Export thread

What's your favorite flavor of Magic

#1

Bowielee

Bowielee

Well, I don't have homework to keep me occupied at work, so subsequently, I'm bored and decided to post another silly question for entertainment purposes.

In the realms of fiction Magic is usually tailor made for the universe it inhabits. Some spell casters rely on their gods to provide them power, others treat magic as if it were an extention of chemistry or science.

What's your preferred type of magic?

For me, personally, it Magic as Science. Not to surprising seeing as I'm pretty much an egghead.

Also, feel free to suggest additional items.


#2

phil

phil

I loved playing Clerics in D&D though usually dropping most of the religious aspects. I just liked healing people and the idea of going around and just doing genuine good.


#3

bhamv3

bhamv3

I voted the one with illusionists, because that's the only form of magic I'll ever be able to do.


#4

ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy

I voted Necromancy because that's the only form of magic I'll ever be able to do.

Wait, hang on...

But seriously, this is a tough choice for me, but I'd probably go with Nature Magic. I love the idea of having control over the elements.


#5

HCGLNS

HCGLNS






NATURE!!!


#6

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

I feel there's one missing up there, but I don't have a name for it. Maybe it's not even considered magic. You see it a lot in ghost stories--events or personalities imprinting on a place, item, or person. I recall something where a hairband had the power to make a person happier because it was made by loved ones. I like that sort of stuff, but that may be more magical realism than magic.

Of the ones listed, I've never read the Earthsea books, but ever since The Sandman I've been fascinated with names having power. I liked that even saying Morpheus's name could summon him.


#7

Gusto

Gusto

I've always liked something between Nature and Science, as you describe them. The idea that in order to make something burst into flame, you need to magically manipulate the ambient heat in the air around it, and transfer that energy into it. And that it takes a skilled spellcaster to balance the transference of energies properly so as to not cause catastrophes when manipulating minute amounts of energy or atoms out of their natural order.

I've always liked describing my magical effects in, say, Dungeons and Dragons that way.


#8

checkeredhat

checkeredhat

I like multiple types of magic to exist in the same universe, a la D&D or the Kingkiller Chronicle, or even to a lesser extent the Lord of the Rings. But for the most part, what Gusto said.

Before coming into the thread and actually seeing the poll, my answer would have been a mix of blue and red.


#9

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

1: I've never been a fan of Magic As Genes (No matter how much you study or try, you'll never be as powerful as Golden Boy/Girl)

2: Nature Magic is ridiculously more powerful than people give it credit for. Think Malfurion in War of the Ancients. It's not just about growth and healing, it's about the ability to summon Tornados, Earthquake fissures, etc.

3: Magic as a Science? Depends on how you mean it. The more your study/learn the more powerful you become through more complex spells, understanding their purpose better? Yeah I could get behind that, though usually you're left with the only really powerful Mages being 800yr old decrepit people.

4:I wouldn't touch Divine Magic with a 50ft pole (Even though my WoW character is a PLD, it's purely for the OP in the game aspect of it).

5: Sleight of Hand isn't "Magic" it's visual trickery. There is no power behind it.

6: Names Have Power and Mystical are both a bit iffy for me. NHP would just be about knowing the most powerful words or the most powerful counter to those words. It's more memorization than learned skill and Mystical can be interesting depending on how it's developed. Use the Force Luke counts more as Genes Have Power though.....

7: How is Necromancy it's own magic? Isn't it just a subset of Mages?

With all this being said and done, my all time favorite type of magic (As one could gather from the Skyrim thread) isn't listed here. It's Beguiling magic. The ability to bring others under your sway. It even has some basis in Real Life. Look at cult leaders/politians/celebrities. Their "Silver-Tongues" are able to enrapture thousands on command, literally having them do their bidding on a moments notice. If you don't think that Justin Bieber could literally have a thousand woman harem on command then you haven't been paying attention. Going further into the magical aspect of it I also envy the power of dominating the minds of others on different levels. Making it so that you're invisble to them (You aren't really but they cannot percieve you there), to appear as different things (a huge mythilogical beast, causing an entire city to run in terror), and so forth.

If I would classify this type of magic as any of the above listed, it'd probably be in the Mystical sense, but again, that leaves alot open for interpretation.


#10



Namesake

Since the Lanterns all have an "Entity" attached to them (ie, Parralax, The Butcher, Ion), would they be considered divine magic? The ring they have amplifies that particular emotion, but the central power batteries are given power by the entities.


#11

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

I'd have to say that out of the choices available, they'd be "Divine".


#12

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

This poll is imperfect and must be cleansed by a Grue option.


#13

Officer_Charon

Officer_Charon

If the Lantern's powers are derived from a divine, that would make them Avatars, n'est-ce pas?

And yes, I find the lack of grue option... disturbing.

And in every RPG ever, I have rolled a Paladin, or as close to one as I could get. Like phil, it's not so much the divine aspect as it is the "shining knight" aspect.


#14

checkeredhat

checkeredhat

I've always liked something between Nature and Science, as you describe them. The idea that in order to make something burst into flame, you need to magically manipulate the ambient heat in the air around it, and transfer that energy into it. And that it takes a skilled spellcaster to balance the transference of energies properly so as to not cause catastrophes when manipulating minute amounts of energy or atoms out of their natural order.

I've always liked describing my magical effects in, say, Dungeons and Dragons that way.
Incidentally, tell me you've been reading the Kingkiller Chronicle. I've only read book one so far, but it seems you'd like it.


#15

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

It's been a good long while since I've had a chance to play any decent fantasy RPGs (I heavily dislike D&D 4th edition, and my current condition makes it hard to either run or participate in games), but I find something appealing in sorcerers: unlike paladins and clerics who employ divine magic, druids who go with the nature route or mages who are pretty much the bookish, magic-as-science route, the sorcerer's power seems to be more of a mystery in most settings. A kind of primeval magic stemming from the charisma and persona of the sorcerer, rather than meticulous study or asking some Power That Is for a helping hand. There is the element of hereditary magic in it, too - you know, being a descendant of someone who bumped uglies with a dragon or a demon, or who was just a little too friendly with the fae or the horrors from the great beyond - but that's more flavour and dependant on the setting.

And granted, there's something breathtaking in the image of a sorcerer gone nuts with rage or sorrow, essentially being a living conduit of arcane forces at the eye of a storm of eldritch fire. You can't really get that visual with a mage who has to keep a spellbook at hand, or a paladin whose god would probably just go "Nuh, uh".


