ParanetOnline

McAnally's (The Community Pub) => Author Craft => Topic started by: Kid Longshot on August 26, 2009, 12:13:35 AM

Title: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Kid Longshot on August 26, 2009, 12:13:35 AM
I'm looking for info about tradtional vampires, (i.e. non-Buffy/Dresden) as well as shamans.

What I have a grasp on so far is that vampires universally crave blood, have a pigment thing going on, and have some measure of immortality.

For shamans, I get that they are a medicine man type thing for Native American tribes, as well as a position of some authority in a village. I also base most of my stuff for them on the fact that in one way or another, they deal with the spirits of the dead.

What do y'all have for me?
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Darwinist on August 26, 2009, 12:55:19 AM
Well, I have it on good authority that if you take a perfectly good two by four, whittle down one end into a pointy tip, and then proceed stabbing said vampire in the chest with it... you will either A) piss him off greatly or B) kill it.

What sort of information are you looking for sir? Mating habits... favorite football teams... average life span, number of baseball cards they own? I, for one, know that Shaman are particularly susceptible to STDs. You'd think it would be the Vampires, but no.... its the shaman. They're a horny bunch.

Heh, all kidding aside man, you gotta give a little more for us to go on here. What are you trying to understand about them that wikipedia can't offer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampires
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaman

Or any general search on the intarwebs.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Kid Longshot on August 26, 2009, 01:13:04 AM
Well, okay, sorry my question was too vague.

Generally, I'm looking for any abilities they generally have, y'know, or susceptibilities, I need those too. Maybe I should rephrase the question.

What kinds of abilities or weaknesses have you seen that you liked about vamps or shamans? What really hit your cool-o-meter on a high setting? Is it just a vampire's super strength or a shaman's uncanny healing abilities? You guys are Butcher fans, too, so what do you like to see?
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Darwinist on August 26, 2009, 01:46:34 AM
Sorry if that came out rude, it wasn't intended that way. Long day, sarcasm and humor go a long way verbally compared to in prose.

I'm not big into the Shaman side of things. To be honest, I always found the lore to be boring. Nothing I've read or seen on television has been able to make it exciting, fresh, or interesting to me. It's usually "you pissed off the medicine man" and then the big scary indian looking dude does something yawn inducingly boring to you... like shrink your head or something. I guess its the Indian lore side of things that I just can't take seriously.

Vampires are the same way for me. When I think Vampire, I think of bram stokers... or some old guy with greasy hair in a tight form fitting tux. That's why the Dresden books are so refreshing, they don't rely on that crap. There's something unique and fresh about the genre as a whole. They seem like every day people with every day supernatural problems. You meet a vampire and you don't instantly leap to thoughts of what that monster could do to you, you see them as ordinary people. That's what works for me. Something I can relate to.

As for abilities, can't speak for Shammies, but the super strength in vamp's has always intrigued me. It's a side to them that is rarely ever mentioned. You usually see a vamp and they're this stringy supermodel thin geezer. The tip is to take the genre, tip it on its head and see what new you can bring to it. Which is what you appear to be doing by polling our interest, I suppose.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on August 26, 2009, 03:07:44 AM
Well, I have it on good authority that if you take a perfectly good two by four, whittle down one end into a pointy tip, and then proceed stabbing said vampire in the chest with it... you will either A) piss him off greatly or B) kill it.

It is worth noting that this also works reasonably well on normal humans, and therefore isn't that good of a distinguishing method.

And if you try it on a being that's not vulnerable to this approach, be prepared for it to be peeved with you ruining its shirt.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: belial.1980 on August 26, 2009, 04:40:30 AM
Shamans are way cool IMO. Shamanism exists in one form or another in just about every corner of the world, from Australia to Siberia. And the interesting thing is that these different cultures share many common themes in their beliefs. Shamanism is varied in all its different forms but there are a few things that they tend to have in common:

In most cultures shamans are considered gifted. They're go betweens for the living and the dead and often interact with nature spirits/gods/spirit animals/relative divine powers. They're generally considered healers and are often called upon to drive away evil entities that make members of their community ill. This can involve the use of magic or various exorcism-type riturals. Also the shaman might be called upon to journey to the land of the dead to bring the soul/spirit of the departed back into the land of the living.

