7

enter image description here
Dumbledore fights Voldemort from the Harry Potter series of films. Nothing says "opposites" like two different colors incapable of overcoming each other and dripping like magma to the floor.

New worldbuilders tend to think of their magic systems from the outside in. They think in terms of fire and wind, or necromancy and life... all those wonderful adjectives that give a story flavor but mean little to nothing when it comes to establishing the rules of a magic system.

No magic system is complete unless there are consequences. Some consequences are personal, meaning the price the magic user pays for the privilege of using magic. This may be reflected in mana or some measurable resource that can be depleted. Or it may be reflected in the body requiring rest or the magic threatening death. (And you can see how those are both the same thing, a consumed resource that limits the use of a powerful tool. Whether you call it "mana" or "life" is just window dressing.)

This question asks about what it means to have opposites in a magic system: two or more expressions of magic that act in opposition to one another, and how that opposition can be described in a magic system.

When considering this question, keep the following in mind:

  • Your advice will be used by new worldbuilders trying to develop their magic system. Your answer should be more than, "this is how I did it." The more valuable explanation is, "this is why I did it."

  • Try to avoid the window dressing. "Fire" may be opposed to "water" in your magic system, but when it comes down to brass tacks what you have is one force in opposition to another (a positive and a negative, at worst) leading to consequences when used in proximity or against one another.

  • The ideal answer will explain both why opposition is necessary and how it acts to balance the magic system.

  • Obviously a magic system need not have opposite powers at all. Such a discussion is outside the scope of this question, which is meant to educate new worldbuilders in the what, why and how of using opposing powers, not the rationalization of why it's unnecessary.

  • While I do not intend to select a best answer, you should be writing as if I will. Your answer should be complete if not canonical. It should be something you spent a bit of time thinking about rather than pounding out quickly. Your answer should be universally applicable to anyone developing a magic system.

Question: What advice can be given to a new worldbuilder about implementing opposition in their magic system?

 

Background

Questions like this appear to be very rare on this Stack. This question is as much a test of whether or not we can practically use the Worldbuilding-Process tag as it is an honest effort to provide useful answers that can help a wide range of worldbuilders. To that end I ask that you carefully consider how you use your up/down votes and votes to close as they'll set a precedent.

An obvious problem is Stack Exchange's "best answer" context. A question like this may violate SE's rules about every answer being equally valid and open-ended. I hope I've provided enough conditions and limitations to overcome that concern. The result may be a popular-vote "best practice" answer. But this is also part of the test. Can we teach people how to be worldbuilders here, or are we consigned to only asking solve-just-your-problem kinds of questions?

Up/Down Voting & VTCs

Therefore, an up vote means BOTH (a) This question is well-asked AND (b) this question is appropriate for this Stack. A down vote means EITHER (a) This question is inappropriate for this Stack OR (b) this question is not well-asked (I'd hope you'd try to resolve a not-well-asked issue in comments before down-voting, though).

While is is not normally required for anyone casting a VTC to explain themselves, I invite you to please do so. That explanation will contribute to a better understanding of both (a) is this type of question appropriate on the Stack and (b) what are the inherent problems with asking questions of this type?

Why isn't this on Meta?

Because Meta's only purpose is to establish policy. I could have tried to ask about the expected use of the Worldbuilding-Process tag on Meta, but it would have been a limited discussion without a test case like this one to reference. How this question is received will determine both if a Meta post is required and, if so, what that Meta post will ask about.