#16

Tress

Tress

Before coming into the thread and actually seeing the poll, my answer would have been a mix of blue and red.
It's all about red, green, and white delivering a beatdown before the opponent even knows what's going on. :D


#17

checkeredhat

checkeredhat

It's all about red, green, and white delivering a beatdown before the opponent even knows what's going on. :D
I actually play like a complete asshole, and don't even really worry about winning. Sometimes it happens, but what's more fun for me is ticking off my friends who take it far more seriously by just counterspelling everything big and devestating they throw at me while I whittle them down slowly. Then eventually they get enough mana to wipe me out completely, but in a group game this invariably leaves them open for the kill to be dealt by someone else.


#18



makare

I like magic used for every day things. Household magic hehe.


#19

Frank

Frankie Williamson

My favorite D&D character I've ever played as was a misanthropic, asexual, arrogant dickwad with a heart of gold wizard. He was also, basically, the master of space and time and everything that entails by the end of that campaign.

Ahh, contingency-teleport, how many times you made my wizard the lone survivor of a fight gone wrong.


#20

figmentPez

figmentPez

Lately I've been puzzling the idea that most fictions treat their magic more like science. As in it can be studied and has mostly predictable effects. Magic spells and baubles are often as reliable and safe as a toaster, and whole schools are set up for the study and advancement of magic. When magic becomes just a fantasy version of electricity, it's not fully magic anymore.

Thinking about a dream I had a while back. It struck me as interesting to consider what would happen if someone from such a magic-is-a-science world were to find themselves transported to a world where magic acted more like magic. An enchanted item wouldn't work for everyone, but only an unpredictable group of special people (and not even the same people for every artifact). A spell that works for one wizard won't necessarily work for another because they're different people in a non-quantifiable way. Also, that spell wasn't learned by some variation of the scientific method. Wizards learn magic by trying things, but the knowledge of what to try comes from gnosis, not from being taught or any scientific method-like rigor. The arcane knowledge of magic is revealed by force of will, or destiny, or sheer luck; it is not predictable, cannot be passed on to a class full of students and pays no heed to lineage or social stature (to the point that it will get passed down in one family, but not another, and only for as long as the magic just happens to work that way).

Basically, a magic that cannot be operated like science because the ordered universe that is necessary for the scientific method to apply does not exist or does not apply to magic. There can be no peer-review because a magician has no true peers. There are other magicians, but they are not the same and cannot do the same things and expect the same results because magic simply does not work that way. It is a world very very unlike our own, and goes so completely contrary to the modern, scientific logic that most of us take for granted that I'm not surprised so few fictions deal with magic in that way.


#21

Bowielee

Bowielee

I think the shift to science-ey magic from , well, magic-ey magic has a lot to do with the decline of faith and the rise of science (which, BTW isn't the first time in history this has happened. During the industrial revolution and in scholarly bastions like Carthage, the same sort of shift happened, but I digress). Storytellers generally work out of the tapestry of life as it's seen in the time that they write. Basically, as we move closer to science, "because a wizard did it" doesn't cut it in setting a believable backdrop for your story.

That's my opinion on why it has shifted.

Oh, and to clarify, Shego, I was really thinking about charm and seduction type of magic when I listed Slight of Hand. I really didn't mean for it to be literally slight if hand, but more deception and misdirection. I probably should have re-thought that one before posting it.
Added at: 16:14
big ass thor picture

NATURE!!!
Wouldn't that be Divine magic? or would it be elemental because it's a god weilding the elements, not someone calling upon the diety to act.... hmmm...


#22

figmentPez

figmentPez

6: Names Have Power and Mystical are both a bit iffy for me. NHP would just be about knowing the most powerful words or the most powerful counter to those words. It's more memorization than learned skill and Mystical can be interesting depending on how it's developed.
Not necessarily. Think about Bleach, which doesn't call Zanpakto "magic" but that's pretty much what they are. A soul reaper gains power by learning the name of their sword, and then they gain more power by learning the name of the techniques they use. The names they learn give them more power, but won't give power to anyone else, and they aren't countered with words.

Now that I think about it, Bleach has a real magical type of knowledge system. For the most part the show treats abilities as something that can't be taught. You throw people into the deep-end and they learn to swim. You can give them pointers, but the real understanding comes from mystical revelation of some sort. What one person learns doesn't necessarily apply to another; each person's individual power is unique and many techniques cannot be learned by anyone else.

Also, I haven't read Earthsea, but I think the use of NHP there isn't just about power words but the idea of each person having a "true name". A wizard who knows a specific individual's true name has power over them, but not just power in general because they know one name.


#23

Allen who is Quiet

Allen who is Quiet

It's all about red, green, and white delivering a beatdown before the opponent even knows what's going on. :D
No way dude. It's all about artifacts and affinity.


#24

Bowielee

Bowielee

Incidentally, tell me you've been reading the Kingkiller Chronicle. I've only read book one so far, but it seems you'd like it.
I just got the first two books for christmas, I'll be tucking into them after I finish the 2 warcraft books I've been dying to finish.


#25

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Basically, as we move closer to science, "because a wizard did it" doesn't cut it in setting a believable backdrop for your story.
I don't think Pez is talking about it in terms of story weakness a la deus ex machina, but in that magic, when turned into chemical equation, isn't as interesting as when it could be and do anything. It's the same kind of criticism that many fantasy worlds fall under--you're dealing with a genre where you can do anything, and so many only want to repeat Tolken. In the same vein, magic to science because of real life--we already have real life.

I think that's part of what I'm having a problem with concerning this poll. It considers magic in the form of casting spells, not in magical presence/creatures/world, which is what I prefer. I like the idea that someone could be such a shitty king that the land rots around him, or that someone's death could be so traumatic that it leaves echoes that make the death repeat. I like how in Spirited Away, Yu-baba folds up her cloak under her so she's shaped like a bird, and then she can just flap her cloak like wings and it acts like a bird, solely for looking that way.

That shows imagination. I prefer that to, as Pez said, magic as electricity. I picked up some awful novel a few months ago--couldn't make it past the first few pages as the characters went on about stuff that pretty much boiled down to what color of "energy" each wizard could spray from his fingertips.


#26

Bowielee

Bowielee

I'm not saying that I don't enjoy the traditional Magic as Magic line. In fact, even though I listed my preference as being towards Science-y magic, I like all types. Particularly the way the Earthsea books used the NHP type of magic.

On the other hand, "a wizard did it" is a trope for a reason. Some authors use it as the lazy way out.


#27

Gusto

Gusto

I like magic as science the way I described it because it still requires an incredible knowledge of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, etc. to do properly without blowing yourself up or sucking all the air out of the room or something. But it require an affinity with the elements that are around you anyway (temperature, moisture, static, and so forth) and requires a lot of creativity and skill to use in unpredicatable and exciting ways.

