101
Demonstrate you know better by explaining how it's grammatically valid to replace a noun meaning with an adverb or adjective meaning.

>>96123141
But electric and magnetic fields are not made of particles, massless or otherwise. They occasionally produce particles for certain interactions, but are not required to to have an effect.

>>96123222
>Is matter made of anything with mass or anything that matters?
Has to be things of substance in a manner we would now call having "mass" for the arguments that established it to remain legible. This in turn necessitates the hair-splitting shift to "physicalism" in modern science.

>I don’t think you realize how dangerous semantics is to science.
It's not dangerous, it's required, because jargon is a thing.

>>96123757
I didn't say it was about "things you can touch" and the technicalities of atomic electron orbit repulsion have nothing to do with the early modern philosophy I demand your definitions back-test to.

>>96123868
>But electric and magnetic fields are not made of particles, massless or otherwise
Doesn’t matter. They’re still there. They still have a makeup. They’re present. They’re real.

>It's not dangerous, it's required, because jargon is a thing.
It’s required to a point, and the most brilliant and famous scientists were jargon. You think they didn’t wage word warfare? You’re insane.

>>96124620
>Doesn’t matter.
Yes it does, for the sake of the foundational literature remaining legible. It does not matter what you try to force "materialism" to cover the exact things it was defined to exclude, I will not accept anything that breaks the chain of reasoning necessary to reach modern science.

>It’s required to a point
It's required extensively precisely because of what you call "word warfare". Natural language is insufficiently precise for scientific use.

>>96124703
>Yes it does
No. It doesn’t. Physics deals with what is real, and observable. Electric and magnetic fields are real and present and visible using math.

You’re being pretentious now. Like, you’re sort of an idiot.

>>96124775
It’s the epistemology fag who can’t cope with the fact that scientism is the winning side.

>>96124797
Epistemology? It’s kind of hard to argue that there’s a better alternative to science lol. Like, any other sort of epidemiological idea still takes place within spacetime, or causality. Science is inseparable from all. By default anything that exists will have a background to it. Science. If anything has a happening to it, it’s science, causality.

Come on, if you're going to keep bumping a thread with inane discussions, at least don't do it in a fuckee thread.

>>96124857
The different forms of cancer are having tumor babies with one another

>>96124902
Hot. Let it continue. For science.

>>96124820
In my world, magic is just basically a form of technology not fully understood. Because it's all nanobots in the air from a long dead civilization.

>>96124935
That’s fine. That’s even expected. I like you.

Consider that 99.99% of magic systems in fiction can be chalked up to sufficiently advanced technology indistinguishable from nature. Why? Magic is always far too convenient or far too constructed for the sake of the narrative or world. It’s all artificially considerate, or considered, by the author. The variables and parameters are just too much. It’s too machine like.

Fantasy is more advanced than science fiction proper. The more advanced and sophisticated something is, the smaller it becomes. Computers once took up whole rooms. What if technology eventually becomes indistinguishable from nature? What happens when nature takes shape in ways evolution wouldn’t originally allow for? What if evolution -wasn’t- a blind idiot and didn’t cause evolutionary dead ends or bottlenecks? What if nature responded to your actions? What if it entertained religion? Human sacrifice?

Consider that AI is much less complex than biological life and can still absolutely wreck the best humans at chess. Extend it to hypothetically biologically supported technology and you’ve just created a true fucking monster.

Spells have always looked and behaved like AI to me. Life. Magic is Alive.

>>96124965
Screencapping this post for later

>>96125015
>>96125042
Duality of man

>>96124775
>No. It doesn’t. Physics deals with what is real
But we're not talking physics, we're talking the existential philosophy position of Materialism, the moved-on-from premise of science as we know it.

>>96124820
>It’s kind of hard to argue that there’s a better alternative to science lol.
It's trivial to argue there are things outside science when you're not a totalizing midwit insisting on ignoring where ideas come from and how the professionals relate them.

>>96124965
Only if you have a functionally psychotic insistence upon our rules of reality in counterfactuals deliberately constructed to follow what was disproven.

>>96125138
I’m blocking you. Blocked.

I like to imagine college students in fantasy as kind of budding and out of their depth like IRL.

>>96106229 (OP)
Been trying to find a group to run this with:
Magic is common enough for a single school of magic to exist, for lack of a better name, I call it Hogwarts on steroids.
The place is mostly a way to pool wizard's political power so they don't get wrecked by other factions or murdered on the cradle
They also bleed out the nobility out of money teaching children simple spells and try to raise them to be more respectful of the Academy than any King
The teachers are a bunch of borderline sociopathic geezers: each one thinks they are borderline inmortal and untouchable, unwilling to let go of their seats, they are in no hurry of getting shoved off by the next generation, making the place extremely dangerous, most students don't graduate and those that do are scarred or have the personality of a 4chan user
So I just need a party willing to be mostly magic users
>squishy, bound to die by the dozen, magic users

>>96127619
Look up "The Warrior's Heir," part of a great trilogy. The way wizards are trained in their world is a great take on "Secret, but strong enough to nuke a city."

>>96113341
Isn't all magic arcane?

>>96126506
>Fantasy is just the IRL world with minimal reskinning
Boring

How would you write a setting where you start and end with 1 on 1 teaching but with a period of schooling in the middle

>>96129091
I would do something along the lines of a gifted apprentice that is sent to a academy to have access to tools that are hard to get on their own and maybe find other Master to learn skills their current master isn't good at and maybe get scouted by groups and nations.

>>96128973
Not if the writers are stupid

>>96128973
I think the problem is that Zoomers are illiterate so they don't actually know what the fuck the term "arcane" even means. To them it just means "magic". Which is not what it means. At all.

Arcane means old and obscure. Like in the way that an antique gadget for fastening the buttons of your shoes is weird and forgotten now because shoes no longer have dozens of buttons all the way up your calf. Or in the way that wig powder isn't really a thing because people don't just wear wigs by default in their everyday costume. It's old and obscure and forgotten aspects of a time now lost to history. That's what arcane means.

And no, it is not synonymous with "eldritch". Eldritch means weird and unnatural in the way that a fever-induced hallucination has an aura of disturbing surreality to it. Contact with some experience that is incompatible with reality is eldritch - it inspires a disquieting sense that your lived experience is incomplete and cannot construct meaning within an evidently greater and more fundamental truth.

Misuing the term "arcane" is part of why there's so many misunderstandings surrounding the foundations of fantasy in particular in gaming spaces.

>>96131149
>Zoomers
it's not a generational thing, there are illiterate retards in all generations.
a related example could be how "mancy" has been used to turn anything into a type of magic, when it meant "divination", so even using "necromancy" for creating animated slaves out of corpses/skellies is dumb.

>>96131149
It's the classic living tongue languages often change the meanings of their words or forget what they could mean due to memes.
>>96131179
You not wrong. This isn't a Zoomers thing and Boomers are just as bad at this shit. Hell they might be worse since at least most of the zoomers keep track of why things are the way they are with "know your meme" and all. Where many of the boomers memes and changes are badly explained if at all losing the joke or reference if not changed just to push some agenda.

>>96131149
>Arcane means old and obscure.
The issue you note is largely resolved simply by replacing "and" with "or", as the association with magic revolves around some degree of priviledged knowledge distinguished from "occult" by being fine for "mere" ivory-tower effect instead of being hidden away in some manner of secret society.

