Sword Beats Spell: Defending the God-Martial

[Knaight]

You're both kinda missing the point and going down a rabbithole somewhere else.

Compare what we do know and how accessible that information is on those subjects... with the "mysterious" and "secret" nature of magic in most settings where magic is an actual working manipulatable part of the universe.

Compare what the people in various times and places going back millennia were able to figure out in mathematics, astronomy, engineering, etc... with the way people in similar settings are depicted interacting with actual working magic.

Our point is that while magic likely would be studied, that doesn't mean that anything even vaguely approaching complete knowledge would be developed particularly quickly. There's still plenty of room for mysteries and secrets, the same way there still is in various scientific fields. Take a simple question - where does disease come from? It doesn't have a simple answer, and prior to germ theory it was pretty mysterious. Even after germ theory there's still questions about specifics, there's cases like cancer which have a different mechanism, so on and so forth. The answers are there in a way that they aren't in real life; that doesn't make them accessible.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Our point is that while magic likely would be studied, that doesn't mean that anything even vaguely approaching complete knowledge would be developed particularly quickly. There's still plenty of room for mysteries and secrets, the same way there still is in various scientific fields. Take a simple question - where does disease come from? It doesn't have a simple answer, and prior to germ theory it was pretty mysterious. Even after germ theory there's still questions about specifics, there's cases like cancer which have a different mechanism, so on and so forth. The answers are there in a way that they aren't in real life; that doesn't make them accessible.

Or there don't have to be answers at all. Not all real things are scientifically studiable or necessarily understandable by finite creatures. That's a modern, western presumption, not a fact. Magic does not necessarily have to have rules. In fact, the idea that everything must be "rational" is an assumption, not a fact. We've just decided to ignore (or explain in other ways) all the things science can't handle very well.

[Cluedrew]

3) And yet somehow, this exchange is now going to be painted as "Killjoy's fault" for "derailing the thread".

Or you could explain why you think defining magic is relevant. By the way I would say that it is actually very relevant.

Personally I think magic can feel "like magic" while existing. I actually used to do a lot of magic as science in my stories and settings (so it could be studied and qualified) but then I started moving away from that because it was just alternate-science. And I really had it down to a science, I didn't quite state that force is equal to mana times will, but you could imaging that those formulas existed.

In one of my current settings you can't use shadow magic in a dark room, because there aren't any shadows to work with there is just no light. Now you may be thinking "What is the difference between no light and shadow?" and I will tell you I have absolutely no idea of what would separate the two in a way where one is usable and the other is not. But I have done my best to portray the difference consistently, so it hopefully appears to obey some logic, just not one of our world. And the result feels a lot more like magic.

Swordsaged by PhoenixPhyre

[Max_Killjoy]

Or you could explain why you think defining magic is relevant. By the way I would say that it is actually very relevant.

I thought I did... and those were also some of the posts that got such a negative reaction.

[Cluedrew]

To Max_Killjoy: Maybe you did, didn't find it in my quick search. Still the reactions after that were actually very "of course this is on topic" so I'm surprised it got a negative reaction wherever it was.

[ImNotTrevor]

You're both kinda missing the point and going down a rabbithole somewhere else.

Compare what we do know and how accessible that information is on those subjects... with the "mysterious" and "secret" nature of magic in most settings where magic is an actual working manipulatable part of the universe.

Compare what the people in various times and places going back millennia were able to figure out in mathematics, astronomy, engineering, etc... with the way people in similar settings are depicted interacting with actual working magic.


Magic (or the supernatural of you prefer that term) in our world is mysterious and subjective and unreliable... because it doesn't exist. No matter how much someone might believe in magic, there are no underlying patterns or laws to find. There's nothing to test hypotheses against. The only thing experiments can consistently show is that there's nothing there. Spells don't work, there are no ghosts, etc.

At least stop and consider that the real-world trappings of the supernatural are only "mysterious" and "subtle" and "profound" because they only exist within the human imagination.

The problem here is that many people have an understanding of the very simple parts of sciences broadly, and this only because our infrastructure for data spreading/storage is really efficient. Unless your setting includes a similarly efficient method of spreading information, there may not be the same basic and general understanding.

So it is 100% possible to have a setting where the workings of magic are a well-guarded secret shared only with a few.