That's why it's fun to describe in a D&D setting - you have your hard casters like wizards with high intelligence who have studied and practiced the elements and systems that hold the universe together for decades and are comfortable with bending those rules to suit their needs, and then you have sorcerers/bards/warlocks, whose magical affinity is more inborn and has less to do with knowledge about how the universe works and more with what they can do just because they've always been doing it.


#28

figmentPez

figmentPez

On the other hand, "a wizard did it" is a trope for a reason. Some authors use it as the lazy way out.
And authors also use meaningless technobabble as just another way to be lazy. Saying that a character invented a quantum framistat (on the spot out of a gum wrapper and an alien crystal) to decouple the tachyon pulse field from the tritanium interlock cage, using "scientific genius!" is just as lazy as having the character suddenly have a magic ability that just happens to solve the problem at hand. It doesn't matter if you replace the science technobabble with magic arcanababble; it's still lazy.

Just because a fictional world has magic that behaves like magic, doesn't mean that the writing is going to be lazy because of that. It's like the scene in Who Framed Roger Rabbit where Roger slips out of the handcuffs for a gag.
Eddie: You mean you could have taken your hand out of that cuff at any time?!
Roger: No, not at any time. Only when it was funny.
Magic as magic follows a similar rule, something like "Only when it suits the story". I don't mean that in a deus ex machina way. I mean as a structured, foreshadowed, cohesive tale that examines human existence. Just because the magic can behave however it wants relative to the world, that doesn't mean it can behave just any old way relative to the story.


#29

Bowielee

Bowielee

I think you're selectively reading my post. I didn't say in anyway that traditional magic was always lazy, in fact I believe I said the opposite.


#30



makare

I dont really care for magic as science. Gets a little too midichlorian. Where's the magic then?


#31

Sara_2814

Sara_2814

Don't care where it comes from, as long as I can have fire: the more powerful the better. The last two D&D campaigns I've played in, I've specialized as a fire mage. In Dragon Age, I always go Elementalist, and while ice spells are handy, it's the firestorm that makes me giggle with unholy glee. :D

Out of the list, I find mages the most appealing, perhaps because I love the idea of magical libraries and laboratories to study and experiment in.


#32

Wahad

Wahad

I have no particular favor for any sort of magic, as long as it makes sense. When I write, I often get caught up in making the setting work, to the tiniest details down. Consequently, it's kind of what I pay attention to in any series where magic is involved. It's part of why I like the Dresden Files so much - pages of text are devoted to explaining how it works. Now, this might seem that the magic is science, but nothing would be more true. One of the characters, a paladin, carries a magic sword and his faith gives him strength to smite the enemies of God - or so it seems at first. But later, another paladin shows up who carries a similar magic sword, that he received directly from an archangel, but the character is an atheist. It's played for humor, but it works because this character is such a good person that the archangel didn't even care he didn't believe. The swords are powered by literal ''goodness'' (and it doesn't help that the archangels sometimes help out a hand, too) in people. If anyone else that's nto as innately good as these paladins were to pick up the sword, they don't get the smiting powers - they just get a nice, sharp sword. For some, this may seem too much like ''a wizard did it'' but for me it is one of the best explanations divine magic could ever get. The Dresden Files probably has the best system of magic out there in my opinion. Although I should really say ''systems'' since pretty much every example up there gets a pass in the books. And more!

tl;dr: read the Dresden Files.


#33

Officer_Charon

Officer_Charon

Actually, that sounds kinda awesome. BRB, adding Dresden Files to my read list


#34

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Actually, that sounds kinda awesome. BRB, adding Dresden Files to my read list
I think there are a lot of them.

EDIT: Oh, not so many. Only thirteen so far. For some reason, I thought it was at Discworld levels.


#35

Wahad

Wahad

Thirteen, plus at least as many short stories.


#36

Dave

Dave

Kinda off-topic: The Dresden Files are some of the best books I've read.

On-topic:

Magic to me really depends on the world and whether or not it makes sense in context. For example, the swallowing of metals and "burning" them makes no sense in any context other then the Mistborn trilogy, which is excellent. At the same time, the High/Low magic of the Riftwar Saga would make no sense in Mistborn but makes perfect sense in Midkemia.

The stories I write tend to a more Nature/Scientific bent where you gather the power from several sources yet cause/effect still apply. Someone teleports there's a *bamf!* sound as the air is displaced. Large fire spells will suck the air out of enclosed spaces, etc. The more magic you use the better and more focused at it you become and the more power you are able to weild due to a sort of resistance you build up.

I do get what Pez is saying and it intrigues me. I think it could be successfully written but would be difficult to do and keep it so that it's NOT Deus ex Machina. Magic in that case could be that new powers could only be discovered in cases of great duress.

But one thing I've always had an issue with is that the concept of magic has never been used the way it would have in reality. Let's look at it from a strictly technological standpoint.

Almost all technology has been brought about to fill a perceived need of some sort. Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin to help in the separation of seeds from cotton fiber. Because of this, the South prospered. But what if magic had been around? No mechanical cotton gin would have been invented. Instead, a wizard would have used magic to do the separating, maybe passing on the technique, maybe not. Others would have duplicated the feat once they knew it could be done. For that matter, would they even have needed to grow cotton? With transmutational magic, wouldn't it be feasable to turn refuse into fibers or even food - gross though that may sound?

The problem with most magic is that we are limited by our imaginations where as in a "real" situation we would be driven by need, which is the mother of all invention.

I wonder how businesses would thrive from magic as they do with technology. Would corporitization even be possible in a magical world? It's possible to patent technology so others can't just do it, but would they be able to patent certain spells/effects? Interesting.


#37

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

I'm disappointed there's no Shamanistic (think Native American style) option in the poll. It's sort of the mid-point between Nature and Divine, with exception that you often had to do awful, grueling shit to get them to help you. Many a Deadlands player would have to cut off a finger, just to get that emergency thunder strike from the spirits...

Alternatively, how about Faustian Bargains, where you have to give something up to get what you want from a source that isn't exactly trustworthy? These tend to be the best stories about magic, hands down.


#38

figmentPez

figmentPez

I do get what Pez is saying and it intrigues me. I think it could be successfully written but would be difficult to do and keep it so that it's NOT Deus ex Machina. Magic in that case could be that new powers could only be discovered in cases of great duress.
That's not quite what I was getting at. I didn't mean to limit the source of magic that severely, I just was trying to emphasize that magic doesn't have to have relate to underlying principles of a rational world. New magic abilities could occur every year on a mage's birthday, as long as that's just the way it happens. Magic should be like Just-So stories and wishing on stars. It should have a story or ritual behind it, and seem fitting or right on the surface, but still be the special case that is the exception to the rule. Magic is rare and special, but also should be laced with the ordinary at the same time. It should also have non-physical interations (tell someone about your wish and it won't come true.)