Can a magic uni have a sort of Hogwarts “Arcane” feel to it?

>>96106307
This

>>96128973
>Isn't all magic arcane?
Depends on what you mean by arcane.
If you mean secret, obscure, esoteric knowledge, then maybe, but that depends on whether the magic and spellcraft is secret, obscure, or esoteric.
There are other meanings of the term, such as D&D's jargonized version denoting magic that isn't divine or Pathfinder 2es Matter+Mind Essence spellcraft tradition.

In some settings it may be esoteric but not secret or obscure. And depending on system there may be other magical traditions that are not Arcane or arcane.

The problem with people who complain about D&Ds arcane magic is that they are idiots who do not understand jargon or that there may be specific definitions that do not match the colloquial definition in specific areas, much like how creationists confuse theory and the scientific definition of theory. What I'm saying is that there are idiots like creationists here but for magic and game settings.

Basically, language evolves and is not static. Pissing and whinging about -mancy moving on from divination to denoting magical schools or arcane evolving into other meanings besides esoteric, obscure, or secret or other terms being "misused" in games and fantasy writing is just severe autism and/or idiocy.

>>96134905
It's not a bad thing in theory but every time I've seen arcane used as some form of magic it's always the kind of shitty incestous fantasy settings that's only inspired by other modern fantasy, like Warcraft. Even worse if it's represented as some form of glowy purple or blue energy. You can tell the writer has never had an original thought in their life and they're not even stealing from the good stuff.

>>96131149
>Arcane means old and obscure.
>It's old and obscure and forgotten aspects of a time now lost to history. That's what arcane means.
It doesn’t necessarily imply old, although age can reinforce it. It just means hidden and obscure and out of your initiation.

>And no, it is not synonymous with "eldritch"
Depends on what you mean by eldritch. If it is weird or sinister then it’s not understood well enough and thus occult, another word for obscurity, like esoteric. The supernatural is occult by default as it implies a vital lack of understanding.

>Eldritch means weird and unnatural in the way that a fever-induced hallucination has an aura of disturbing surreality to it
It has nothing to do with madness or hallucinating, in fact. Seeing tentacles isn’t “Lovecraftian” either.

>>96131149
>Contact with some experience that is incompatible with reality is eldritch - it inspires a disquieting sense that your lived experience is incomplete and cannot construct meaning within an evidently greater and more fundamental truth.
Some would describe this as esoteric, or even an afterthought of mysticism. This incompatibility is personal, not reality. It’s confronting yourself.

>>96134905
>The problem with people who complain about D&Ds arcane magic is that they are idiots who do not understand jargon or that there may be specific definitions that do not match the colloquial definition in specific areas

This is pure cope. If I see shit like Magus being used to refer to battle-mages like in Pathfinder I WILL point out how retarded it is, sorry. That setting is also connected to the real world btw, and Baba Yaga is a real character. Everyone speaks English.

Also, you CAN interpret D&D’s Arcane as something denoting mystery—at least in settings like the Forgotten Realms, where Mystra’s favor is tied to pushing the limits of magic, discovering new or lost spells, etc.

But, all fiction can be chalked up to being sourced to beyond the fourth wall, and all its linguistical (this isn’t a word) influences, no matter how much it makes nerds want to cry, or piss and shit their pants, or try to spin words differently.

Then again I’m quite biased, and I’m all for words like “magic” being loose or soft descriptions of things, without clear or without-irony definitions, but some words you just don’t tamper with.

I guess I’m criticizing peoples ideas for being stupid, or sensational, superficial, etc, rather than sensible. “It sounded cool so I used the word without thinking on it much…”. Yeah, fuck you.

Arcane means understood by few; mysterious or secret. It overlaps with the occult, the esoteric, but also mysticism.

>>96134905
>Basically, language evolves and is not static. Pissing and whinging about -mancy moving on from divination to denoting magical schools or arcane evolving into other meanings besides esoteric, obscure, or secret or other terms being "misused" in games and fantasy writing is just severe autism and/or idiocy.

Kind of hard to avoid criticism when most fictions are heavily modelled after the western, English mindset, and dictionary influences being Western/English.

Sure, you’re free to rape words, but don’t be mad if someone gets upset.

If your fantasy setting involves primarily English speakers, even the fictional races or exotic ethnicities, then I’m allowed to be a picky bitch. That level of silliness is obviously being injected into the wordplay as well. I’m not having it.

>>96131149
Nice post anon, probable wouldn't be able to put it in words like you did

>>96133622
In Hogwarts case the arcane comes from the magical society itself being concealed by wizards, someone ran the numbers and the wixen to muggle population ratio was minuscule, specialized knowledge within the society also looked to be secrets within secrets

>>96135281
>That setting is also connected to the real world btw,
Yes I know, I played Die Rapsutin, Die!.
>and Baba Yaga is a real character.
Yes I know, shes from ancient Russia, taught spellcraft by a Norn.
>Everyone speaks English.
Nope. The Devs have said that its explicitly not English.
Common is a Taldan-based trade language, at least in Avistan and surrounding regions. In Tian Xia Common is Tien, the language of the notChina Empire that broke apart. In Garund its Mwangi. In certain APs, such as Blood Lords, its Osiriani or another local language.

>but some words you just don’t tamper with.
Unfortunately for you there are no words that cannot be tampered with. There will be new definitions and alterations, like literally becoming an intensifier or even an antonym of itself instead of meaning exact or literal. Arcane has long had another meaning in D&D and other ttrpgs and has solidified a new definition meaning a certain style of magic and spellcraft.

>If I see shit like Magus being used to refer to battle-mages like in Pathfinder I WILL point out how retarded it is
And I don't care how buttmad you get about the name, it now also refers to a specific style of spell sword and not just Zoroastrian priests. Besides that, zoroastrian priests don't exist on Golarion, so using a name that happens to be similar is perfectly fine. At least for myself, I dont pronounce them the same anyway, Mag-us for the priests and Maj-us for the class.

>>96135344
>but don’t be mad if someone gets upset.
I dont get mad, I just dismiss them as retards or autists. I don't really give a shit if your mad about people not using the words in a prescriptivist way. For me, its just another definition among many. But I understand that sometimes people have lower IQs or are ESL and need singular simple definitions for words, despite many having multiple and sometimes being contradictory.

>>96135597
>Nope. The Devs have said that its explicitly not English.
And yet it's English.

>>96135609
It's presented as English as a translation convention from in-setting to out-of-universe. The proper angle to argue is not that the words are literally English, but that the authors should insist the English description be an accurate translation of the under-specified in-universe terminology.

At a certain point the counterfactual elements of the setting demand some degree of jargon use of real English for lack of a true phenomenon to refer to the terminology of as with the Arcane/Divine categorization of spellcasting, but these should be minimized, carefully considered, and noted to avoid misunderstandings.

>>96135609
Are you retarded or just being intentionally obtuse.
Of course the fucking game is in English, its played by and written by fucking Americans, who speak English. The Lord of the Rings is in English but Tolkien has literally stated that none of them spoke English. The same is true of the Forgotten Realms, with Elminster translating everything for Greenwood to publish it in English.

>>96135663
>>96135669
I guarantee you, had Netflix picked up an animated Pathfinder special, everyone would be speaking English in-setting. Prooobably.