Nepene Nep
  • 38,494
  • 42
  • 138
JBH
  • 122,212
  • 23
  • 211
  • 522
  • Advice by it's nature is opinion based. The advice I'd give someone building a magic system is highly dependent upon what they're wanting to get out of it. In it's current form this question is too broad, and POB to be suitable for asking on the main site. This seems like a question intended to foster discussion rather than an attempt to seek a specific answer, to a specific worldbuilding problem. – sphennings Sep 28 '22 at 17:22
  • Meta can be used for more than just establishing site policy. https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/help/whats-meta For instance you could ask "How can we as a site better help new members ask good questions about their magic system?". That could include discussion of policy as well as producing advice on how to ask better magic questions, and advice on building magic systems in general that would be too POB for a question on the main site. – sphennings Sep 28 '22 at 17:31
  • I do not like how this question asks both "what is it?" and "what does it do?" Is there some commonly-understood notion you are trying to have us explain? In that case some better examples are warranted than beams of different-colored light. At least explain what about fire magic and water magic oppose each other. – Daron Sep 28 '22 at 17:38
  • 1
    I’m voting to close this question because it is asking for discussion and brainstorming, and is not specific and answerable. The correct place for this type of question is worldbuilding chat. – Mathaddict Sep 28 '22 at 18:00
  • @sphennings Yes and no. The advice of an expert is trustworthy and not an opinion. The advice of amateurs isn't trustworthy and often are opinions. it doesn't help that this Stack has had a rocky and ruckus relationship with SE's "Opinion-Based" VTC reason. I've tried multiple times in Meta to define how it can be used. Others have voted just to ignore it. We're stuck with it. A discussion suggests that there's a "yeah, but" moment between answers, which isn't being solicited. And this is a specific problem. But I'm open to ideas. How would you fix it? – JBH Sep 28 '22 at 18:05
  • @sphennings On the other hand, thanks for providing the link about Meta. I haven't read it in years. I'll let this Q ride as stated and use both to start the Meta discussion. – JBH Sep 28 '22 at 18:06
  • @Daron If you're distracted by the pretty picture then I really failed in my effort. The *entire point of the question* is to ignore *aesthetics* like "fire" and "water" and "light beams" and focus on the rules. The window dressing used for the story is independent of the rules of the system - which is why we have a "too story-based" close option. But what's really amazing is that you complained about the nature of the question ... and then answered it. – JBH Sep 28 '22 at 18:32
  • 1
    I can't think of a single exchange where asking "What advice do you have for people doing X?" is an appropriate question. Asking "what advice do you have for a beginning Python programmer?" would be instantly closed on SO. Similarly when someone on WB posts on main asking for advice with their problem, we VTC as too broad, and too POB, and suggest that they ask a more specific question. By asking for advice not for a specific question, but for a whole class of questions, this question is far broader than other questions closed for soliciting advice. – sphennings Sep 28 '22 at 18:55
  • 2
    I'm sympathetic to the larger goal here, but I think there is merit to the argument that it's extra-difficult to engage with a question that doesn't even have a concrete problem. Relatedly, in American jurisprudence, courts generally refuse to rule on purely hypothetical questions, preferring to reserve judgement until a concrete case presents itself with particulars. This question might be more tractable if you concoct a more pointed question on the model of the ideal defendant. But, I understand that at some point you just gotta put the canary in the mine. – Tom Sep 28 '22 at 19:03
  • @JBH But what are the rules? Do you have them in mind or do you want use to make up some? saying "two or more expressions of magic that act in opposition to one another" is very abstract. I have some ideas for what it might mean in my answer. But those might be different to how others interpret it. – Daron Sep 28 '22 at 20:00
  • 1
    @sphennings The only example I can think of is the list of worldbuilding resources, but it's a rather special case. My personal opinion is that if there's any good answer to this question (sourced from outside this site) then it should probably belong under the "Magic" header of the list-of-worldbuilding-resources... – Qami Sep 28 '22 at 20:02
  • @Qami Our standard for review isn't "can there be a good answer" but, "does this question meet the requirements for a question on this site?" SE's entire model is built on being strict about what questions are permitted. That's why we have close reasons to begin with. This question should have been asked on meta, where we're less strict and discussions are permitted. It clearly violated the rules for a question on main. It's too broad, POB, and seeks to prompt discussion rather than a specific answer. – sphennings Sep 28 '22 at 20:44
  • 1
    WB is always opinion based, and it always has been. I've said this before, and it's still true as of this writing: WB, this forum, is the worst possible topic to have on Stack Exchange. It doesn't fit the SE model. It never has, and it never will. And yet here we are. I think we really need to strike a balance with these kinds of questions: we need to get over the strict interpretation of SE rules because they don't apply to our topic; we need to encourage high quality questions of this sort even if it means disregarding SE rules via forum policy. (cont) – elemtilas Sep 29 '22 at 13:37
  • (cont) ... That said, I don't see this as an unanswerable, opinion based or brainstorming kind of question. Its topic is on brand, it is reasonably well conceived, and is focused. It's the kind of question that encourages THOUGHTFUL ANSWERS. I don't mind answering "mundane" questions (like the sword with a perpendicular handle), but those kinds of questions are often answered through having read about something similar or through having superior search engine skills. LMGTFY. This, however, is a worldbuilder's worldbuilding question. This is the kind of question I'd be asking if I (cont) – elemtilas Sep 29 '22 at 13:43
  • (cont) ... asked questions. It's the kind of question that will garner hundreds of lousy comments on Reddit, but maybe two or three stellar answers here. It's the kind of question that ought to set WB.SE apart from Reddit. Voting to close this kind of question, when well asked, is dooming WB.SE to the worst dregs of the anatomically correct series... – elemtilas Sep 29 '22 at 13:47
  • "Therefore, an up vote means BOTH (a) This question is well-asked AND (b) this question is appropriate for this Stack. [and close opposite with downvotes]" Just... No. A score vote only means (a) through the official definition it's given, close votes means point (b). Don't expect people to follow your rules just because you want to. Also, please avoid putting meta-text into a question for main; That's unnecessarily confusing to anyone not a regular SE user and off-topic to the main site. Instead, put a meta-post explaining the experiment, link to here and link back through a comment. – Tortliena - inactive Oct 09 '22 at 18:31
  • @Tortliena You're a big boy, Tort. I'm sure you can both live with this and get over it. Considering the question was asked 11 days ago, your complaint is falling on really deaf ears - and I disagree with it anyway. – JBH Oct 09 '22 at 19:04
  • I can't vote to reopen because the question tries to eat a very big and broad fish. Not meaning that you need to describe your magic system, but more on the process. Hm... For instance of more focused question : "How can one avoid 'tug-of-war' (like the ray vs ray picture you linked) effect when designing opposite magics?", or "What kind of message -as an author- can I most easily convey if I design dual magic systems?". The fact it's too broad is the reason your question is kinda opinion-based, as we can't really give the whole advice, nor can we reasonably cut it to your needs ^^. [...] – Tortliena - inactive Oct 09 '22 at 19:06
  • [...] Indeed, I don't feel the issue is because you're looking for "advices" or that processes are too "meta" to be asked here, all querents here are looking for the first and aim indirectly to improve their second . In fact, perhaps focusing on the "outside the world" part is more likely to bring focused questions. Excluding the text which should lie in meta which honestly irritated me and the fact it's a too broad sweep, I wished there were more questions like these :). – Tortliena - inactive Oct 09 '22 at 19:06
  • @JBH The fact you answered means you read it, so it didn't really fell on blind eyes :). Now you are free to disagree and throw my advice in the bin, but remember you're not above the rules which are managed both by SE and by the community : Meta as in WB:SE's meta should have these kinds of things. It'll also help everyone 2 or 3 years later to have a reliable and much more easily findable source on what was accepted before. Something your question alone here can't provide. – Tortliena - inactive Oct 09 '22 at 19:21
  • @Tortliena Yes it did. I'm not reading the comments in any detail, which means you're wasting both our time. I'm just politely telling you you're wasting both our time. – JBH Oct 09 '22 at 19:22
  • @JBH When a gear in the communication has been broken, the quest for discussion has been lost, I guess... When you've come to terms with the reasons you're stopping me so abruptly, I'll be open to a more peaceful talk :). – Tortliena - inactive Oct 09 '22 at 19:40