Overall I think the imporant thing about magic is that, like a good metaphor, it shouldn't examine itself too closely (unless you're trying to be a parody of the genre.) Magic is about symbolism and appearance, where what is fitting is also usually true. A magic potion made from a plant that looks like a foot makes you run faster. It's that simple. It's not some chemical in the plant, and there's no reason why it's running and not healing bunions, it just is because it's more fitting.


#39

Bowielee

Bowielee

I have to agree with previous posters about how the Dresden Files handles magic. It's incredibly descriptive while still keeping it magical, much like Pez is talking about. For example, potions are all about sybolism. The ingredients have to apply to each of the 5 senses and be symbolically representative of what you want the potion to do.


#40

checkeredhat

checkeredhat

I just noticed that favourite (or favorite, for you American-types) is spelled wrong in the thread title. Its missing the 'r'


#41



makare

we were all being polite and not mentioning that. you cad.


#42

Bowielee

Bowielee

I have no idea what you're talking about :whistling:


#43

figmentPez

figmentPez

One of the reasons I think this is such a hot-button issue for me is because I see a lot of people who don't know what differentiates science from magic and alchemy. While there is a blurry line in fiction and history, there are very important differences. One of the things about magic is personality. If an alchemist does an experiment and it produces desired result A, while another five alchemists do that same experiment and all get failed result B, that very well may have happened because the first alchemist had a greater "understanding" of arcane knowledge and unquantifiable hidden principles (i.e. he was more worthy than the rest). With science, if one person gets A, while 5 more get B, then something was different about the experiment setup that produced A, and if that difference can be discovered then B can be changed to A for all scientists.

It is a belief that knowledge is not hidden, but discoverable, and that the world is a rational, ordered universe that behaves in a manner that can be studied for use by all that separates science from magic. I find that, at times, science gets reduced to "just-so" stories. The Big Bang, black holes, nutrition, electricity... everything just gets repeated, unexamined, until it reaches the point there "that's just the way it is" and becomes inaccessible, unassailable myth, sometimes even within the scientific community itself.

Which is not to say that blurring the lines is always a bad thing in fiction. "The Practice Effect" by David Brin is quite an interesting story that relies heavily on blurring the line between the two, but is quite an interesting "what if" story and uses that blurring to a purpose. On the other side of the coin is "Warehouse 13", which regularly says "this is science" when it's nothing of the sort. The artifacts on that show, and the powers they have, are pure magic. For all the computer use and rubber gloves, there is nothing scientific about what they do or how it works. The show can be fun despite that (and despite bad dialog) because the magical artifacts are so inventive, but it makes me roll my eyes sometimes when it pretends to be science.


#44

Bowielee

Bowielee

Wait...

you don't actually believe magic is real, do you?

And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.


#45



makare

well he cant say yes after that can he...


#46

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Wait...

you don't actually believe magic is real, do you?

And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.
It's not okay to believe in magic, unless it's the Jesus type.


#47

figmentPez

figmentPez

Wait...

you don't actually believe magic is real, do you?

And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.
I believe that that there is a supernatural. I believe in God, that He is not bound by the physical laws that generally govern creation and that He can circumvent those laws at His choosing (but generally does not.) I also believe in angels and demons, and that they have a limited ability to act in this world in ways that cannot be studied via the scientific method.

I do not, however, believe that "magic" exists, though. What appears to be magic is usually just trickery, self-delusion or some other ignorance, intentional or accidental. I assume that in some cases that witchcraft or other magic actually does work contrary to the normal natural order of the world, via the work of demons, but I have no idea how common that is.

Despite my belief in a metaphysical world, it is in part due to my belief in God that I think science has real merit. The scientific method has limits, most prominent is that it cannot prove it's own basic assumption, that the world is ordered and rational. It's not possible to prove, via scientific testing, that the world actually has consistent laws, or if apparent consistency is just a fluke. While it's not difficult to reach the conclusion that it's a far simpler for the world to have some great amount of order than being completely random; that's still a far cry from being completely ordered without any capriciousness. I believe that God is a god of order, and that the world He created is meant to be understood by us, and is thus rational and can be studied. Other people are certain of this for other reasons, but I find it important to examine why fundamental, but untestable, assumptions are being made.

I think such examination helps to understand better how subsequent conclusion are reached. i.e. if there always exists a possiblity of disproving a law/theory, no matter how small a chance, then why do we believe it? Well, it gets back to the foundational assumptions of science. It's always possible that the world will radically change tomorrow because physics will no longer be what they are, (but then we probably wouldn't be alive to know that if they did change significantly.) An ordered universe is what is most consistent with what has been observed, and the same goes with all the knowledge that has been accumulated by use of the scientific method. That's a lot of knowledge, which cannot have been gained so rapidly, or in some cases at all, without the shift from alchemy, shamanism, various ancient philosophies and other forms of magical thinking (which are still around).

There mere fact that the scientific method works at all is taken for granted these days, when that hasn't always been the case. I think one of the potential values of magic in fiction is to show how different the world would be if magic actually worked, and all those strange assumptions and superficial logic that go along with it were somehow functional. To examine the things about this world that make science functional, by replacing them with mechanisms of magic. (Stuff like "Warehouse 13" arguably works counter to this, with it's insistence that "it's science!" when there isn't any science going on.)


#48

Mathias

Mathias

What do you mean when you say magic as science (mages). Magic is not science, nor is science magic...
Added at: 09:39
One of the reasons I think this is such a hot-button issue for me is because I see a lot of people who don't know what differentiates science from magic and alchemy. While there is a blurry line in fiction and history, there are very important differences. One of the things about magic is personality. If an alchemist does an experiment and it produces desired result A, while another five alchemists do that same experiment and all get failed result B, that very well may have happened because the first alchemist had a greater "understanding" of arcane knowledge and unquantifiable hidden principles (i.e. he was more worthy than the rest). With science, if one person gets A, while 5 more get B, then something was different about the experiment setup that produced A, and if that difference can be discovered then B can be changed to A for all scientists.

Uh, if 1 person gets A and 5 more get B, person A is scrutinized and has to explain why it's different.


#49

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

What do you mean when you say magic as science (mages). Magic is not science, nor is science magic...
He means stories where all magic produces predictable results that can be scientifically studied, or where there's a scientific explanation for what the magic is (like midichlorians).


#50

Mathias

Mathias

He means stories where all magic produces predictable results that can be scientifically studied, or where there's a scientific explanation for what the magic is (like midichlorians).
Well then the (mages) part is wrong. Mages for the most part study elemental forces (the fire, earth, wind, and water) - so it's more of a mystical arcane power source.

Science and magic... I think Full Metal Alchemist is probably a good example of a mesh of the two that works. Mages, not so much. They pretty clearly fall under nature magic, where you're bending forces of the universe to your will.