>>96135685
>everyone would be speaking English in-setting
You are retarded then. Its a major conceit and a point of suspension of disbelief that all the big fantasy settings are using languages that do not exist on Earth and that what we read or hear is a translation. I get that your unable to conceive of this beyond your own limited surface understanding, but you must remember, youre a sub 80 IQ retard and everyone else isn't.

>>96135685
You appear to have a poor grasp of how the fiction boundary works. Simply getting ahold of appropriate foreign language speaking actors is difficult, and even attempting conlangs for the "true" in-setting speech is nonsense to the incredibly vast majority of projects.

There is a SLIGHT chance that neural network voice generators can fulfil the former, but the latter is decidedly out-of-scope of any LLM paradigm.

>>96135712
>>96135719
Admit it. You live in an English dominate world.

>>96135920
...And? Doesn't change that it's merely a translation convention for fictional other-worlds to be portrayed with it than its use being the literal in-setting case.

>wonderfaggot and puckee in the same thread
What a treat!

>>96135554
>In Hogwarts case the arcane comes from the magical society itself being concealed by wizards, someone ran the numbers and the wixen to muggle population ratio was minuscule, specialized knowledge within the society also looked to be secrets within secrets
That makes sense honestly

>>96135712
>I get that your
you’re*

>everyone speaks English!
>no it’s just for ease of storytelling
Nah it’s just lazy

>jargon
>monist
>epistemology
>games?
Oh god it’s this retard ruining the board again

>>96108011
>until the mods perma him
He sucks mod cock, never gonna happen.

>>96138046
Conlangs are not a remotely reasonable expectation.

>>96138266
>includes "game?" in "ruining the board" list
Revealing yourself for far worse retard.

>>96106229 (OP)
By decree of the King the astrologer academy must seek talented people to guide in the path of stargazing. The academy, directed by the arch magus must test their students loyalty to the crown if they wish to advance their studies, those they are forced the adventuring in name of the crown.

They can rank up through the academy if they wish, but it becomes more political as many academics wish to travel the world to further their studies, but the by ruling of the fifth arch magus sigismund learning too much is a danger to society and using the technology of more advanced civilizations could doom the world.

The academy is further divided by the dogmatics who only see gnosism through the stars, the sigismund followers who study gravity magic and the hereticals who study otherworldy magic.

>>96138266
I like to think there are several retards ruining the board.

>>96139965
This is cool

>>96138266
might just be fuckee imitating other posters' style to bump his shitty thread.
just look at this >>96106405

>>96140638
That’s the most schizo shit I’ve read all day

>>96122046
This anon is Hermeticpilled. Based.

>>96141731
Stop responding to yourself wonderfag.

>>96143299
Stop calling everyone who knows the recipe to magic wonderfag, wonderfagfag.

Bump,

>>96109749
no

>>96106328
>Being able to cast any magic at all requires being able to perform a ritual to destroy a part of your own soul first
How did the first magician figure that out? He presumably invented the ritual in a world where nobody had ever done magic, so what was he even attempting to do?

>>96116492
>Reversing sex
Is that when the girl puts her vagina inside the boy's penis?

>>96121530
Every single academic that isn't a pop scientist that talks to the unwashed masses is either a deeply spiritual person or an active worshipper of an existing religion. LITERALLY no atheists.

Likewise, Gnostics don't hate nature. Some aspects of nature, like the beauty found in it, or the cooperation across species is the sparks of the divine "bleeding through" the trap of Yaldabaoth. A Gnostic knows that if the demiurge were toppled, the whole world would be as beautiful as that.

>>96153645
Yeah but seeing nature and existence as something divine or godlike is a downright heretical stance. "Haha he believes in a floating spaghetti monster". "I never said that". "Haha yes you did".

>>96153895
What the fuck? No it isn't. Who are you even quoting?

>>96154227
Lol. I once said to an old professor of mine: “if you don’t see nature as divine or magical then you don’t truly love or value nature or science, do you?”, and he lost it on me big time. Not my fault the sad old man can’t see the surviving wonder and beauty and mystery, and thus magic, in life.

>>96154278
Why are they like this?

>>96153645
God, you're dumb.

>>96154278
>>96154287
I'll take "Things That Didn't Happen" for 500, samefag.

>>96154287
Atheism mostly. They cannot see a force of beauty it gives them a sort of cognitive dissonance so their amygdala freaks out.

>>96154298
stfu fatty, you've never seen a vagoo irl

>>96153645
>Likewise, Gnostics don't hate nature.
Yes they do.

>>96154311
nope

>>96154334
You don’t know what Gnosticism is, then.

>>96154381
A) Considering I'm a Gnostic that's unlikely
B) Which version of Gnosticism? There's at least 5.

>>96106229 (OP)

I basically take the mythological/historical Solomonari and make them edgier

>>96154563
Well, Hermeticism and Gnosticism, while both rooted in Greco-Roman mystery traditions emphasizing esoteric knowledge for salvation, differ in their roles and their views on the material world and humanity's relationship with it.

Hermeticism generally takes a more optimistic view, seeing the material world as a reflection of the divine and a tool for spiritual development, to ascend and unite with divine Godhead, while Gnosticism (often) views the material world as inherently flawed, or even evil, requiring escape from it, or transcendence.

Both seek to ascend/transcend in their own ways.

>>96153566
experimentation, the first sorcerers were people desperately to find a way to survive through an apocalyptic event

>>96106229 (OP)
If you're lucky the spaceships will take you.

>>96106229 (OP)
Its something mother's pass on to their son's friends.

>>96156039
based motherfucker

>>96121530
kek

>>96106239
fpbp

>>96135300
Hmm. Seems like a hard to define word

>>96154299
That's correct. +500 to you

>>96167101
kek

>>96106229 (OP)
bump

I rather like the idea offered by the Practical Guide To Evil.

It takes a lot to make a wizard. Schooling, talent, resources, food, lodging, etc.

You know what's easier than that? Teaching them how to make a fireball, how to heal, and how to follow orders with twenty other knuckleheads so they can do volleys and patch up other people.

>>96169855
the Practical Guide To Evil?

It works like Resident Evil. Insane scientists that are borderline sorcerers and cult leaders. Usually biological horrors abuse.

>>96172587
So how often are the students killing their teachers and trigger revenge that destroys an entire town?

>>96106565
???

>>96171763
https://practicalguidetoevil.wordpress.com/table-of-contents/

A bit of light reading, for your spare time.

>>96172622
Often. It's like the typical Sith master and apprentice relationship.

>>96172587
Re4 will always be the best one.

>>96106229 (OP)
You go to magic school for 7 year then get an appreciation with a mage certified by you countries maging guild. If you don't get picked you have 3 options: apply to be a page and become a mage's employee while waiting to resubmit for appreciation, get work outside the guild as an adventurer or criminal (sometimes you can become certified this way), or quit magic.

>>96178358
Remake sucks thobeit

>>96106239
Once again, fpbp. If magic isn’t secret, or arcane, esoteric, occult, etc, or whatever, then it’s not really magic is it? Just calling something magic isn’t good enough.

>>96187397
A disenchantment narrative is not at all contradictory with any of the terms you argue are required of magic, as every single one of them works just fine as mere privileged information absent any sense of wonder.

>>96187621
>A disenchantment narrative is not at all contradictory
Go ahead. Call a cellphone magic.