Often times the shaman must undergoes a type of transformation to come into their powers. This usually involves some kind of near death experience. I read about one culture where a shaman is visited by the spirits of his/her ancestors and "rebuilt" in a sense by having crystals placed in their bones and given magic powers.

I did a fair amount of reading on Shamans last summer though most of the specifics have escaped me. However I do recall that I found the shamanistic tradition of Siberian peoples (specifically the Ket) and some of the Alaskan tribes especially fascinating.

I'd recommend reading a book on a world study of Shamanism to give you some ideas. Since it's a very elemental belief system it leaves a lot of room for creative liscence as an author.

Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Aludra on August 26, 2009, 05:57:22 PM

I tend to like the vampire books that stray from the traditional vampire traits, giving new horror stories from which the vampire myth could have erupted.  For example, in my second-cousin's book, The Broken Thread, Dracula's garlic allergy is explained humorously as an exponential increase to allergies one had when alive.  The main character of The Broken Thread is a vampire who is deathly allergic to peanuts and peanut products.

I like when vampires stray from the normal neck-bite draining and do some chomping.  And when they can do things humans think they can't, like eat food, make jokes, or walk in sunlight. 

I also like vampires who can shapeshift into more than just bats, and just generally refuse to fit in to the Stoker's Dracula category while remaining extremely horrific.  Like it would be cool if the main character found out that thier creepy uncle is actually a vampire who can change his appearance and has been stalking them for the last 20 years.  That'd be hilarious and very chilling at the same time.

I like shamans that fit into the native american tradition of the term like Pokey from Coyote Blue.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: jtaylor on August 26, 2009, 06:33:16 PM
Shamanism and shamans are almost too generic to be used as a single identifier, as there are several different practices and traditions in the real world that fall under that description, and there are also several different treatments of it in fiction already.

When you say "Shaman", the most common meaning is from Native Americans, but there are several Shamans from Mongolian descent, and witchcraft or Wicca can be described as European shamanism.

Some article on Mongol Shamans:
http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/Magic.htm
http://homelands.org/worlds/shaman.html

Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on August 26, 2009, 06:38:23 PM
When you say "Shaman", the most common meaning is from Native Americans, but there are several Shamans from Mongolian descent, and witchcraft or Wicca can be described as European shamanism.

There are actually many Native American cultures; please to be doing the research with a reasonable degree of respect and specificity as to which one you mean.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: jtaylor on August 26, 2009, 07:00:55 PM
There are actually many Native American cultures; please to be doing the research with a reasonable degree of respect and specificity as to which one you mean.
Sorry, that was implied, I should have been more specific. I was just being broad because I think that is the most common general grouping of Shamanic traditions. I didn't mean any disrespect, I was just being brief.


I am most familiar with the practices of the Navajo people, as I did some reasearh after reading Tony Hillerman and then again later when I was looking for a spirtual path after I found Christianity didn't work for me.

The wikipedia article is pretty good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_people#Healing_and_spiritual_practices
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Darwinist on August 27, 2009, 12:20:30 AM
If done right, Shaman might be a good way to go. As I listed above, I am blissfully ignorant of the practice and found any reference to it thus far bland and uninspiring. If you can drum up something new and exciting about it, then its definitely a good direction to go. People respond best to what is unexpected, new or different. So long as it doesn't turn into Poltergeist or a Tauren with pigtails named "Roflstomp", then you're good to go sir.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Aludra on August 27, 2009, 02:32:42 PM
Tauren with pigtails named "Roflstomp"
I think I know that guy
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: The Corvidian on August 29, 2009, 02:09:37 AM
First off, the whole sunlight thing was created by FW Murnau for his rip-off of Dracula.
Crosses are also solar symbols, and some authors throw in the idea that Crosses are psychosimatic.
In legend, garlic is a symbol of life, but you could throw in the fact that garlic is a natural antibiotic.

I see shamans as a weird combination of a priest, a psychic, and a thaumaturge(wizard).
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Kristine on August 29, 2009, 08:16:08 PM
You could combine the two like SUSAN PETREY's short story collection Gifts of Blood -her race of vampires are called the Varkela, peace-loving healers who exchange medical care for small amounts of blood called the blood-price. Set on the wild steppes of Tsarist Russia, the healers work amongst the diverse groups of people inhabiting the land, the Cossacks, the Turks and the Tartars.