And necromancy probably falls under a corrupted form of the other magic schools in the list here.


#51

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Personally, I would just call necromancy a school of magic, not a method as the other examples. Y'know, a specialization, if you will. There's Carl who's really good at summoning monsters, Larry who's a whiz when it comes to elemental magic (fire in particular), Louis who has a knack with building golems and other constructs... and then there's Edgar who likes to summon undead things to do his bidding.


#52

figmentPez

figmentPez

Uh, if 1 person gets A and 5 more get B, person A is scrutinized and has to explain why it's different.
How does that in any way contradict what I said? Yes, of course person A is scrutinized, but if it can be discovered how that desireable result was actually achieved, then everyone can then replicate that result. (I did neglect to mention the possibility that it was only an apparent result A, and did not actually achieve result A, but I was going with the assumption of actual success for purposes of simplification.)


#53

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

I guess this should've been "Which D&D magic class do you like to play?"


#54

Mathias

Mathias

How does that in any way contradict what I said? Yes, of course person A is scrutinized, but if it can be discovered how that desireable result was actually achieved, then everyone can then replicate that result. (I did neglect to mention the possibility that it was only an apparent result A, and did not actually achieve result A, but I was going with the assumption of actual success for purposes of simplification.)

Relax toto. There is no "desirable" result. There's a hypothesis to explain what's going on, and if the result doesn't show it, you modify the hypothesis.


#55

figmentPez

figmentPez

Relax toto. There is no "desirable" result. There's a hypothesis to explain what's going on, and if the result doesn't show it, you modify the hypothesis.
That's one way of looking at it, if you're pursuing pure knowledge. However, if you're doing experiments with the intent to achieve a goal, then there is a desirable result. If you're trying to make a light bulb, you have a goal of finding a filament that will work for a certain amount of time. Now that I think about it, such experimentation is not actually science, since it's not working via the scientific method. (However, the scientific method can then be used when trying to figure out how to replicate results in the future.)

Here's what I'm trying to get at. Let's look at alternate versions of Edison. We'll call them SciEd and MagEd.

SciEd is like the Edision from our universe, he tries hundreds of different materials in different combinations for use as a filament in his light bulb. Finally he finds one that works for long enough to be of practical use. However, when others try to replicate his results, the bulbs they make burn-out in minutes rather than hours. Science says there must be some quantifiable difference between what SciEd is making and what others have built from his design. SciEd and the others can then use the scientific method to experiment, testing variables, until they discover what makes SciEd's bulbs work, where others fail. Eventually the desirable result (a working light bulb) will be achievable by all.

MagEd works a little differently. He also tests materials in various configurations until he constructs a bulb that lasts long enough to be of use. When others try and replicate his bulb, using the same materials and design, they can't. However, in this magic world, these imitators are out of luck. Their bulbs didn't work because they aren't MagEd. They lack the special qualities that allow MagEd to succeed where they fail. He's got access to revelatory knowledge they don't, or had some creative spark or spirit they don't, and there's no way for them to have it. The desired result (a working light bulb) cannot be had by all because only MagEd has the light bulb magic.


#56

Mathias

Mathias

No. It's the only way to look at it. It's the way the scientific method works. Period. The goal is to provide evidence for a testable hypothesis.

With science, if one person gets A, while 5 more get B, then something was different about the experiment setup that produced A, and if that difference can be discovered then B can be changed to A for all scientists.
That's not the scientific method, it's person A fucking up the experiment to prove a hypothesis.


#57

Krisken

Krisken

Perhaps, to stop the side argument, we can say natural phenomenon explainable through science mistaken for magic? Then again, that wouldn't have fit well on the poll. I guess I assumed this was what was meant, though.


#58

Calleja

Calleja

Uhh



#59

Krisken

Krisken

Get back here!


#60

figmentPez

figmentPez

That's not the scientific method, it's person A fucking up the experiment to prove a hypothesis.
Unless it's not scientific experimentation but inventive experimentation, in which case there was no hypothesis, until scientific experimentation began to explain why inventive experimentation succeeded.


#61

Mathias

Mathias

Unless it's not scientific experimentation but inventive experimentation, in which case there was no hypothesis, until scientific experimentation began to explain why inventive experimentation succeeded.

Yeah, what the fuck ever, I'm just a fucking PhD SCIENTIST... I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about...


#62

Krisken

Krisken

Yeah, what the fuck ever, I'm just a fucking PhD SCIENTIST... I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about...
Admit it, you're a magician. Take your magic back to commiestan.


#63

figmentPez

figmentPez

Yeah, what the fuck ever, I'm just a fucking PhD SCIENTIST... I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about...
Well you sure as hell didn't read my explanation past the first sentence. So, no, you don't know I'm talking about. You may have a pretty good grasp of what the scientific method is, but you certainly haven't tried to understand what I'm saying beyond my failure to use the exact terminology you think I should.

If I'm trying to construct a new invention, say a light bulb, and I keep trying different components and configurations, what the hell else do you call that besides experimentation? I build something, I experiment with it to see if it works, and if it doesn't I try something else. That's not the scientific method. There is no hypothesis, there is no control group, but there is testing to determine the unknown.

Now science can come into play when trying to determine the principles behind the designs being tested. Lets look at another example from history, the Wright Brothers. Those two did lots of scientific testing of various parts to determine lift and drag before getting to Kitty Hawk. However, once they were doing that historic first flight, there wasn't a hypothesis being tested beyond "will it fly?" If dozens of others had built copies of the Wright Brothers plane and tried their own test flights, only to fail, was that first flight at Kitty Hawk just "fucking up an experiment to prove a hypothesis"? How the hell did actually achieving flight somehow fuck up the experiment? There is real merit to the idea that the flight at Kitty Hawk was a fluke, and that the controlled flight of a later model Wright plane should be celebrated as the real historic achievement, however that doesn't mean that they didn't actually fly before that. The Wright Brothers took their first flight, and then looked to see why it succeeded, why it might have failed, and refined their plane until it was a consistent success, and others learned from them and made planes as well. It worked. Not every step that was experimental was scientific experimentation, but the whole process was based on knowledge gained, at least in part, from scientific experimentation.

If you don't understand that, then there's nothing more I can do to explain. There are types of experimentation that are not scientific, but are used in conjunction with the scientific method to advance practical application of knowledge. That's the way things work when you actually want to build stuff in the real world.


#64

Mathias

Mathias

So, you make a vague statement. I call you on it, and you completely alter what you were saying about that vague statement. Gotcha.