Of all the things that are easy to justify, "Magic is mysterious" is one of the easiest.

[Efrate]

But magic does have rules, formulae, etc in D&D. It is what wizards do. They know about it, know how to do it, and cause discreet changes on their environment through the application of said knowledge. Sorcerers wing it and it works too.

Think of it similarly to how a savant and a very studied mathematician do complex arithmetic. A savant cannot explain how the fact that he sees pictures and associated numbers in a total distinct and unmathematical way leads him to the right picture which is the correct answer. He just does. The studied mathematician arrives at the answer as well because years of study has led to him knowing how to properly do said problem and arrive at the right answer.

The source and limits of magic in the d&d universe are mostly nebulous and unknown, being either its just there, its the Weave, or something else. How much gravity exists in the universe? We can't be certain. Only that it does. I haven't done anything in physics since high school so that may not be a good example, but the point is similar. Not knowing limits or how something works doesn't mean something doesn't exist or is infinite. Maybe it is, maybe its not, but it exists and works is all you need.

[Max_Killjoy]

To Max_Killjoy: Maybe you did, didn't find it in my quick search. Still the reactions after that were actually very "of course this is on topic" so I'm surprised it got a negative reaction wherever it was.

Go back to around the "we don't even know if reality is real" and "you are forbidden to use the word mundane" nonsense.


Anyway... quick version, the disagreement over what "magic" does and does not mean is a tangent resulting from some participants using "magic" in the broad sense, and other participants insisting that "magic" can only refer to the sort of spellcasting and ritual typical to those sorts of character archetypes that cast spells in RPGs. My objection is not to people using "magic" to mean "spellcasting", but rather to the blatantly incorrect insistence that "magic" can only mean "spellcasting" and that we are somehow wrong to use "magic" in the broader sense -- even though that broader sense is "on the tin".


The original point of several of the questions and conditionals I posted, including that about finding a line (even a fuzzy one with grey area) between magic and mundane (or natural and supernatural, or whatever terms we might find that do't bug people)... was to say that if you're asking if a "god-martial" (using your meaning) can can be on par with a god-caster, then first you need to know a lot of other things about your setting, including what is and is not possible without magic (in the broad sense, again). What's possible for a person within the defined normal limits, what's possible with access to magical forces, etc.

[NichG]

I think it's rather more, if you intend to have god-X's in your setting, you must choose an underlying cosmology for your setting in which X can in principle do anything.

There was a thread a few years back about D&D and Turing completeness. The idea was that you only need a certain kind of wildcard ability in order to be able to use a powerset containing that ability to emulate any other powerset. To get a god-X, the setting probably needs to allow X to contain at least one of that type of thing.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think it's rather more, if you intend to have god-X's in your setting, you must choose an underlying cosmology for your setting in which X can in principle do anything.

That's a very suscint way of putting the idea, yes.

There was a thread a few years back about D&D and Turing completeness. The idea was that you only need a certain kind of wildcard ability in order to be able to use a powerset containing that ability to emulate any other powerset. To get a god-X, the setting probably needs to allow X to contain at least one of that type of thing.

Turing completeness in RPG design. I'll have to see if I can find.

[Cluedrew]

Go back to around the "we don't even know if reality is real" and "you are forbidden to use the word mundane" nonsense.

That was about 10 pages ago, I did find some other posts on what is magic but nothing saying we shouldn't bother to define it.

I do stand by at least avoiding the word mundane, because it can have some excessively restrictive connotations. Similarly I think the broader definition of magic (as the exception) is actually to broad to be useful, because it flat out includes the entire "god-X" topic (until we find a way for a human in real life to reach actual godhood). Both have been covered in more detail up-thread.

There was a thread a few years back about D&D and Turing completeness. The idea was that you only need a certain kind of wildcard ability in order to be able to use a powerset containing that ability to emulate any other powerset. To get a god-X, the setting probably needs to allow X to contain at least one of that type of thing.

Funny thing, apparently both Minecraft and Magic: The Gathering are Turing Complete (as in you can Turing machines with them), but they have very different feels. So can we create a "god-X" where all the simple and straightforward actions still are of X, but you can still do Y. Whatever Y whatever that may be.