Tragically the author died accidentally mixing sleeping pills with alcohol but the race is very real seeming and 'touchable' - they make mistakes and have stupid bad habits.  Great stories.


Crosses are also solar symbols, and some authors throw in the idea that Crosses are psychosimatic.
In legend, garlic is a symbol of life, but you could throw in the fact that garlic is a natural antibiotic.
I guess the things I like best about the traditional fantasy/horror archetypes is when they have a somewhat believable explanation.  When I am in the Dresden books and demons are 'facts' having Thomas tied to one that makes him a type of vampire, is believable and after that it is the characterization not the vampire shtick that makes him interesting.

Any character who does things without a believable motive just because they are 'born that way' - doesn't fly for me, unless you are trying to create a race of beings to be straw bad guys for the main characters to mow down (ie Zombie movies, orcs from LoTR...etc)

I liked some of the explanations from Those Who Hunt the Night when it comes to vampires - that vampires have an incredibly persuasive psychic perception domination ability that allows them to seem to move faster, and change form, and be unbelievably beautiful, but only when the vampire is well fed - like an illusion version of the reds in Dresden.

Some ideas I'm waiting for someone to develop with vampires:
1. vampire hunters who infect themselves with Argyria which causes silver to collect in the hair follicles and turn the skin blue or grey  -would also make them dangerous to bite if the silver allergy was in play. - http://www.rotten.com/library/medicine/quackery/argyria/
Quote
While Argyria has no real side effects aside from a slight itching, the condition is irreversible since silver becomes trapped in the deepest layers of skin

2. Vampire Saliva is found to have medical properties... - http://www.physorg.com/news170661506.html -
Quote
"The component of the saliva of this tick... could be the cure for cancer," she told AFP.  She said she stumbled on the properties of the protein, called Factor X active, while testing the anti-coagulant properties of the tick's saliva -- the way it stops blood thickening and clotting so the tick can keep gorging itself on its host.

The protein shares some characteristics with a common anti-coagulant called TFPI (Tissue Factor Pathway Inhibitor), specifically a Kunitz-type inhibitor which also has been shown to interfere with cell growth.  A theory that the protein might have an effect on cancerous cells led to laboratory tests on cell cultures -- which exceeded all expectations.

As far as Shamen are concerned - I don't know why no one (as far as I have seen) makes them as real as Butcher or Rowling can make wizards.  Why can't they be ER doctors, veterinarians or paramedics?

I don't mind if you postulate a spiritual world but make everything have certain sets of rules.  In Tim Powers, On Stranger Tides magic always had a smell that accompanied it and magic battles had a mage forcing a perception onto someone else mind - something that if the attacked person had a concussion and was disoriented, made it virtually impossible for that person to be attacked because they couldn't hold the image in their mind.

Things like that can make or break a story for the reader, as long as the characters are 3 dimensional.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Darwinist on August 29, 2009, 10:06:48 PM
Well, Injun Joe is supposed to be part Shaman, right? that was part of why he could swap around between various animal forms. I dunno, I liked Joe even before that scene because he had this grandfatherly approach and seemed very real. The fight scene just made him flat out cool in my books. But I just can't imagine a whole story being told around him. There just isn't enough there to sustain interest, but leave it to Butcher to prove me wrong once again...

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.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: belial.1980 on August 30, 2009, 05:39:38 PM

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. 
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Kid Longshot on August 31, 2009, 04:22:03 PM
@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. :D

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.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Hell's Belle on August 31, 2009, 05:51:30 PM
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.  :)
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: seekmore on August 31, 2009, 05:53:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Kid Longshot on August 31, 2009, 06:08:01 PM
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! :D
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Muddpuppy on September 04, 2009, 06:31:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: seekmore on September 04, 2009, 06:40:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on September 04, 2009, 07:00:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Kristine on September 04, 2009, 07:32:45 PM
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?
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: seekmore on September 04, 2009, 07:39:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Aludra on September 04, 2009, 08:04:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: seekmore on September 04, 2009, 08:07:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Aludra on September 04, 2009, 08:12:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: seekmore on September 04, 2009, 08:25:12 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Aludra on September 04, 2009, 08:37:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: seekmore on September 04, 2009, 09:03:43 PM
He can't do ANYTHING, there are still limits regarding expended energy.
Listening to the book makes it harder, but I am still fairly certain that you contradicted yourself.  Either there are 2 languages, and in which case Eragon did his ballad in the elvish one, or there is just the one language that elves speak which is the ancient language and it can be used to create fiction.

