Some Fantasy Standards

[belial.1980]

I guess I'm in the minority... I enjoy sci fi so long as it doesn't stumble into geek speak and nerdgasms. Make it weird, make it cool, and I'll buy it. That's my approach.

I'm right there with you. Terms like "vamps," "lycans," and "manna" sorta make me cringe.

In my WIP I've got a character who can move stuff with her mind. I'll admit that I write about that ability in a sort of round about way just so I can avoid using the word "telekinesis." Eh, I guess it's just a personal thing. 

[Kid Longshot]

@Darwinist, I didn't think you were rude. I was quite glad you asked the question before I logged off for the day. I would have felt quite dumb posting a thread like this with no well-defined purpose.

@belial, I agree, those pop-culture terms make me cringe. For my fantasy series, I came up with different names for psychic abilities. I found it was a small step to developing the world as a whole, and it made me feel more original to boot.

Thanks to neuro and jtaylor for inspiring me to look up alternates to the Native American stereotype. The character I wanted the shaman powers for is Irish, so that made me feel better about that aspect of the character.

BTW, lol @ roflstomp.

[Hell's Belle]

Keep in mind that there are other types of vampires that don't fit your list of commonalities- you're keeping yourself within the boundaries of Western lore.  There's a world of eeeeeeeeeek! out there to spice up vampires. 

[seekmore]

Like that South American(or was it Southeast Asia?) that consisted of a levitating woman's head with entrails dangling out of the neck that twinkled like fireflies.

[Kid Longshot]

I plan on marketing this in the United States, perhaps I shouldn't stray too far geographically, unless I have good reason. Don't get me wrong, head-levitating would be great for the spook factor, but I have a me to provide for. And I know me, I cannot subsist on ramen noodles forever!

[Muddpuppy]

Since no one has pointed this out yet there are a few pretty old and rather obscure myths/legends concerning vampires.  Silver hurts them, they have a bit of OCD concerning mustard seeds (this one from eastern europe) according to the myth if traveling around at night carry a pocketful of mustard seeds and if you are being followed by a vampire pull them out and scatter them on the ground the vampire will then have to stop and pickup every last one of them,  some other legends also state that vampires are super strong but not very quick so they can't pull the speedy gonzales thing on a victim, and most are rather stupid anyway.    However vampires posess differetn abilities depending on where the legends come from.

As for Shamans, umm think badass Druid mith a little Cheech and Chong and Jedi tendency towards vagueness and you will have a pretty good idea of what you are dealing with.  However when in doubt read the legends or talk to the local tribe (provided there is one near you) you can usually bribe a story from someone.

[seekmore]

Since no one has pointed this out yet there are a few pretty old and rather obscure myths/legends concerning vampires.  Silver hurts them, they have a bit of OCD concerning mustard seeds (this one from eastern europe) according to the myth if traveling around at night carry a pocketful of mustard seeds and if you are being followed by a vampire pull them out and scatter them on the ground the vampire will then have to stop and pickup every last one of them,  some other legends also state that vampires are super strong but not very quick so they can't pull the speedy gonzales thing on a victim, and most are rather stupid anyway.    However vampires posess differetn abilities depending on where the legends come from.

There's basically a vampire-like legend for every human culture, and they all differ in some way. As long as you make them fairly balanced, it shouldn't matter what sources you draw from.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I don't mind if you postulate a spiritual world but make everything have certain sets of rules. 

Why ?

I'm a big fan of well developed rational magic myself, but it's a long way from the only way to do magic and make it work.

[Kristine]

Why ?

I'm a big fan of well developed rational magic myself, but it's a long way from the only way to do magic and make it work.

Have you read a good fantasy series where magic works where there were no rules?

[seekmore]

Have you read a good fantasy series where magic works where there were no rules?

The only series I've read where there wasn;t a fairly clearly defined system of magic was the Inheritance Cycle.....and that is hardly an example of good fantasy.

[Aludra]

The only series I've read where there wasn;t a fairly clearly defined system of magic was the Inheritance Cycle.....and that is hardly an example of good fantasy.

I don't know why you say it isn't clearly defined.  You might revisit book 2.  Eragon's teacher explains it.

[seekmore]

I don't know why you say it isn't clearly defined.  You might revisit book 2.  Eragon's teacher explains it.

And it contradicts what we hear from Brom in the first book, nor is it defined what the limits are.

And Eragon immediately contradicts what Oromis teaches by writing that ballad, which is a fictionalized accounting of his battle with Durza.

[Aludra]

Brom doesn't know everything the elves do and left out a lot of Eragon's education. 

Oromis explains that there are actually no limits, but you can do magic by speaking which imposes limits on it.

And it seems that there's a difference between fictional literature and fact in the language, or there wouldn't be fiction for Eragon to read.  So it's not just the ballad.  It's not clear how fiction is reconciled, but I think if you are not intending to deceive, then you can create stories and songs.

In any case, there is a cearly defined mechanism for magic and it's history despite some minor inconsistancies which have less to do with magic and more to do with language.

[seekmore]

Brom doesn't know everything the elves do and left out a lot of Eragon's education.

Except Oromis trained Brom, and there is a fairly major discrepancy there.

Oromis explains that there are actually no limits, but you can do magic by speaking which imposes limits on it.

Which means there should be no story. No limits means you can do anything. Eragon could just say Galbatorix's mountain and everything on it turns to dust, and it should be so.

We are explicitly told that you cannot tell a lie in the Ancient Language(or whatever they call it), yet Eragon proceeds to do so with his ballad.

And it seems that there's a difference between fictional literature and fact in the language, or there wouldn't be fiction for Eragon to read. 

And we are given no evidence of this. The information we are given is: Lies=No. Truth=Yes.

No language is like that, though. A word is a word, whether it used for fact or fiction.

The elves have their own language. And they have the Ancient Language, unless I remember incorrectly.

In any case, there is a clearly defined mechanism for magic and it's history despite some minor inconsistancies which have less to do with magic and more to do with language.

Except that magic is the language. Inconsistencies between the two shouldn't exist.

[Aludra]

He can't do ANYTHING, there are still limits regarding expended energy.

Edit: I just listened to the part where Oromis asks Eragon how he can speak the Ley, and Eragon says he beleives it to be true, so he can speak it.  So it is definitely about intent to deceive and not about untruths.


And Oromis wouldn't have taught Brom the secrets if Brom didn't finish the training (Which Brom didn't) because Oromis says they only taught the unspoken spell thing to students who had mastered every bit of magic.  Which Brom hadn't.

Also magic ISNT the language, the language was adapted to control the magic.  Else anyone who could make the right noises could do magic, and it would happen on accident frequently. Oromis explains this too.