2 Answers2

4

Summary

As a summary up front, for once, you can view generating opposites for a magic system in terms of changing a variable in an equation or opposing themes. The success of these approaches depend on the hardness or softness of the magic system being created.

Note: This advices comes to you from a prolific literary analyst and amateur game designer of at least a decade. Yes, I have had academic training from experts in these subjects, but no one has paid me to do this. (Writing and game design just doesn't pay too well.) I have made several magic systems in addition to the many I have analyzed over the years.

Hard Vs Soft Magic

This is a big question, but it can inform how opposites should be defined. Let us take a quick look at these and some approaches for each of them.

Hard magic systems have clearly defined rules: you define it like you would a system of physical laws. This is good when magic's role is more of a tool for solving problems. Examples include most of Brandon Sanderson's works, Eragon's magic system, and many video games. In such a system, opposites may be viewed as things which increase/decrease some (usually physical) variable! This could be things like fire vs water/cold (changing temperature), pushing vs pulling (changing force), draining vs energizing (equally changing emotional states or adjusting blood sugar levels), etc.

Soft Magic systems have no set of clearly defined rules, but serves more to support a character's theme(s). This is good for movies, books, and other non-interactive media, as the writers get to determine what is appropriate or not for that setting/character/situation. Examples include Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter, Avatar: The Last Airbender, Star Wars, and many mythologies as well as supernatural beliefs. (Yes, "the Force" serves the same purpose as magic.) In such a system, opposites are better defined by opposing themes. A thesaurus is helpful here: hate vs love, good vs evil, control vs freedom, etc.