To use a wizard -> warrior example, a wizard can hit a foul beast with a sword until it dies. However it probably includes a range of buffs, debuffs, situational modifier spells and so on. It is awkward to mimic but it can be done. What about the other way?

[Max_Killjoy]

That was about 10 pages ago, I did find some other posts on what is magic but nothing saying we shouldn't bother to define it.

I do stand by at least avoiding the word mundane, because it can have some excessively restrictive connotations. Similarly I think the broader definition of magic (as the exception) is actually to broad to be useful, because it flat out includes the entire "god-X" topic (until we find a way for a human in real life to reach actual godhood). Both have been covered in more detail up-thread.

One could say that for any character of type X to qualify as a god-X, they'd need to be able to "break the laws" of reality -- it is necessary to be able to "do magic" (in the broad sense) to be a god-X... of any type of X.

Unless one is dealing with a reality in which it is trivial to break those laws and anyone can in effect be at least some type of god ("god" in the purposes of this discussion, theology aside), in which case we hit the Syndrome rule ("When everyone is a god... no one is a god").

[Cluedrew]

To Max_Killjoy: I think a reality where everyone was a god (accepted to be short hand for "one with effectively unlimited power and ability") would look quite different from our own regardless of weather godhood continued to be an notable feature or not. That being said I have never been there.

Regardless of the implications of its commonality, I am having trouble parsing what you mean in your first paragraph. I got:

"One could say that for any character of type X to qualify as a god-X," For a character who has some arbitrary archetype (and hence power source) for them to qualify has having effectively unlimited power and ability. "they'd need to be able to "break the laws" of reality" They must be able to go outside what is normally allowable in that reality. "-- it is necessary to be able to "do magic" (in the broad sense) to be a god-X..." They must be able to {same as last time} to obtain that level of power. "of any type of X." Did you mean 'for any type of X'?

OK that does make sense, but (if I got all that right) you just seem to be replacing one phase with another that also has some other meanings. Other meanings which have some very significant and different roles in the context of this thread. Which is why I am saying it shouldn't be used here. Its not wrong but it is less confusing and I hope to avoid the spellcasting/exception confusion you were complaining about earlier.

[Max_Killjoy]

To Max_Killjoy: I think a reality where everyone was a god (accepted to be short hand for "one with effectively unlimited power and ability") would look quite different from our own regardless of weather godhood continued to be an notable feature or not. That being said I have never been there.

Regardless of the implications of its commonality, I am having trouble parsing what you mean in your first paragraph. I got:

"One could say that for any character of type X to qualify as a god-X," For a character who has some arbitrary archetype (and hence power source) for them to qualify has having effectively unlimited power and ability. "they'd need to be able to "break the laws" of reality" They must be able to go outside what is normally allowable in that reality. "-- it is necessary to be able to "do magic" (in the broad sense) to be a god-X..." They must be able to {same as last time} to obtain that level of power. "of any type of X." Did you mean 'for any type of X'?

OK that does make sense, but (if I got all that right) you just seem to be replacing one phase with another that also has some other meanings. Other meanings which have some very significant and different roles in the context of this thread. Which is why I am saying it shouldn't be used here. Its not wrong but it is less confusing and I hope to avoid the spellcasting/exception confusion you were complaining about earlier.

I keep sticking "in the broad sense" as a parenthetical after "magic" because I don't have another word for what I'm talking about other than "magic".

Let me try again, though.

* What makes a god-wizard a god-wizard?
* If it's the ability to break the laws of reality, then any other type of god-X must also be able to break the laws of reality to be on par with the god-wizard.
* What name shall we use for the ability of break the laws of reality? If not "magic", then what? Or do we just keep saying "ability-to-break-the-laws-of-reality"?
* If "ability-to-break-the-laws-of-reality" is necessary for any X to qualify as a god-X, then what difference is there between god-Xes this X, that X, and some other X, other than superficial aesthetic trappings?


(On the other hand... if some beings can break the laws of reality, one might say that the actual laws of reality aren't being broken, because that ability is part of an deeper, underlying, immutable reality -- is "reality" defined by unbreakable truths?)

[georgie_leech]

I keep sticking "in the broad sense" as a parenthetical after "magic" because I don't have another word for what I'm talking about other than "magic".

Let me try again, though.