#65

Shegokigo

Shegokigo



#66

figmentPez

figmentPez

So, you make a vague statement. I call you on it, and you completely alter what you were saying about that vague statement. Gotcha.
You made unwarranted assumptions about what my statement meant. Rather than trying to understand something that could be interpreted multiple ways, you jumped ahead with your preconceptions and declared me wrong without even trying to consider what was being said in context.


#67

Calleja

Calleja

*peeks in*

...can we talk about the Dresden Files now?


#68

Mathias

Mathias

You made unwarranted assumptions about what my statement meant. Rather than trying to understand something that could be interpreted multiple ways, you jumped ahead with your preconceptions and declared me wrong without even trying to consider what was being said in context.
With science, if one person gets A, while 5 more get B, then something was different about the experiment setup that produced A, and if that difference can be discovered then B can be changed to A for all scientists


I just finished reading your sob story in the the cosplay section, which explains all the sand in your vag. I'll lay off. Just shut the fuck up and I'll do the same.


#69

checkeredhat

checkeredhat

It was mentioned. I've added it to my Goodreads based just off what was said in this thread.


#70

figmentPez

figmentPez

And yet you mean engineering... dumbass.
The conversation is a discussion of science-based reality versus magic-based fiction. If I meant anything it was "With a science-based world..." However, I thought those reading were smart enough to reason such a conclusion without having to be overly wordy about it.

EDIT: Changed "magic-based reality" to "magic-based fiction" because I'm talking with someone nit-picky enough to try to intentionally misinterpret what I'm saying based on inexact language.


#71

Shegokigo

Shegokigo



Anime = Magic Discussion


#72

figmentPez

figmentPez

Anime = Magic Discussion
I'd agree if I were actually trying to refute magic with scientific knowledge. However, I was trying to compare/contrast magic to science, and show how magic works much better when it is not science (or rather, takes place in a fiction where the scientific method cannot be applied.) You do appreciate the concept of comparing/contrasting two ideas to highlight the differences and examine what makes them unique right?


#73

Shegokigo

Shegokigo



#74

Mathias

Mathias



#75

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

How I imagine Mathias in this conversation:


;)


#76



makare

This is all magic school bus magic.


#77

checkeredhat

checkeredhat



#78

Mathias

Mathias



#79

checkeredhat

checkeredhat

So this is what Family Guy is for.


#80



makare

I'll tell you what it's not for and then youll understand why i can never go back to seaworld


#81

PatrThom

PatrThom

I've always liked something between Nature and Science, as you describe them. The idea that in order to make something burst into flame, you need to magically manipulate the ambient heat in the air around it, and transfer that energy into it. And that it takes a skilled spellcaster to balance the transference of energies properly so as to not cause catastrophes when manipulating minute amounts of energy or atoms out of their natural order.
To Gusto (and others with this sort of opinion).

Run, do not walk, to your nearest bookstore/library/internet portal and acquire some or all of the following books:
-Lyndon Hardy's Magics trilogy.
-Any of Lawrence Watt-Evans' Ethshar novels (goodreads link here).
-Christopher Stasheff's Wizard in Rhyme novels.

Seriously, if you have not already been introduced to any of these series, go out into the back yard, dig up that coffee can, and put Master of the Five Magics, Her Majesty's Wizard, and The Misenchanted Sword in your cart. It will cost you about $9. All three of them take place in distinct universes where Magic happens because of certain rules, just like physics, or chemistry. And unlike certain other continuities, these rules are 99% strictly adhered to throughout*. If it happens, it is because it is one of the Rules Of The Universe. And if anyone knows of anything similar that I haven't mentioned, I would be interested to know of it.

--Patrick
*Within the individual books I've read, at least.


#82

drifter

drifter

I remember Her Majesty's Wizard. Fun read. Lost interest after finishing the third book, though; retread of the first with a different protagonist.


#83

PatrThom

PatrThom

I listed the three series in what I felt to be their order of "faithfulness" from Hardy (most) to Stasheff (not as much as Hardy).

--Patrick


#84

@Li3n

@Li3n

The poll options are all wrong... the 1st one should be Magic A is Magic A!


You may have a pretty good grasp of what the scientific method is, but you certainly haven't tried to understand what I'm saying beyond my failure to use the exact terminology you think I should.
That seems to be a professional defect for a lot of specialized science types... not using the terminology they use tends to make them think you're wrong... wonder how that works when communicating between specialities where they use slightly different terms for the same thing...


#85

Wahad

Wahad

*peeks in*

...can we talk about the Dresden Files now?
Do it.


#86

Bones

Bones

personally I believe in the *sponge bob voice* magic of science.


#87

Calleja

Calleja

It's been mentioned before, but I think Jim Butcher makes the best "system" of magic I've ever read. It even follows the laws of physics with mass and stuff, it's just a matter of wizards being able to manipulate energy. But he also adds other types of magic like necromancy and even faith WHILE MAKING SENSE. He also combines like every single mythology, from Odin to archangels passing through Shakespeare's fairies and fairy tale trolls, seamlessly. And vampires and werewolves, of course.

Hell, I think his is my favorite treatment of vampires, up there with World of Darkness'.


#88

Necronic

Necronic

What so I'm the only one who chooses necromancy? Definitely not going to bring yall back from the dead. At least not with full reincarnation spells.

Also Calleja I would have thought you would be more into the elemental magics. Like frost spells and stuff.

Edit: YOu know there was a fantasy book I read years ago (ok decades ago) that had to do with magic being about these invisible strings. I think it was called Changeling...I can't remember.


#89

Calleja

Calleja

Wha? Why would you think that? I've always been a man of logic... having magic work logically is the best fucking thing ever.


#90



makare

If "magic" functions as a science/logic how is it magic? I guess I don't understand that part


#91

Necronic

Necronic

Yeah I mean the coolness of magic is that it isn't scientific.

Magic ruled by science is called physics.


#92

Calleja

Calleja

No, come on, how is being able to conjure up fire "physics"? The logical part is where the energy comes from, how the conjurer has to keep in mind how heat affects things like air. I mean magic that's bound by a logical set of rules.

For example, Harry Dresden uses concussive magic but is quite adamant in reminding the reader that force equals mass times acceleration, so a small "ball" of concussive energy traveling fast can pack more punch than a large one traveling slower, stuff like that.

There's logic to how they make potions too, having to use one ingredient for each of the senses and and extra "spirit" one. Does that make sense?


#93

Bones

Bones

thats what I have been getting at, magic as a skill based art, your understanding grows with work. the more you experiment and work at it the more powerful it becomes.


#94

Calleja

Calleja

Yeah, and the Dresden files are also very specific about how wizards have to soak up energy and that's what's expended when they cast spells, and they can even actually "empty their tank" and be left helpless. Logic, energy isn't created, just transformed.

It's just that these fuckers can transform it into 20-foot cones of fiery inferno.