You must determine if your system is more on the hard side or more on the soft side of the magical-rules spectrum. These approaches can be combined, but these approaches work better depending on the hardness/softness of systems. Hardness/Softness is admittedly subjective, but it is a helpful construct to form your system.

But Why Opposites?

Magic can serve many purposes, but fundamentally it provides tools for propelling conflict(s). Conflicts have opposing sides, with conflicting desires, and that's where a lot of reader/player/viewer enjoyment is to be found.

And this is also why you also want opposites. It underscores differences between the two (or more) sides and can also serve to reinforce fundamental differences between them. In the broadest of terms, the choice of magic types bring in themes (or even secondarily associated themes) to those sides. The mechanics of those magic(s) can then raise questions in the reader/player/viewer's mind.

For example, an invasion from a bunch of necromancers raises issues about "means meeting ends", "reverence for the dead", and even "the eventuality of death." An invasion from a bunch of healing-focused magic users will raise different themes and questions, like "autonomy of governments" and "is it always better to heal/extend mercy?"

PipperChip
  • 32,239
  • 2
  • 88
  • 135
  • "Interactive vs non-interactive medium" is a huge differentiator. It's only critical to have delicate balance & ironclad rules with no loopholes if the system is designed with the goal of giving agency to people whose goals don't align with yours -- such as table-top and video games, where the audience is also the set of magic wielders, and they have non-story reasons to exploit anything that can confer an advantage. By contrast, Tolkien did not have to worry that Galdalf would abuse a vague magic system to short-circuit the quest to destroy the One Ring. – Tom Sep 28 '22 at 18:55
  • @Tom I totally agree! This is exactly why hard systems are better for games, but a soft magic system for games can be done. Hard systems can be fine-tuned and balanced: soft systems less so. Books can be written on this, but that's a bit out-of-scope here. – PipperChip Sep 28 '22 at 19:06
  • 1
    Necromancers get a bad rep! A fire mage is allowed to BURN PEOPLE ALIVE but a Necromancer is the bad one? There's such a thing as ethical Necromancy my man! Do you know how many people my Necromancer has saved by temporarily partially undeading heavily injured people so the doctors can operate on them safely? And those spells used to preserve undead for longer are priceless in supermarkets and to keep people young nowadays! – Demigan Sep 29 '22 at 08:05
1

When creating a world with magic, you must consider the effects on the world as a whole. You cannot just slap on wizards to 1400s Europe and expect everything else to be the same.

A world where wizards can do any of (a) teleport, (b) send messages long distance instantly, or (c) change the weather, will have huge influence on an otherwise Western Medieval world.

To prevent huge influence, one solution is to limit which spells can be cast. Either rigidly define what kind of spells exist, or allow broad magic but with a high cost. For example you must sell your soul, make human sacrifice, or give up years of your life to cast a single fireball.

However, for any ruleset you design, you can expect savvy readers to take this blueprint and come up with combinations of spells that interact with each other in unexpected ways.

Combine this fire spell with this ice spell and some gears and pistons arranged exactly so, heat here while simultaneously cooling here, and a single wizard can construct a cheap perpetual motion machine and provide infinite power to the entire world.

To prevent this you can introduce spell opposition. Spells from opposing schools cannot be cast by the same wizard. The cost of casting fire magic is the opposite of the cost of casting ice magic. A wizard who casts a fire spell will find it harder to cast an ice spell than the novice who has never cast anything.

Of course that just means you need two wizards working in tandem to operate the machine. To prevent this, the next step is to declare opposed spells cannot interact. If you try casting a fire spell on one end of a pipe and a cooling spell on the other end, you will not get a flow of heat. You will just get the two spells eating each other and a normal room-temperature pipe. No perpetual motion for you today.

The law of non-interaction is also important if your spells have permanent costs. For example Necromancers must ritually pluck out their eyeballs before they can cast 6th level spells. That is why Necromancers also pay the cost for Earth magic and Glamour magic so they can (i) see through vibrations in the ground and (ii) disguise their lack of eyes.

Thus by cross-classing you can build a totally OP wizard. Having schools of magic cancel each other, or limiting the wizard to a single school is a way to prevent this sort of minmaxing.

I believe the Elder Scrolls II had a way to abuse the system by making your character 1000% vulnerable to poison. This huge penalty gave you more points to make the character strong elsewhere. But then you play an Argonian, which makes you immune to poison and cancels the vulnerability.

Daron
  • 66,136
  • 9
  • 129
  • 236