* What makes a god-wizard a god-wizard?
* If it's the ability to break the laws of reality, then any other type of god-X must also be able to break the laws of reality to be on par with the god-wizard.
* What name shall we use for the ability of break the laws of reality? If not "magic", then what? Or do we just keep saying "ability-to-break-the-laws-of-reality"?

(On the other hand... if some beings can break the laws of reality, one might say that the actual laws of reality aren't being broken, because that ability is part of an deeper, underlying, immutable reality -- is "reality" defined by unbreakable truths?)

Does that not then mean that your definition of magic is anything that can break the laws of "reality?"

[Max_Killjoy]

Does that not then mean that your definition of magic is anything that can break the laws of "reality?"

Yes, in part because I don't have another word for "ability-to-break-the-laws-of-reality".

(Also, I had to go back to edit the post, I got distracted by my last parenthetical observation and left the last bullet point off my list.)

(Also, also, in the above, "reality" can refer to any specific reality, including fictional realities, that is, the settings of games and/or fiction.)

[Cluedrew]

I keep sticking "in the broad sense" as a parenthetical after "magic" because I don't have another word for what I'm talking about other than "magic".

Exception (or exceptions) is the word I have been using in this thread to replace magic as a word that means "to break the laws of reality".

If "ability-to-break-the-laws-of-reality" is necessary for any X to qualify as a god-X, then what difference is there between this X, that X, and some other X, other than superficial aesthetic trappings?

The internal logic that governs how "reality is broken" for one. But then are aesthetic trappings really superficial in this context?

(On the other hand... if some beings can break the laws of reality, one might say that the actual laws of reality aren't being broken, because that ability is part of an deeper, underlying, immutable reality -- is "reality" defined by unbreakable truths?)

I actually agree with that, but I again accept "break the laws of reality" as a short hand for "break the laws that govern reality under normal circumstances and produce the results we are used to, there for producing an extraordinary result".

Swordsaged.

[ImNotTrevor]

After looking at a Superpowers wiki, I found a term for "Reality Warping" that is one word:
Essokinesis for the noun of "reality warping" as a concept
Essokinetic as the adjective form.

It's not a particularly pretty word, but it just might work for our purposes without getting muddled in words with already muddy meanings.

Use would be:
Once a character becomes essokinetic (able to warp/break the rules of/alter reality itself) they are officially a God-X.

So if we are ok with Breaking the laws of Reality Itself meaning breaking the laws of the reality the character is currently in, not our reality rules, and are OK with doing a basic equation of Reality Rules Breaking being functionall equal to Warping Reality, then Essokinetic would work just fine.

[Mechalich]

The internal logic that governs how "reality is broken" for one. But then are aesthetic trappings really superficial in this context?

From a game design standpoint the aesthetic trappings may very well be entirely superficial. If your system is effects-based, then yes the aesthetics are superficial and in fact this is usually noted explicitly in the rules. Most superhero systems are built this way, where it doesn't matter what your power is called, where you got it from, or even what it looks like, the rules only govern how much damage, what the range and area of effect are, and other similar mechanical constraints.

Marvel, for example, has any number of 'bruiser' type characters whose powers are mostly superhuman strength and durability: The Hulk (gamma accident), the Thing (cosmic accident), Juggernaut (magical artifact), Colossus (mutant), etc. who all have different origins and explanations for their powers but who are otherwise equivalent.

Most settings either have a single, well-defined 'magic system' or are going to some level of 'all myths are true' and have endless forms of phlebotinum that can do all kinds of different things and interact incoherently. When dealing with the latter you pretty much have to go effects based, because otherwise your setting collapses into endless 'you got your magic in my magic' arguments about power interactions.

It is possible for a game to have multiple magical systems that have strongly defined internal coherency and are well-defined in terms of how they interact with each other. The most common form of this is some kind of ying/yang system with one kind of good magic and one kind of bad magic that are capable of different things (ranging from angelic magic versus demon magic to the light side/dark side of the Force and so on). It is also common to have magic and advanced technology that is indistinguishable from magic competing with each other. Beyond that though, and it gets bizarre quickly. I'm not really aware of any setting, never mind a game where the constraints are considerably tighter, that manages this coherently.