#95

Mathias

Mathias

Trying to explain a fictional occurrence like magic through "science" screws it up. Period. Most of the "scientific explanations" behind magic in fiction are shotty pseudo knowledge of how shit really works slammed together in a work of fiction, so the author can cop out with a "it's fiction" excuse for the bad science. You want fiction based on science? Science-Fiction, in particular Star Trek. Fantasy doesn't need bullcrap, lame explanations for how the magic works. It just does. That's why it's magic. That's the marvel behind it. Star Wars is a great example of a fine mesh of science as a plot device behind the technology with a hint of magic and mysticism through the force. Well that was all fucked over when George Lucas tried to explain a biological reason for the Force.

My favorite thing to do is analyze a work of fiction and rationalize why the hell it wouldn't work in reality or the astounding numbers involved in making it work in realty, rather than justify why it would with garbage logic.


#96

Calleja

Calleja

Dude, it's magic working according to the laws of physics, not the laws of physics being used magically. There's a difference. The explanation is wizards have a, yes, SUPERNATURAL ability to work with the NATURAL energies. This is in a world where the Winter and Summer court are in constant battle with vampires and werewolves as their lackeys while Odin is CEO of a Swedish multinational company. No one is trying to use "scientific explanations" for magic, just having magic working logically.


#97

Necronic

Necronic

There are so many things wrong with what you just said.

"It works according to the laws of physics by breaking the laws of physics."


#98

Calleja

Calleja

It doesn't break the laws of physics OF THE DRESDENVERSE. I'm not figmentPez arguing for actual, real magic here.

My whole fucking point was that the magic "system" is bound by logical rules, that's it. You fuckers extrapolate from that way too much.


#99

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Too bad there was not an option for physical magic. Where the spell is placed upon your body. To cast an active spell you must trace the tattoo that is on your body.


#100

Necronic

Necronic

It doesn't break the laws of physics OF THE DRESDENVERSE. I'm not figmentPez arguing for actual, real magic here.

My whole fucking point was that the magic "system" is bound by logical rules, that's it. You fuckers extrapolate from that way too much.
Ah ok.

I guess my issue with the whole Logical System over Art thing is that if Magic was as difficult to learn as Advanced Biochemistry or Real Analysis I would be like "pfff I'm gonna go roll a rogue"


#101

Calleja

Calleja

well, yeah, in the dresdenverse you don't only have to be born with the ability, you need to spend years and years and years of ARDUOUS training to get to even minor spells. It takes mind clarity on par with Buddhist monks for really powerful magic. The advantage is that wizard bodies are more resilient and live hundreds of years.... so.. yeah. That's why wizards are rare, and most do simple stuff like tracking spells. The number of really powerful "battle" wizards in the entire planet is low. Of course, that's the long route. You can get one of the Faire Courts to just instantly give you huge power. And become their pawn.

Oh, how I miss those books, I can't wait for the next one.


#102

Bones

Bones

Ah ok.

I guess my issue with the whole Logical System over Art thing is that if Magic was as difficult to learn as Advanced Biochemistry or Real Analysis I would be like "pfff I'm gonna go roll a rogue"
or god forbid, the fate and transport of organic and inorganic chemical systems. thats why I play a fighter :awesome:


#103

Calleja

Calleja

You guys should really read the Dresden Files, I'm not being fair in my explanation of the "system", Butcher really built a mythology that's awe-inspiring in its clever simplicity. The fucker takes pretty much every single lore and mythology into the "real world", and makes it work seamlessly. That Bram Stoker wrote "Dracula" exposed to the world at large the weakness of the Black Court vampires (sunlight, stakes, etc) made them almost extinct, Merlin was a real historical figure, Odin and Michael the Archangel are competing for attention of our hero and all while the Leaninsidhe from Celtic mythology plays with him while running from Queen Mab of Shakespeare fame. Not to mention the other vampire courts, the (several) different types of werewolves, mummies, ghosts, spirits... basically, everything fantasy has created in one cohesive world, narrated in first person by a geek who quotes Star Wars every other sentence.

And never wears a hat, no matter what the cover artist wants you to think (it's become sort of a running joke)


#104

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

I'm gonna starting using "in the Dresdenverse" as reasoning in all arguments from now on.

"In the DRESDENVERSE, people can magic whatever they wanna say in the Cosplay forum."
"In the Dresden Files, Nick's prom night is magicked into an unmemorable evening."
"God, I want Harry Dresden's big hunk of man-meat in my wizard. With Dresden physics."


Actually, I feel like I need to check those books out now, so maybe Calleja's method is working, if not for the argument, then for advertising.


#105

Officer_Charon

Officer_Charon

Looking them up on the Kindle Store. 9.99 for an eBook lolwut


#106



makare

is that expensive? i saw one for 8.99 and i thought it was expensive but i wasnt sure.


#107

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

is that expensive? i saw one for 8.99 and i thought it was expensive but i wasnt sure.
Yes. Ebooks should not cost the same as or more than the print version, no matter what BS the publisher says.


#108

Calleja

Calleja

If anyone's interested in getting the kindle-friendly files (DRM free) for the Dresden..uh.. Files... let me know. wink wink.
Added at: 18:36
(except for Quotemander Prime)


#109

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

If anyone's interested in getting the kindle-friendly files (DRM free) for the Dresden..uh.. Files... let me know. wink wink.
Added at: 18:36
(except for Quotemander Prime)
I'll just get used copies for $3 each. It's not helping the author, but somebody bought those copies at some point, so it's not stealing from him either like file-passing. wink wink.


#110

Calleja

Calleja

I'm not paying 10 dollars for an e-book. I own all books physically, plus the first graphic novel. And alllll that money I've now sent his way was thanks to someone file-passing me his first couple of books.

wink wink.


#111

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

I'm not paying 10 dollars for an e-book. I own all books physically, plus the first graphic novel. And alllll that money I've now sent his way was thanks to someone file-passing me his first couple of books.

wink wink.
Fair enough, but stop winking at me. I'm not some bald cougar at... um... wherever that happened to you.


#112



makare

now kiss. smooooch smoooch!


#113

Gusto

Gusto

BLOOP BLEEP


#114

Bowielee

Bowielee

Looking them up on the Kindle Store. 9.99 for an eBook lolwut
i don't see what's unusual about the price.


#115

Mathias

Mathias

i don't see what's unusual about the price.

It's the same price as the physical book. That's ridiculous.

I'm guessing Amazon thinks it's pretty stupid too, considering they specify directly that the price was set by the publisher.


#116



makare

I could hold the actual book for that price is what confused me. It may not be unusual but I am not paying that much for a digital book unless it is a textbook.