>>96187621
>mere privileged information l
Something out of one’s initiation? Some would describe this as esoteric.
>absent any sense of wonder
Whether it’s absent wonder/mystery is up to the witnesser. Even eldritch knowledge won’t necessarily drive one mad. It really depends on the mind that parses it.

>>96187828
Nope. The point I am countering is that the "academia" structure is mutually exclusive with "magic" due to a "disenchantment narrative". This doesn't entail exactly real-life technologies, it is merely asserting the logical validity of the quite common "magic academy" trope.

>>96187847
>Something out of one’s initiation? Some would describe this as esoteric.
And? Nothing to do with the meaning of "enchantment" or "wonder" you push.

>Whether it’s absent wonder/mystery is up to the witnesser
But it remains secret/arcane/occult/esoteric/etc for those who do not view it with wonder and are not enchanted by it, as that list of terms regards the relative position of the information in the society's overall set instead of personal experience. Thus the disenchantment narrative is irrelevant.

>>96187906
>Nothing to do with the meaning of "enchantment" or "wonder" you push.
Are you sure about that?

“Ever wonder what goes on behind those closed doors, Timmy?”
“Oh crap, it turns out it’s a lot more awesome than I ever expected!”

>But it remains secret/arcane/occult/esoteric/etc for those who do not view it with wonder and are not enchanted by it
Why do you think it’s considered secret or occult or arcane at all? To begin with? Because it’s not secret or it doesn’t enchant minds enough to pursue it? That it’s not mysterious? It has nothing to do with the ineffable? Do you even know what western esotericism is/was? Do you not know what mysticism is? ALL religion contains mysticism. Mystery is in the fucking word. “I wonder…”, “Wonderful!”, etc. You can’t exit separate wonder from mystery, or mystery from magic, or from religion.

>>96189194
>You can’t exit
You can’t even*

>>96187906
>But it remains secret/arcane/occult/esoteric/etc for those who do not view it with wonder and are not enchanted by it
Is it mysterious? Then you wonder about it. You’ve been charmed.

>>96189194
>“I wonder…”, “Wonderful!”, etc
This right here is why religion happened at all. “It’s so amazing it’s clearly the gods!”.

>>96189349
Imagine if the cavemen went “yeah idk they could be anything” instead of “clearly those white dots are where the gods live”.

>>96189372
They could have, and probably did, but the earlier cavemen who claimed the stars as the gods already put forth a terrible precedent. “Why should I second guess our elders? They clearly know what they’re talking about. Their own elders told them!”.

>>96189194
>Are you sure about that?
Are you sure it HAS TO BE per your following hypothetical? Yours is the totalizing position requiring only a single counter-example to disprove, after all.

>Mystery is in the fucking word.
And is not wholly synonymous with "wonder", hence being a differnet word used in different cases like "mysticism".

>“I wonder…”, “Wonderful!”, etc.
Just like the "Awesome/Awful" divergence, the shared root does not entail a singular meaning.

>You can’t exit separate wonder from mystery, or mystery from magic, or from religion.
Of course I can, because I'm not a totalizing midwit who insists on prescribing singular meanings to words according to autistic reductions.

>>96189334
The meanings of "mystery" and "charm" are divergent to the meanings of this list of words in the context of concrete academic approaches to magic.

>>96190189
>And is not wholly synonymous with "wonder",
And yet it’s still inseparable. Mystery ties in with wonder, and wonder ties in with mystery. It’s unavoidable, really.

>Just like the "Awesome/Awful" divergence, the shared root does not entail a singular meaning.
Um, ackchyually, the word "awful" is etymologically derived from the word "awe", just like awesome, and initially "awful" meant "filled with awe" or "inspiring awe," but its meaning has shifted over time to encompass negative connotations like "terrible" or "bad", as a negative counterpart of awe. Awe that is bad.

>Of course I can
No you can’t. Mystery denotes “I wonder…”, and wonder is often felt at the edges of our understanding, the edges of our experiences, etc. Magic IS a matter of the unfamiliar. It starts religion. Mystery (mysticism) is at the beating heart of all religion. Faith has never required truth. Ignorance is a form of art.

>because I'm not a totalizing midwit
You say it’s totalizing. I say it’s thinking holistically.

>>96191353
>And yet it’s still inseparable
Not if you open a dictionary to compare their meanings. One of each overlapping does not change that others differ. I reject your semantic argument.

>but its meaning has shifted over time to encompass negative connotations like "terrible" or "bad", as a negative counterpart of awe.
...Yes, that is in fact my point in bringing it up. It demonstrates that the existence of a roughly synonymous meaning of "wonder" and "mystery" does not necessarily extend to "mysticism".

>Magic IS a matter of the unfamiliar
Most dictionaries and /tg/ discussion disagree, and as definitions for common use are descriptive this makes you wrong.

>You say it’s totalizing. I say it’s thinking holistically.
Both are invalid, because the points I am arguing rely on the differences. Ignoring them is sinply refusing to address them. Once again, you are Not Even Wrong, because you do not meet the most basic requirements to have a chance of being correct. You keep using semantic arguments as counter-points, something FUNDAMENTALLY logically invalid as it is an overt refusal of common terms as is necessary for discourse.

>>96191780
>Most dictionaries and /tg/ discussion disagree
See, this is where I know you’re bullshitting, since magic in present day is just as much stage magic logic as it is an accusation of hocus pocus or the claim of supernaturality - which RUNS on stage magic logic, and is really, essentially, just another veil or curtain on a stage(reality), metaphorically speaking.

All this shit can be reduced to its bare essences. You just hate that fact. I really don’t know why it bums you so hard.

>>96191815
>See, this is where I know you’re bullshitting
Then show me the dictionaries that offer only adverb definitions compatible with your usage.

>since magic in present day
We are on /tg/, a board for discussing games that tend toward archaic understandings of magic, not /x/, the board for modern views of the paranormal. Yet again Not Even Wrong, yet again refusing to engage the point.

>All this shit can be reduced to its bare essences.
But doing so makes it impossible to discuss the particulars that determine how you WRITE A FUCKING GAME.

>/v/
>puckee
>bumpfag
Peak nogames thread

>>96191850
>Then show me the dictionaries that offer only adverb definitions compatible with your usage.
I didn’t realize you need definitions for the sky being blue. I didn’t realize you were that stupid. Sorry.

>>96191850
>But doing so makes it impossible to discuss the particulars that determine how you WRITE A FUCKING GAME.
All things are constructed and all things are broken down. Even games. We are allowed to talk about inspiration, and not a given game.

>>96191850
>a board for discussing games that tend toward archaic understandings of magic
So ignorance? Stage magic. Superstition has always been ignorance. Supernatural is an oxymoron of a word based around exposure logic and unfamiliarity. Nothing is truly supernatural. It’s a black box that is white within
>not /x/
The occult is based on archaic esoteric thought, you fuck.

>>96191982
>Nothing is truly supernatural.
His problem is that he wants something to be magic/supernatural no matter what. That it will always be seen as magic, anti nature, etc.

>>96191882
I loathe that the mods allow this slop to keep on existing

>>96192033
What’s funny too is that the ancients didn’t necessarily see magic or the gods as unnatural either. To them it was just the way the world worked. What was unnatural was a moral or cultural opinion.

>>96191894
It is not stupidity. It is looking at dictionaries and noticing words often have more than one definition. So when a totalizing midwit barges into every thread vaguely related about magic to screech about his One True Meaning it triggers me immensely, because that One True Meaning is not actually useful for/tg/ matters, because it does not permit resolving into particular meanings to write rules for.