[NichG]

I think 'break' the laws of reality is unnecessary. Rather, the first thing is whether you can instantiate a system inside reality whose presence effectively redefines the laws of reality as a consequence. The second thing is that this ability to do so is open-ended, in that any other set of rules within the same group can be achieved as a result of doing so.

Examples of the first thing exist in real-world systems. We can for example put a cart on a air-track and put a pole on it, with the result that it will fall over and swing around. But we can build a computer system that applies small forces to the cart with the result that the pole moves approximately as if gravity pointed the opposite way. So we can emulate (to some limit) alternate rules of physics by building systems that coexist with the emulatory system within the same rules of physics. There are other examples of this for things like wavefields - if we control the sounds transmitted at the boundary of a space (e.g. with speakers), and we know the position and transmission properties of all objects within the space, we can calculate what sound we'd have to play at the boundary in order to make arbitrary sound fields inside that space - including things that emulate completely different laws of wave propagation. In a more esoteric example, it was recently shown that you can emulate any kind of Ising model interaction rules with another Ising model combined with the right (fixed) external field pattern applied - so you can make all magnets of one kind behave like any other magnet of the same kind.

Our reality is probably not open-ended enough to support a god-X in general, but there are definitely subsystems for which you can effectively write your own rules by placing it into a specific configuration.

When you get a god-X in a tabletop RPG, its often the same thing. When Pun-Pun uses a Sarrukh's ability to write new rules, it's within the rules of reality. It's because the rules of reality for D&D 3.5 include methods by which they can explicitly be amended.

[Max_Killjoy]

From a game design standpoint the aesthetic trappings may very well be entirely superficial. If your system is effects-based, then yes the aesthetics are superficial and in fact this is usually noted explicitly in the rules. Most superhero systems are built this way, where it doesn't matter what your power is called, where you got it from, or even what it looks like, the rules only govern how much damage, what the range and area of effect are, and other similar mechanical constraints.

Marvel, for example, has any number of 'bruiser' type characters whose powers are mostly superhuman strength and durability: The Hulk (gamma accident), the Thing (cosmic accident), Juggernaut (magical artifact), Colossus (mutant), etc. who all have different origins and explanations for their powers but who are otherwise equivalent.

Maybe part of what informs my approach here is all those years spent using the HERO system, which is the poster child for "use this single detailed and broad set of mechanics to build powers of whatever SFX you want" systems.

[Cluedrew]

Random thought: Even if all essokinetic (thanks ImNotTrevor) things are considered magic, is the line magic-user/not-magic-user or spell-caster/not-spell-caster? (Question inspired by something Deepbluediver said on another thread.)

Now we have been using the word caster, but I think we have actually been talking a lot about magic-users. That is to say even if you get supernormal strength and toughness from an explicitly magical (narrow sense of the word) source does that make you a caster even if you never cast any spells?

My initial reaction was no, but is that just me splitting hairs?

On Aesthetic Trappings: At that point it is just flavour text... but what about at a slightly higher level. For instance if the ability is "deal damage at range" than "lightening bolt" and "run over there, punch them and come back" is are variants of the aesthetics, but there are hardly superficial differences. (For instance the second implies they can move twice as far as the second can shoot in a single action.)

[Max_Killjoy]

Random thought: Even if all essokinetic (thanks ImNotTrevor) things are considered magic, is the line magic-user/not-magic-user or spell-caster/not-spell-caster? (Question inspired by something Deepbluediver said on another thread.)

Now we have been using the word caster, but I think we have actually been talking a lot about magic-users. That is to say even if you get supernormal strength and toughness from an explicitly magical (narrow sense of the word) source does that make you a caster even if you never cast any spells?

My initial reaction was no, but is that just me splitting hairs?

On Aesthetic Trappings: At that point it is just flavour text... but what about at a slightly higher level. For instance if the ability is "deal damage at range" than "lightening bolt" and "run over there, punch them and come back" is are variants of the aesthetics, but there are hardly superficial differences. (For instance the second implies they can move twice as far as the second can shoot in a single action.)

I'd say that actual spellcasting is required of a character, for them to be called a "caster".

On the aesthetic trappings, if one goes the HERO route, then certain situations are adjudicated by the SFX of the power build with "Energy Blast" or "Ranged Killing Attack". Using your example, the "run over there punch and run back" character can't use his power if there's an obstacle that prevents running, such as a deep chasm, while the "throws lighting" character can just zap away.