No, it's made clear that Eragon wrote his ballad in the Ancient Language. Oromis says he should not have been able to do so, and Eragon says he was because he believes it to be true with all his heart(or some such).

The Elves didn't come up with the Ancient Language, some other race did. The Grey Ones, or something.

Quote
I still say there's the intent to deceive which it blocks you from acting on, not necessarily telling untruths.

But we are given no explanation for it.

Quote
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.

Why didn't Brom finish training? There's no reason for him not to have. He and Morzan trained together.

Morzan apparently did, or was he an untrained apprentice-type dragonrider who somehow managed to kill a bunch of other fully-trained Dragonriders?

Another thing that bothers me:

We are told that casting magic without the Ancient language is incredibly dangerous and that the Elves are taught not to do so unless it is absolutely necessary.

Yet the Queen non-verbally magicks up some flowers when Eragon meets her. And Vanil uses magic non-verbally in ever one of his duels with Eragon.


And another thing: Eragon's swordsmanship. In less than a year Eragon has gone from being a farmboy to being able to best a warrior with literally over a thousand years more practice than he.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Aludra on September 04, 2009, 09:19:02 PM
I'm not discussing this any further in this thread because I was only arguing about the magic thing. If you want to start an Inheritance hate thread, feel free, but I don't think this is the right thread for it.

Regardless, the magic part is defined even if some of the other details are less clear to you.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on September 04, 2009, 09:24:24 PM
Have you read a good fantasy series where magic works where there were no rules?

Series, no. Novels ? Lots.

Magic that works symbolically in the magic-realism direction is not rational. (See Desolation Road.)

Magic that is enigmatic and Otherworldy is not rational. (See Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, among many others, which has this alongside rational magic.)
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on September 04, 2009, 09:28:19 PM
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.

Ding a magic system badly is not the same as doing non-systemic magic well.  A magic system is not the only way to make magic work.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: seekmore on September 04, 2009, 10:26:18 PM
..
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: belial.1980 on September 04, 2009, 10:45:25 PM
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.

It might sound like semantics but I there're two different things being discussed right here. I think almost every book I've read has ascribed some kind of set rules to magic. There are always postulates to define the nature of magic, if nothing else.

The Wizard of Earthsea is one example that comes to mind. I think it's an excellent series myself. Le Guin establishes the fact that everything has a "true name" and that can be changed or manipulated through the power of this true name. She also tells the reader that it's a bad idea to do so unnecessarily. However I would argue that she doesn't use a rigid "system."

Lord of The Rings--maybe you've heard of it?--is a fairly popular series that's enjoyed some moderate success and influence. It really doesn't use any kind of system that I can define.

I liked the Elric series too. It's been awhile but I can't recall Moorcock setting any kind of intricate system or rules set for his magic.

When i heard the term "magic system" I think of something like the Mistborn series where the rules of allomancy are very rigid, with a set number of effects possible for any user of the craft.


Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: seekmore on September 05, 2009, 07:40:03 AM
Regardless, the magic part is defined even if some of the other details are less clear to you.

I don't know how far you are Aludra, so I'm going to spoiler all of what I am about to say, as it contains information from Brisingr.

(click to show/hide)

Which is true? The facts we are given on the matter go one way, but the two situations directly contradict one another.

Another problem is power levels:

Again in Brisingr,
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Aludra on September 08, 2009, 01:59:29 PM
Not read Bsringer yet, so thaks for the spoiler tags.  Sorry I can't carry the conversation further, but I stand by my point that there are limits to the magic used in the Inheritance cycle.

If there weren't limits, Eragon wouldn't have cursed the child, and would have blessed her like he had intended.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Sebastian on September 08, 2009, 02:15:47 PM
Generally speaking, limitations on spellcasters is a good idea. Either in the sense that they need supplies, knows a limited number of fixed spells, can output a limited amount of energy or is likely to draw unfavourable attention from the opposition or similar.