>>96191948
Explain how you construct game rules with the Magic=Wonder prescription to show that it is CAPABLE of moving forward to a game instead of being totalizing midwit screeching about underpinnings at an unusable offset form game logic.

>>96191982
Again, Not Even Wrong. The basis of the counterfactual is that the archaic understanding is MORE accurate than the modern one. Engage in these terms or shut the fuck up.

>>96192033
No, I want the words to have settled particular meanings within the game context so that I can WRITE A FUCKING RULE for it instead of deal with a screeching midwit arguing the words don't mean what the rules require them to to function because of horribly misapplied sociology and etymology.

>>96192238
>The basis of the counterfactual is that the archaic understanding is MORE accurate than the modern one.
This is like saying the science of the past is more accurate than the science of the future. We know how magic - or more accurately the logic behind something being magic - works. We apply it everywhere in creative writing today. Magic systems galore. It's a very common topic in fiction. It's different for everyone. Magic isn't the same in every fiction. We're constructing it. We're playing with perceptions.

>>96192238
>No, I want the words to have settled particular meanings within the game context so that I can WRITE A FUCKING RULE for it instead of deal with a screeching midwit arguing the words don't mean what the rules require them to to function because of horribly misapplied sociology and etymology.
It seems like you're focusing solely on the gameplay aspect, and not the roleplaying aspect, where people are allowed to use logic. Sure, names and labels in a game work, but they may still be ironic in the lore/setting, and this enables good roleplay even. You're allowed to point out that a cleric is technically also a magic-user, like the enchanter, etc. Some fictions might also be written worse or with less thought than others. Pointing out that the supernatural is still technically natural might be a cool roleplaying position for a hard grey logician type of character, but it doesn't overwrite the label or name, for the sake of the game.

>>96193472
>This is like saying the science of the past is more accurate than the science of the future.
Not, it's like saying that the non-real setting intentionally diverges from real life science by declaring things like Luniniferous Aether theory correct as a counterfactual to the IRL disproofs.

>We know how magic - or more accurately the logic behind something being magic - works.
Incorrect, because you keep asserting the sociology jargon to the exclusion of the deliberate archaism taking it as objective, if obfuscated, phenomena. These are utterly incompatible meanings of the word, and so insisting on the former continues to be Not Even Wrong.

>It's different for everyone.
This is the point in contention; you cannot assert this inside the context of a particular fiction without losing the ability to have solid game rules for it. The particular meaning a setting uses is a case of jargon, one which very rarely involves anything like "the psychology of magic" drivel that keeps shitting up these threads.

>>96193518
I don't care, I have witnessed far too much RAW debates go fucking nowhere over disagreements on what key words mean to allow twisting them ANYWHERE in the session. For the rule to hold, its hardness must extend to the setting itself, making your bullshit simply wrong.

>>96193894
>Incorrect, because you keep asserting the sociology jargon to the exclusion of the deliberate archaism taking it as objective, if obfuscated, phenomena.
>deliberate archaism taking it as objective, if obfuscated, phenomena
Okay.
>This is the point in contention; you cannot assert this inside the context of a particular fiction without losing the ability to have solid game rules for it.
Okay.

So you agree that the logic behind magic ("magic") is that it's just a viewpoint, but you're saying that this has no bearing on making a game functional.

Is that what you're saying?

>>96193999
>So you agree that the logic behind magic ("magic") is that it's just a viewpoint
A broad category with many subsets is not necessarily "a viewpoint", it can very easily be, and in several of the common use definitions of "magic" is, the case that some subsets are narrow and objective enough to be unambiguous game terms. This often requires a glossary establishing the precise meaning in use, but that's just good practice when writing rules in natural language to minimize ambiguity.

>Is that what you're saying?
I'm saying that because it doesn't work for game rules it's an inappropriate body of definitions for the /tg/ context.

>>96193472
>This is like saying the science of the past is more accurate than the science of the future
It will be in a generation or two. Higher carbon dioxide PPM and Global Browning will make sure of it.

>>96193518
>It seems like you're focusing solely on the gameplay aspect, and not the roleplaying aspect
Ding ding ding he's truly awful

Bumpworts, school for bumping and thread saging.

regular humans are biologically identical to those in our world, which means they don't have any magic inside them. No fireballs or flying or ki blasts or breathing fire.
They can still make use of external magic items, but that's the difference between using an airplane vs having wings.
One day roughly every six years (historical sources say that it used to be longer, the interval between visits is getting shorter) a massive red comet is visible to the naked eye and, with the right preparation, at the right altitude, at the right locations, at the right time, grants anyone who can manage it just enough power to perform a single minor spell. Not a lot and not for a long time, which is why the orthodox practice is using that brief window and single spell to secure future power, usually by summoning and entering into a relationship with some magical entity, be it a familiar, blood pact, demonic contract, or ancestral inheritance. The most popular and accessible locations where said rituals can be performed are the closest thing to "magic schooling", but their primary purpose is minimizing conflict amongst attendees rather than providing education. They're not really magic schools so much as DMZs to prevent everyone killing each other to monopolize them.

An extremely small number of individuals who, through whatever circumstances (accident, purposeful experimentation, inheritance), were not born as regular humans but with internal magic are able to wield it freely and are what are usually considered "wizards" or "mages" and they exclusively operate under master-apprentice relationships, there's extremely few proper wizards and they're all extremely jealous and protective of their apprentices and messing with one is the equivalent to threatening a strategic-tier military asset.

>>96198208
Go. Leave.

>>96197055
No, I'm asserting that the mechanics must supercede the role play for it to be a game, and as almost everything about this is corrosive to the fixing of meanings rules require it is Not Even Wrong.

Forcing ironies by twisting words by comparing actively incompatible contextual meanings of them is not "higher logic", it's totalizing midwittery that fails to actually wrap its head around the ambiguity of natural language.

>>96200011
>I'm asserting that the mechanics must supercede the role play for it to be a game
Stop meta gaming.

>>96106307
>friends
Friends inevitably betray you. The longest friendship I ever saw lasted about 10 years, before the guy fucked his friend's wife. 99.99999% of people are opportunistic shits just waiting for an opportunity to exploit either you or your allies/associates. Real friendship doesn't actually exist. Temporary alliances and mutual amusement are the best you will ever find. There is no loyalty. There is no real friendship. There is no love. There is no toothfairy. There is no fucking Easter bunny. God isn't real and all your idiotic notions are born of ignorance of reality. Hopefully that bit of truth saves you future misery.

>>96203271
God is real and my proof is that I made him the fuck up.
Seethe and cope with the rest of the sniveling, backstabbing cowards you nihilist faggot.

>>96200011
Whether one takes story over game is a personal matter.

>>96106229 (OP)
Why was the image removed

>>96205279
puckee presumably got banned for spamming his images everywhere

>>96121530
>>96154300
I sure do look like that.

I'm an atheist, and that's a very strange strawman. I think nature is absolutely beautiful and wonderful and, if we're playing fast and loose with definitions, "magical". I just don't see why there needs to be some kind of external entity behind all of it, or some spooky spiritual component backing it. If anything, I find it vastly more interesting that all of this was the result of a simple set of rules and billions of years of iteration, as opposed to it all being plopped down all at once by a god/the gods.