Spoiler: HERO digression within, only tangentially relevent to the discussion.

Show

However, as an aside, there's a lot of disagreement in the HERO community as to how to construct "run over there punch and run back". Some would say that mechanics are completely abstract and that you'd build that as a "ranged attack, with -1/4 must cross intervening space Limitation" or something like that. Others would say that the character is running over and punching, they need to actually need to have sufficient "inches" of Run to run over, do a move-by attack, and run back. I tended to fall into the latter camp, because it models the power more accurately. Of course, there was also the argument over "always build the most efficient way possible" vs "if you can build something more than one way, the more expensive way is more rules-appropriate", to which I always said "no, do it the way that syncs with and captures the feel of the thing you're trying to model".

[PanosIs]

Is it that hard to define what is not magic? I mean, it probably is if we're looking for the maximum possible set of not-magic things, but we're not (necessarily) looking for that. For example the subset of martial gods whose only godly attributes are unlimited strength and agility I think we can agree are not magic, but rather a derivative of their god-ness. That is the base building block of a martial character after all, and all martial characters will come down to one of those aspects, there is a stretch of things along the lines of jumping on air and stuff but I think the argument can be narrowed down to defending the unlimited physical prowess character at its core, rather than its derivatives whichever may those be.

In a perfect system I would assume a martial god would be able to dodge or overpower the magical gods obstacles by sheer force, thus in godly conflicts there would be a need for both martial and magical gods.

[Cluedrew]

Is it hard to define not magic? No, not really. Is it hard to get people to agree on a definition? Yes, approaching impossible.

Point of clarification: in this context you can't derive strength (or any other source of power) from "god-ness", because god here is just a short hand for "really powerful". It comes from strength, not the other way around.

Which of course leads to the question: "How do they get to be that strong and agile?" And there is some debate about if that must be magic. I say no, it is not a supernatural* force, at most it is a supernatural amount of a natural force.

*And we have debated over that word too.

[Max_Killjoy]

Is it hard to define not magic? No, not really. Is it hard to get people to agree on a definition? Yes, approaching impossible.

Point of clarification: in this context you can't derive strength (or any other source of power) from "god-ness", because god here is just a short hand for "really powerful". It comes from strength, not the other way around.

Which of course leads to the question: "How do they get to be that strong and agile?" And there is some debate about if that must be magic. I say no, it is not a supernatural* force, at most it is a supernatural amount of a natural force.

*And we have debated over that word too.

Repeatedly.

In part, it depends on the setting.

You know, it's a shame that there isn't a big, detailed guide to worldbuilding that would include prompting people to ask these sorts of questions about their settings.


That said, I'm going to slow it down for a while. Regardless of whether it's justifiable (and oh... it is), the anger level I'm building up isn't good for me.

[Killdread]

OK, having read through this entire thread in the past few hours I finally feel qualified to post and here are my thoughts.

1. Magic is purple, not blue.

2. In regards to the discussion of if aesthetics are important to "god" characters the answer is yes. Why? Because they function a lot like knives. How do the function like knives? Simple, they all serve the same basic function, but can be made through varying processes and will have different specialties effected by their appearance.

3. Defining terms is more or less useless because we're discussing this in English, which as we all should know by now has massive problems in terms of being something of a grab bag of Latinate and Germanic words+grammar which has been further confused because of regional differences and that some words have definitions that use themselves.

4. Discussing things with people when you aren't using extremely strictly defined terms and a clear system is far harder than most people give it credit for. The main reason for this is that everything you say goes through a specific system of communication, Firstly you have what you mean in your head, then you have to translate it into the language(s) you're using to communicate it to the other person(s), and finally they have to interpret it. That system, while it seems simple, is far from it because words have associations in peoples thoughts based on the situation(s) in which they find themselves and others using those words, many of which will both change their subjective interpretation of what you're trying to say that time, but also bias them in regards to other things you say.

5. As to whether a "being of god-like, or greater than god-like power depending on how gods are defined" that gained said power through the act(s) of lifting weights and doing yoga could match or exceed the power of one who gained such through dedicated study of how to twist the mystic energies to their whim, the answer lies in the fact that it's fiction. The question being about fiction means the answer is always a conditional "yes", the condition being that you want it to be.