If your charachters are limited, they can be challenged which tends to be good for the story. At least if you're aiming for tension, suspense and the like.
If your target is humor, simple unintended consequences will often do the trick and limitations are less necessary.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on September 08, 2009, 02:24:40 PM
Lord of The Rings--maybe you've heard of it?--is a fairly popular series that's enjoyed some moderate success and influence. It really doesn't use any kind of system that I can define.

Lord of the Rings "magic" is essentially divine intervention, though.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Aludra on September 08, 2009, 02:30:12 PM
If your target is humor, simple unintended consequences will often do the trick and limitations are less necessary.
Ebenezum.  :)

And the wizards in the Drizzt books.

Love those crazy spellcasters
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: ballplayer72 on September 09, 2009, 08:03:57 PM
Ebenezum.  :)

And the wizards in the Drizzt books.

Love those crazy spellcasters

D and D's magic system is highly catalouged and rule based. ;)
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Gruud on September 09, 2009, 09:07:08 PM
And WotC will sue your pants off if you get even close to using it, I bet.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: seekmore on September 09, 2009, 09:49:45 PM
And WotC will sue your pants off if you get even close to using it, I bet.

Nah, just pitch it to them as a novel. They do publish books.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Sebastian on September 10, 2009, 08:09:26 AM
Lord of the Rings "magic" is essentially divine intervention, though.

I have only a vague feeling for what the Japanese concept of "Kami" means, but when I read a short description it seemed very familiar to Lord of the Rings
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Philliph on September 24, 2009, 02:49:55 PM
I believe Kami is God.

i'm not exactly sure though. Correct me if you can!! Mwuahahahahaaa

Vampires...If i find something not already said i'll come back to this thread with purpose.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: HellsBells on September 24, 2009, 04:31:12 PM
Kami can be translated as god but most scholars in the field dont agree with that as it more means just a spirit or a natural force as opposed to a diety
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Philliph on September 24, 2009, 05:01:19 PM
Kami can be translated as god but most scholars in the field dont agree with that as it more means just a spirit or a natural force as opposed to a diety

Quantum Materiae Materietur Marmota Monax Si Marmota Monax Materiam Possit Materiari?

Hmm, i'm only going by what i have learned from my friends. They're lucky enough to afford rossetta stone and they know a little japanese and the dead latin language.

And what does the Quantum Materiae....Thing mean? Its intriguing.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: HellsBells on September 24, 2009, 05:04:33 PM
blegh well it can be either a god or a natural force, either really.

hehe "Quantum Materiae Materietur Marmota Monax Si Marmota Monax Materiam Possit Materiari" means "how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood" in latin  ;D
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Philliph on September 26, 2009, 08:34:06 PM
hehe "Quantum Materiae Materietur Marmota Monax Si Marmota Monax Materiam Possit Materiari" means "how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood" in latin  ;D

HAHA! Thats amazing!!

o i wish i could have thought of that. lol. all i have are some quotes.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: The Corvidian on September 27, 2009, 02:31:10 AM
wizard, shaman, thaumaturge, all names for the same thing.

Oh, and the Druids of legend are nothing like those so named in D & D, and heaven save me from those writers who can't divorce themselves from this game system.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: shades of grey on September 30, 2009, 08:25:00 PM


hehe "Quantum Materiae Materietur Marmota Monax Si Marmota Monax Materiam Possit Materiari" means "how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood" in latin  ;D

wow

(pulls chin up from floor and wipes away residual drool)

why do vampires have to be the tough guys?  what about the vampires that are the steve buschemi equivalent? the ones that hide from mortals, prey only on the very weak, gather like pack animalswhen attacking only to fold faster than superman on laundry day?

wait, nuts, thats a good idea...  watch this space.
Title: Re: Some Fantasy Standards
Post by: Aludra on September 30, 2009, 08:48:13 PM
City of Ashes (I think that's the first one. I get the titles mixed up) by Cassandra Clark has her vamps hole up in packs hiding from mortals. Out of fear of particular 'humans' and werewolves and other nasties, not general mortals. But the principal is the same.