>>96153645
I don't think that's true.

>>96205631
>If anything, I find it vastly more interesting that all of this was the result of a simple set of rules and billions of years of iteration
Yeah it’s pretty magical. Pretty godlike.
>as opposed to it all being plopped down all at once by a god/the gods.
That’s just aliens. Spacetime/evolution would be a tool like anything else.

>>96205757
>Yeah it’s pretty magical. Pretty godlike.
Sure. But god isn't a necessary part of the equation; he's not needed to explain any of it. Even the unmoved mover can be disposed of by cyclical time.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't believe in god, by the way. I personally haven't had any religious experiences, but I'm not you. Honestly, I'm glad to have a diversity of perspectives. The point is that you don't need to be religious to find beauty and wonder in the world.

>>96206205
>But god isn't a necessary part of the equation
Nowhere did I say this. I’m saying you’re a fool if you think the cosmos isn’t disgustingly vast and uncaring and totally unaware of us. Evolution is an overly sophisticated blind idiot, a la Azathoth.

>I'm not saying that you shouldn't believe in god
Believing in God is a variant of believing in aliens. A really, really big alien.

>>96206774
Reported for underage reddit poster

>>96206787
Sorry for causing your brain to freak the fuck out. You’re apparently too stupid to understand that something either comes about intelligently or unintelligently. There is no third option.

Or maybe it’s the God thing? Why is this upsetting? He is by definition an alien, or an extra terrestrial; he predates his own creation; he is larger than the terrestrial sphere.

>Believing in God is a variant of believing in aliens

Tell a double digit iq Christian that their God is an alien and they’ll yell at you.

Tell a triple digit iq Christian that their God is an alien and they’ll nod at you.

>>96206820
Reported again, maybe lurk more to understand the board culture better

>>96206851
I accept your concession. Also announcing reports is against this site’s rules. :^)

>>96106229 (OP)
Universities. It's modern fantasy mind you, the whole system is, and only arcane magic is taught there. Divine magic must be given by the gods, and cannot be used any other way.


>>96203271
Go be depressed somewhere else you fag, Friendship and loyalty are very real, you're just an angry, lonely little man who is incapable of forming real bonds with people.

>>96206870
Reddit is still around the corner, faggot

>>96206851
>maybe lurk more to understand the board culture better
Not him but
>please please PLEASE preserve my circlejerk
is not a good look, regardless of views.

Also, as someone who started using the site well over a decade ago and is returning from an extended leave, the notion the notion that christianity is now "board culture" on /tg/, or really any board that isn't /pol/ is extraordinarily funny in a way that's most certainly lost on you.

>>96207187
You can stop samefagging, anon, it's not healthy

>>96205757
>That’s just aliens. Spacetime/evolution would be a tool like anything else.
Sure, if you completely ignore all the stuff about Prime Movers and Uncaused Causes...

>>96207698
>Sure, if you completely ignore all the stuff about Prime Movers and Uncaused Causes...
Infinite regress can be solved using looped logic. There is no original turtle and there never has been one.

>>96207712
>Infinite regress can be solved using looped logic.
...And why is just shrugging and accepting infinite regress a valid counter-argument to axiom?

>>96207734
Anon, everything everywhere every when existing all at once is essentially looped infinite regress that supports and reinforces itself. You can’t just say the original universe didn’t have a lead up, so you can only assume it’s a loop of self perpetuating ones.

>>96207698
>Uncaused Causes...
Anyone who isn’t a moron knows this can’t be. Probabilistic cunts like Bohr are damaging historical figures. Einstein was right, and there -are- (non-local) hidden variables, and superdeterminism is just… determinism. It was always deterministic.

>>96207743
>You can’t just say the original universe didn’t have a lead up,
Declaring so is an example of an "axiom". The rest of your post is declaring a contradictory one you hold to. In actual higher logic, the ability to consider the implications of alternatives to one's own axioms is vital.

>Anyone who isn’t a moron knows this can’t be.
So you're saying that the very people who devised most of your worldview are morons? Because most of it does in fact come from devout Christians.

>>96207832
>So you're saying that the very people who devised most of your worldview are morons?
I’m saying I agree with Einstein when he says “do you really think the moon disappears when you aren’t facing it?”.

You think there aren’t factions within the scientific community? There are.

>>96207832
>Declaring so is an-
Stopped reading here. The alternative is assuming everything was straight up conjured from nothing. That a white rabbit inside a black hat just appeared before it was put inside of it. That’s counter to the determinist, causal viewpoint that makes up modern day physics, and is partially why Schrödinger’s is so famous/silly.

>>96207832
>Because most of it does in fact come from devout Christians.
If you were aware of history at all, you’d know that the most brilliant people who also doubled as Christians went about their religion their own way. These were the people who saw miracles as magic, or nature as divine/magical. Isaac Newton thought the holy Trinity was for fags, and was a heretic behind closed doors.

Tell a double digit iq Christian that their God is an alien, and they’ll laugh at you.

Tell a triple digit is Christian that their God is an alien, and they’ll agree with you.

The picture in >>96205757 is by the man with the highest iq in America. He believes all religion is just a story, and not to be taken true. But he sees religion as a compatible metaphor in theory. He sees evolution as just another tool used by some higher architect/intellect.

But it’s still physics.

>>96205279
Spamming/flooding is against 4chan's global rules.

>>96207875
You have not addressed the point that much if the roots of scientific thought came from avowed monotheists, such that a primary impetus of it were those who thought that the will of the Prime Mover could be derived from the natural law He decided.

>>96207889
>The alternative is assuming everything was straight up conjured from nothing.
Yes, that is the position the Deists who developed much of the scientific method held.

>>96207919
>If you were aware of history at all, you’d know that the most brilliant people who also doubled as Christians went about their religion their own way.
But that way almost always included an element you declare one must be a moron to believe.

>These were the people who saw miracles as magic, or nature as divine/magical.
Only some of them. You dismissed the rest as morons with your fedora-tipping.

>Tell a triple digit is Christian that their God is an alien, and they’ll agree with you.
Or nail your midwit ass to the center of the bell curve meme by explaining in far better detail than my outright misotheist ass can the numerous category errors in your comparisons.

>But it’s still physics.
Not if you use the definition where it is a sub-set of science that does not contain science itself nor the things science is a sub-set of. Just because there is no extant phenomenon you can point to does not entail they be synonymous in the set theory categorization of concepts.

>>96203316
Only cowards fear the truth.

>>96206902
>Lives in a delusional echochamber.
>Thinks that is reality.
When your "friends" inevitably fuck you over, remember to kill yourself over it like every other weakminded simpleton.

>>96208215
So is being a faggot, but here you are.

>>96208282
>Yes, that is the position the Deists who developed much of the scientific method held.
Science evolves. Deal with it. The sun does not revolve around the sun. Reality does not revolve around “and so it just happened”.

>>96208559
The sun does not revolve around the earth*

>>96208469
If it upsets you so much, why not go cry about it in rizon? :)

>>96208559
Is your response to the point that the processes that make science function were made by people meeting the condition you set for "moron" to bluntly confirm it? Are you really saying that science has somehow evolved past its empiricial premises, despite falsifiability and experimental verification remaining major litmus tests for whether a hypothesis is reasonable?

>>96205279
>>96208469
Shed tears over it, puckee.