6. If you would like an idea of what a possible "god through physical means" might be like i would point you towards "Ultimate Kars", who while possibly not actually fitting the idea in how he got there, still remains a great example of what a "god-physical" might be in comparison to the well known "god-wizard"

7. I'm almost positive i have more points and thoughts to contribute to this topic, however after reading all the way through this thread and typing this out my brain feels like a dumpster fire that someone poured nitroglycerin into.

8. Because i can't be bothered renumbering and moving around this one and the last one I'll say it here. Any variety of "god" character either requires a rule-set made around the concept of them actually achieving it, or a rule-set so broken and exploitable that it's clear the designers never actually thought about the effects that could be achieved with the tools they gave you. (You can probably guess which Dungeons and Dragons Three to Three and five tenths count as, yep both)

[ImNotTrevor]

Repeatedly.

In part, it depends on the setting.

You know, it's a shame that there isn't a big, detailed guide to worldbuilding that would include prompting people to ask these sorts of questions about their settings.


That said, I'm going to slow it down for a while. Regardless of whether it's justifiable (and oh... it is), the anger level I'm building up isn't good for me.

I don't know that there's any amount of anger about other people's preferred worldbuilding styles that I would consider justifiable. (Unless they were building worlds specifically as veiled personal insults, which I would personally find more impressive than infuriating.)

It's kinda like being angry about some people being cubists when you think they should be impressionists. Not everyone has the same goal in mind. >.>

[Cluedrew]

1. Magic is purple, not blue.

ARE YOU INSANE? Of course magic is blue, same as MP bars in RPGs everywhere! Well that is where I first saw it, but I have seen it consistently presented in that colour almost every time. Why purple? (PS. I don't actually think you are insane.)

3. Defining terms is more or less useless because we're discussing this in English, [...]

4. Discussing things with people when you aren't using extremely strictly defined terms and a clear system is far harder than most people give it credit for. [...]

Which is exactly why we bother to define all these terms, because we need them and don't have them.

As for your other points I mostly agree. The question is can we build such a character (non-magic with effectively infinite power) that is believable? Believable might actually be "for a given amount of hand waving". I would set that to whatever the spellcasters get.

Personally I find that they are about equal amount of hand wave. I think the casters get a pass more often because of convention, that hand has been waved so much we barely even notice anymore.

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't know that there's any amount of anger about other people's preferred worldbuilding styles that I would consider justifiable. (Unless they were building worlds specifically as veiled personal insults, which I would personally find more impressive than infuriating.)

It's kinda like being angry about some people being cubists when you think they should be impressionists. Not everyone has the same goal in mind. >.>

Spoiler: I really wanted to just let this go...

Show

I wasn't angry about differing opinions...

Spoiler: Abandon all hope, ye who enter here

Show

I was angry about the way certain posters seemed unable to engage in the discussion without being belittling and condescending, and/or deliberately misrepresenting the opinions of those they didn't agree with. I was angry because no matter how much I explained otherwise, no matter how much I clarified that I left D&D behind over 20 years ago for a myriad of reasons, a couple of posters kept insisting that I was just regurgitating D&D. I was angry because people kept trying to tell me what I was thinking instead of reading what I was posting. I was angry because multiple posters directly called me a liar. I was angry because at least one poster kept trying to tell me I wasn't "allowed" to use some words for the common meaning, I had to use special meanings as decided by that poster I was angry because someone dropped in mid-thread and insisted that we repeat all the points and counterpoints that had been made up until that time, instead of them reading a few pages to catch up. I was angry because we were wasting time on a bunch of navel-gazing "is the chair real?" nonsense. I was angry because someone demanded -- angrily DEMANDED -- to be answered while I was in the middle of trying to catch up to their post in the hurricane that this thread was at the time, and make a reasonable response to things in their post that had ticked me off on first read. I was angry because when I tried to show that someone was using an artificially constrained definition, I was accused of... wait for it... trying to invoke an artificially constrained definition . Etc.

But differing opinions? No, I wasn't really angry about that at all.

And I wanted to just drop it all because I started to get the feeling that I was driving certain other posters away entirely, and I do not want that.