#117

Bowielee

Bowielee

If you look at the rest of the e-books on amazon, that's pretty much the running price unless it's an independently published book.

IE, not unusual at all.


#118

Calleja

Calleja

We know it's not unusual... it's still ridiculous.


#119



makare

I think the point here is it is not unusual it is just plain bullshit.


#120

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Exactly. If the book price is almost the same whether I get it on paper or on disk, why the fuck wouldn't I get it on paper? All your doing is driving down impulse buys.


#121

Calleja

Calleja

Plus if you buy it in paper it's perfectly legal to scan it for your kindle or whatever for personal use, so you get "both versions" for the price of one.

It's ridiculous that publishing houses don't realize that without printing and distributing costs they could charge a buck or two for ebooks and not only drive their sales way, way, way up, but also make a profit for each copy anyway.


#122



makare

I was considering getting a kindle but when I saw I'd still have to pay 9 dollars for the book I wanted i just got the book.


#123

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Plus if you buy it in paper it's perfectly legal to scan it for your kindle or whatever for personal use, so you get "both versions" for the price of one.

It's ridiculous that publishing houses don't realize that without printing and distributing costs they could charge a buck or two for ebooks and not only drive their sales way, way, way up, but also make a profit for each copy anyway.
If they were smart, they'd include a free eBook download of the book WITH the book, like a lot of indie music artists do.


#124

Mathias

Mathias

I was considering getting a kindle but when I saw I'd still have to pay 9 dollars for the book I wanted i just got the book.

That's why you use bit torrent and download the book anyway...


#125

Shegokigo

Shegokigo



#126

@Li3n

@Li3n

Poor Jubilee...


#127

Bowielee

Bowielee

Poor Jubilee...
I think jubilee is right up there with aqua man in how much crap she gets for her powers.


#128

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

I think jubilee is right up there with aqua man in how much crap she gets for her powers.
Wasn't she depowered during M-Day? I know she was running around in power armor for a while.


#129

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

She was "powered" in the first place?


#130

Bowielee

Bowielee

I actually have to stand up for my Jubilee. I always loved her. She actually was extremely powerful, but was afraid to use her powers to their full extent. She witnessed an alternate reality version of herself use her powers to kill and it made her hold back from then on.

And, yes, she was de-powered after M-Day, then almost killed by the purifiers. I haven't really been following the X-titles over the last few years, so I really don't know what's been happening lately.


#131

Vagabond

Vagabond

Jubilee is a vampire now.

A sexy vampire that has sexy adventures with a young sexy female clone of wolverine.


#132

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

Jubilee is a vampire now.

A sexy vampire that has sexy adventures with a young sexy female clone of wolverine.
I require sources to said material.


#133

PatrThom

PatrThom

What, Jubalee is running around with X23 now?

--Patrick


#134

Bowielee

Bowielee

No wonder I don't read Xmen anymore.

A vampire?

:facepalm:


#135

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

From the Wiki:
"Jubilee is one of many individuals to be mass infected with a bio-engineered virus by a vampire suicide bomber. Jubilee is taken to the X-Men's headquarters, where they run tests on her, confirming that the virus is slowly but surely transforming her into a vampire, making her less and less able to handle sunlight."
"It appears that Jubilee has been successfully transformed into a vampire and temporarily did the same to Wolverine after he came to rescue her.[26] She remains a vampire and was being detained in a holding cell beneath Utopia for observation."
"Jubilee has since gained the powers of a vampire from her transformation by the bite of Xarus, son of Dracula. Her powers include superhuman strength and speed, and the ability to turn into vapor. It's possible that she can heal much faster than a human.
As a vampire, Jubilee now possesses all of the weaknesses of a vampire. She must sustain herself on blood and avoid direct sunlight, garlic, silver, and religious symbols.
I wish I were quoting from a bad Fanfiction site, because it damn well feels that way.


#136

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

I wish I were quoting from a bad Fanfiction site, because it damn well feels that way.
I know this pain.

I have one question now... Why... the fuck... does she call herself Jubilee still?


#137

@Li3n

@Li3n

I have one question now... Why... the fuck... does she call herself Jubilee still?
Read the url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilation_Lee

Yeah, that's her actual name...


And i've always liked her power... not all mutants need eye beams that can level mountains (but somehow have a problem with certain sentinels when the writter feels like it)...

Do it like in the cartoons, where her sparkles interfere with electronics, and maybe have them also disorient living beings (regardless of power level)...


#138



makare

I'm really laughing at myself now.... I am not really up on comic characters and given the love of mlp of some people on the forum I thought Jubilee was referring to some new version of Cherries Jubilee one of my favorite ponies from when I was a kid.

I didn't want to look into it because my first thought was "first they twist her into stick figured bug eyed mutant AND now she is a VAMPIRE!? Say it is not so!"

honestly I am glad it is not my childhood that is getting crotch kicked this time ^_^


#139

@Li3n

@Li3n

You never saw the 90's X-Men cartoon?


#140



makare

Actually no. I don't think I even knew what X-Men were until I was in my 20s


#141

@Li3n

@Li3n

Actually no. I don't think I even knew what X-Men were until I was in my 20s
:Leyla:

:aaah:

:zoid:


#142



makare


are you coming on to me? O.O


#143

@Li3n

@Li3n

are you coming on to me? O.O
That depends on wheter or not it's working... if it's not i'll totally settle for consuming your brain...


#144

Mathias

Mathias

Actually no. I don't think I even knew what X-Men were until I was in my 20s

HNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG


#145

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Okay, so makare didn't know about the X-Men until she was in her 20s.

I didn't either. Still don't care much.


#146

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

What? Ask me about Art Spiegelman, European comics, Don Rosa, Walt Disney cartoons and comics, and a whole lot of other comic issues and I can argue those with the best of them.

But goddammit, if I just don't happen to like a bunch of whiny civil rights activist equivalents with a penchant for wearing spandex...


#147



makare

Oh I don't have any issue with the X-Men I just didn't know they existed. I was more likely to watch cute kid related cartoons than anything involving fighting stuff.


#148

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

But goddammit, if I just don't happen to like a bunch of whiny civil rights activist equivalents with a penchant for wearing spandex...


#149

Bones

Bones

QP, you need to download and attach those gifbin gifs. hehe


#150

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

QP, you need to download and attach those gifbin gifs. hehe
Why, is it not working?


#151

Bones

Bones

for me it says that I need to go to gifbin.com to see the gif in question


#152

Officer_Charon

Officer_Charon

Same here


#153

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Likewise.


#154

PatrThom

PatrThom

I, also.

--Patrick


#155

@Li3n

@Li3n

Ditto...


#156

Bones

Bones

YOU HAVE MY AX!:Leyla:


#157

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Me three.


Top