Bump

>>96209880
>Are you really saying that science has somehow evolved past its empiricial premises
Nope. In fact I hate people who do claim this. There’s always going to be a further frontier, and quantum probabilistic quacks hate that fact.

>>96212672
Then what IS your response to most of the foundational empiricists being extremely devout Christians who did infact believe in a definite First Cause that was an actor who simply willed the rest of existence to be?

>>96212923
>most of the foundational empiricists being extremely devout Christians
I’ve always known this and I’ve always told people this. It’s not the checkmate you think it is. By ‘first cause’ you can just as easily assume God is the Whole. The All, in Hermetic terms. A self supporting loop.

>>96212923
God and religion are irrational responses caused by cultural upbringing. All of those people were religiously indoctrinated before they were scientists. Additionally, just because they were smart in one area does not mean they brought the same scrutiny toward their religious upbringing. There are plenty who need or want a Supreme Father figure in their life, despite any rational reevaluation showing it to be poppycock.

>>96212996
>God and religion are irrational responses caused by cultural upbringing
It’s rationally irrational for humans to be this way, though. Religion is a precursor to science if you consider it an observation-theory matter. They looked to the stars and saw them as gods. Reality is a stage, covered in curtains. Existence is both stage and magician.

>>96106229 (OP)
>How does magic schooling work in your setting?
Depends on the type of magic (Divine, Arcane, Psionic).
Depends on type of usage, such as whether innate (sorcerers, for example) or not, and a psion will learn and use psionics differently from a monk.
Depends on gender, as these are sometimes treated differently, such as witches vs. wizards.
Depends on race, too, as different races have different traditions, such as dwarves relying on runic magic, even though it's arcane.

It fucking depends, OP, you fucking faggot, what did you expect.

>>96212996
Culture is the consequence of biology in its interaction with an environment, you pseudointellectual mongoloid. Irrational responses are not caused by "muh cultural upbringing"; rather, part of culture is caused by our irrational responses founded in biology. Treating humans as rational beings is inherently irrational.

>>96212964
Still refusing to engage the point. The premise of the early empirical Deists was EXPLICITLY "all came after God according to His will, so all that is says something about His will".

>>96212996
>God and religion are irrational responses caused by cultural upbringing.
"Rational" does not mean, or even particularly well align with, "correct". It is fundamentally contingent on one's priors. For the vast majority of human history, there was little ability to contradict the very large body of such comprising recieved wisdom, and so tradition including religion was in fact the most rational course.

>Additionally, just because they were smart in one area does not mean they brought the same scrutiny toward their religious upbringing.
Yes they did, that is precisely why it led to science. But this took centuries of accelerating discoveries and the religious authorities refusing to update inside a lifetime to build the required tension to make prevailing religion irrational.

>There are plenty who need or want a Supreme Father figure in their life, despite any rational reevaluation showing it to be poppycock.
The primary argument of science against God is unfalsifiability. That is, Him being specifically unable to be proven poppycock. You keep demonstrating blank incomprehension of VERY basic elements of the history of science.

>>96213354
>"Rational" does not mean, or even particularly well align with, "correct"
Why are you missing the point so hard?

>>96213354
>You keep demonstrating blank incomprehension of VERY basic elements of the history of science.
Stop projecting your own failures to grasp basic facts of life.

>>96213354
>all came after God according to His will, so all that is says something about His will".
And to justify this, you’d have to assume that God, the All, is some sort of higher dimensional, self contained, self supporting loop, to account for his “I have always been” status. He sees time. He is time.

>>96213777
>777
Ohmygaygod

>>96213753
I'm not, I'm explaining that you are incorrect in calling religion as a whole "irrational" beginning with criticizing what I understand your position to be.

>>96213763
Counter the claim that God is disregarded by science due to unfalsifiability, then.

>>96213777
No, you just have to assume things conclude in axiom instead of circular logic or infinite regress.

>>96213884
>I'm explaining that you are incorrect in calling religion as a whole "irrational"
What? I’m saying religion forming is a rational outcome since it’s a precursor to scientific observation. The learned men of the past were usually priests or other spiritual leaders who interpreted nature.

The religion itself may be irrational, but it’s expected that it would form, regarding humans anyway.

>Counter the claim that God is disregarded by science due to unfalsifiability, then.
Whether God exists is irrelevant to me. Whether he is seen as a God or a higher dimensional being is dependant on the person looking at God. Believing in God is equivalent to believing in aliens—a big big fucking alien.

>No, you just have to assume things conclude in axiom
What? Like math. Causality? Those are axioms. You cannot remove such axioms from fiction as they’re vital building blocks for storytelling. You cannot make a fiction without 1s and 0s, or cause-and-effect.

>>96215841
>I’m saying religion forming is a rational outcome since it’s a precursor to scientific observation.
But still say it is itself irrational:
>The religion itself may be irrational
It is in fact rational itself, according to the commonly-used definition of "rational" regarding sensible behavior in light of available information and desires. There is no separation from it being a "rational outcome", that being the case very nearly guarantees it is itself rational, because as previously mentioned rational beliefs are entirely able to be wrong.

>Whether God exists is irrelevant to me.
I don't care, your previously stated positions include causes for belief and the loss thereof that is inaccurate to my awareness of the history:
>>96212996
>There are plenty who need or want a Supreme Father figure in their life, despite any rational reevaluation showing it to be poppycock.
Substantiate the claim that the widespread rejection in the scientific community is because of an active disproof rather than the onerous difficulty if not outright impossibility of producing such.

>Believing in God is equivalent to believing in aliens—a big big fucking alien.
The rather distinct manner of unfalsifiability of the claims Christianity makes of Him breaks this equivalency quite dramatically. You're not getting a materialist explanation for a LOT of that bullshit without vigorously defiling the meaning of "materialism" far beyond the point that intelligibility of foundational works is lost.

>What? Like math. Causality?
Yet more irrelevant whataboutism. I repeat the post that is a counter to:
>>96213777
>And to justify this, you’d have to assume that God, the All, is some sort of higher dimensional, self contained, self supporting loop, to account for his “I have always been” status
This statement very much relies on circular logic, rather than terminating at God without a prior step as in the axiomatic approach that Christianity typically uses.

>>96207889
Modern physics is not deterministic, retard. Google Bell’s theorem. Modern physics includes significant stochastic elements.

>>96205631
No strawman on this shithole makes sense because they're made by schizos with their own warped perception of the world, but I admire that you both to point it out instead of letting the echo chamber remain
These people seem more soulless because they require imagining you hate something so they can like it, and also need some magic spooky shit in order to continue with their lives(which they very rarely change anyway)

>>96217225
Um, no, Bell proved that reality can’t be both local or real. Non-local physics is a thing, and probabilistic cunts can only cope about it. There are things that move faster than light.

>>96217162
>But still say it is itself irrational
>It is in fact rational itself, according to the commonly-used definition of "rational" regarding sensible behavior in light of available information and desires
You can’t do nuance. Religion is ignorance by definition, seeing as faith does not require truth, but all observation has to start from somewhere. It’s a given.

Are you religious by chance?

>>96217162
>The rather distinct manner of unfalsifiability of the claims Christianity makes of Him breaks this equivalency quite dramatically

No it doesn’t. Believing in something that is bigger than our planet, or sourced away from it, is by definition an alien, or extraterrestrial. A lot of physicists deny the possibility of aliens visiting us. Like how they deny God. They’re scared. It’s very possible there could be intelligences out there that are godlike in comparison to us.

>>96219340
>You can’t do nuance.
No, that's you, totalizing midwit.

>Religion is ignorance by definition
Irrelevant to the matter of whether or not it's rational because rationality merely requires being a good conclusion for the conditions, so there's nothing in the way of incredibly ignorant people being extremely rational. Also wrong, the definitions far more strongly focus on the systematic approach to beliefs than anything implying inaccuracy of them. Your own baffling mutilation of science would quite strongly fit no few of these.

Also, funny thing I ran into when checking this, the term "essence" actually appears in the high-brow discussions! Specifically to note that "religion" doesn't have an agreed-upon or consistent one. Because the term's usage is too broad to reduce into a single meaning. The people with actual jobs in the reductions your totalizing stems from say that it doesn't work for religion.

>Are you religious by chance?
Not in the slightest, unless you warp "religious" to mean something incredibly more abstracted and divorced from common use as you have for so many other words. As I do not accept your semantic arguments, that "unless" is yet more of you being Not Even Wrong.

>>96219352
>No it doesn’t.
Yes it does.

>Believing in something that is bigger than our planet, or sourced away from it, is by definition an alien, or extraterrestrial.
In your pithy bullshit perhaps, but irrelevant because there's a lot of other properties about Him held as axioms by believers.

>A lot of physicists deny the possibility of aliens visiting us. Like how they deny God.
No, because they deny aliens on improbability according to the absence of evidence (which is poor logic, as it is not evidence of absence), whereas they deny God due to violating their epistemological premises with His unfalsifiability. They are different causes of refusal, with different parameters for desisting.

>>96206902
Kind of the same how I have it. Though Divine magic does have "schools" it more of like private catholic school and all.

>>96203271
Friendship is a thing, however I will agree that people abuse it and the fact people don't punish those who abuse it and shun them does ruin the concept of it.

>>96220710
>axiom
You don't appear to understand what an axiom is. An axiom is a statement that is considered to be self-evident or universally accepted as true, and is used as a basis for reasoning or argument. and doesn't need to be argued. Things like math, causality, etc, are just standard assumptions. You, thinking, right now, is causality. You cannot defy them, they're too standard, even in fiction. I'm sorry.

>>96220710
>In your pithy bullshit perhaps, but irrelevant because there's a lot of other properties about Him held as axioms by believers.
Anon. He is by definition larger than the terrestrial sphere. He is extra, external to, the terrestrial sphere. That is an extraterrestrial. He cannot be terrestrial to his own creation, which he predates. If you argue against this at all you have a critical problem with your brain somewhere. Probably.

>>96227405
>An axiom is a statement that is considered to be self-evident or universally accepted as true
No, they're merely the preconditions of logic in use. They can get rather complex, be explicitly derived from theorems unproven, only be used on certain occasions, or as in the case of the definition of prime numbers modified to make more desired conclusions valid.

>Things like math, causality, etc, are just standard assumptions.
Even in math, the Axiom of Choice is incredibly contentious to the point of redoing proofs to work without it. You seem to not be aware of the fact that mathematic is actually derived rather than fundamental in the hardest logic terms. Again, hundreds of pages to prove 1+1=2. Something very few including yourself would think needs a proof, but to those of actual higher logic the question is both worth asking and significant; IIRC the book that went through that trouble ended up pretty important to Set Theory, which was in turn essential to the theory-work for the machines we are using for these messages.

>You cannot defy them, they're too standard, even in fiction.
Firstly, fiction can easily defy causality as we know it because a distinct time axis for continuous change is far from the only way for change in a system to occur. Discretized time flies in the face of quite a bit of known physics, but has little issue in raw logic terms. More difficult to work with is what I refer to as ordinal causality for lack of finding a more "proper" terminology for such, where there is no overarching "time" at all but instead distinct cause-effect events entirely able to desynchronize for contradictory-to-us relative passage. Again, actual higher logic requires one to address contrary premises.

>>96227422
Again, in your pithy bullshit, but irrelevant. You make a technically accurate observation of semantics, but insist on ignoring the distinctions to "win" on an incredibly vapid point.

>>96227653
>No, they're merely the preconditions of logic in use.
How logical are we talking here? Axioms are preconditions of agreement. Logical in the sense that it's their framework to work with. Sure, theology is the logic of religion. "God exists. Just look all around you!" is the sort of religious axiom used by Christians and other religious people. Nothing is -inherently- an axiom aside from absolute truths. Does a fire burn the flesh off your hand? That's a basic axiom/assumption. There is nothing distinguishing an axiom from an observation/theorem. We just hope it's empirical.

Still. Do you or do you not deny that there are absolute Truths/Axioms? This is sort of my angle.

Math IS an absolute axiom at its most basic. 1=1. Even a zero is a one. There's already a thread about this on /sci/ >>>/sci/16737432

>You seem to not be aware of the fact that mathematic is actually derived rather than fundamental in the hardest logic terms.
If you're going to argue that math was invented rather than discovered, I'm not doing that. A snowflake has six sides for a molecular reason. There is math to everything. It is inseparable from everything.

>Again, hundreds of pages to prove 1+1=2
Yes I know mathematicians are autistic.

If you argue AI will become conscious, then you're essentially arguing math is capable of developing consciousness. So is life, or consciousness itself even, just math? We'll see.

>Firstly, fiction can easily defy causality as we know it
No it can't. A story progressing at all, is causality. Determinism. Time. Consequence and cause are the same. If you disagree you're hair splitting.

>You make a technically accurate observation of semantics, but insist on ignoring the distinctions to "win" on an incredibly vapid point.
Wait. Do you take issue with God being an alien? You can have distinctive aliens, but they're still alien. You don't need to be extraterrestrial to be alien. You just need to be alien. Different cultures were seen as alien.

>>96231504
>Axioms are preconditions of agreement
No, they are preconditions of the argument, one can easily construct incompatible conclusions from a shared set of axioms.

>Nothing is -inherently- an axiom aside from absolute truths.
Actual higher logic demonstrates that "absolute truths" are unverifiable because you MUST make assumptions to reason.

>There is nothing distinguishing an axiom from an observation/theorem.
...Of course there is, observations are inherent to the definition of empiricism, while theorems are generally considered bunk if they do not track with the data. Axioms in use are distinguished from the two by not demanding any demonstration of accuracy, and thus a very different set of disproofs from observations or theorems applies to them.

>Math IS an absolute axiom at its most basic.
No, it is a rather large body of axioms comprising an incredibly complex system. The "most basic axiom" is quite a few steps removed from addition, let alone statements of values being equal to eachother.

>If you're going to argue that math was invented rather than discovered, I'm not doing that.
Given that rather basic terms had to be re-defined many times to reach what describes our laws of physics so well including matters that were profoundly counter-intuitive like multi-axis number systems and negative values, it certainly seems to be more of an invention than a discovery.

>A story progressing at all, is causality.
But it does not have to be AS WE KNOW IT, the continuous yet locally varying in rate process easily represented as an axis of a four-dimensional bulk. With such incredibly fundamental processes differing, your arguments from such rigid adherence to our laws of physics dependent on such particular matters of our history become wholly inapplicable.

>Do you take issue with God being an alien?
I take issue with insisting He goes in the same box for disbelief as the little green men over the technical applicability of a single word.