So, I'm starting a new piece of original fiction, and it's gonna have a magic system. Woo!

Anyway, I just wanted to do a short write-up of that system and see if any of you folks spotted any glaringly obvious flaws or breaks in logic that I've missed before I really start writing this. This is very much a first draft, and I've yet to hammer out a lot of the details.

Rule the First: Magic is Emotion, and for some people, Emotion is Magic. This was partly inspired by the Dresden Files, but I feel I've adapted it enough to not be leeching off of Butcher's story.

Every kind of spell is tied in some way to an emotion or philosophical bent. Like, for instance, if you wanted to annihilate matter, you might experience a brief existential panic.

If you want to summon up Phenomenal Cosmic Power, it comes with an emotion. Example: if you wish to throw fire at something, you're going to feel a sudden burst of irrational rage. You don't use the emotion to power your spell, nor do you have to feel anything to use magic, the emotion comes with the power.

Even the most accomplished of magic users can't tell the difference between the induced emotions and the real deal. Well, you'd know intellectually, but you can't feel a difference. For the time it affects you (which varies based on how big a spell you're using) you feel that way. It colors your thoughts and actions just like regular people are influenced by emotion.

Magically caused emotion is no stronger than natural emotion of the same magnitude. Just because you're artificially filled with hate doesn't mean you'll suddenly snap and start killing everyone. Unless you'd do that normally. In which case being a mage really isn't your chief problem, is it?

Emotion caused by magic is "targetless." You don't feel that emotion towards anything in particular unless you already felt that way, or try to focus your induced effects upon a specific target on purpose.

Rule the Second: The more you use magic, the more your overall personality changes.

Anyone can use any kind of magic, assuming they have the gift in the first place. But every time you cast a spell of a certain emotion, it makes you more inclined to feel that way naturally, slowly changing who you are.

In this manner, most masters of certain types of magic are more of a living aspect of what they use than real people. A master of fire magic snaps at even the tiniest of irritants and overreacts to every slight, simply by virtue of using so much fire magic over the course of his life.

Rule the Second Corollary: Using the antithesis of one kind of magic removes its effects.

Fairly simple. If you've been throwing around rage-inducing magic like nobody's business, using something related to a diametrically opposed concept will reduce the permanent effect on you. I imagine this sort of like a color wheel, with every emotion arranged around a neutral center, which would, of course, be free will. Every emotion is arranged so that its opposite is across the wheel.

Rule the Third: Combining magic is possible, but dangerous if you don't know what the hell you're doing.

Since magic is emotion, trying to merge effects is potentially sanity breaking. Imagine feeling a loving urge to destroy, or a depressive optimism. Most combinations of emotion in spells are things that go together normally, like affection and joy.

Rule the Fourth: No emotion is intrinsically more powerful than any other.

Just as you can experience slight happiness or a passing attraction, you could feel a twinge of dislike or a brief moment of anger. The only thing that matters is your personal aptitude for magic and how much emotion you're willing to take into yourself to achieve an affect.

Rule the Fifth: Every emotion is tied to one purview of reality, though variations within that purview are possible.

Since magic in this setting is about emotion, an ephemeral concept at best, I decided to allow imagination a more central role. Take the task of freezing a glass of water. A disciple of contentment might simply chill the water until it freezes. A disciple of rage might yank the heat out of the water and make it fire somewhere else.

Both accomplished the task, but went about it with different kinds of magic. Nothing is impossible for any particular discipline, and the only real limits on what you can do are power and imagination.

Rule the Sixth: The more power you have, the easier it is for accidents to happen.

If a mage has enough natural aptitude, or has simply worked hard enough at it, they'll start to cast spells unintentionally. Since, to them, magic is tied intrinsically to emotion, a sort of opposite casting begins to happen. Instead of summoning power and feeling the emotion, they will occasionally feel the emotion and summon the power. This sort of accidental magic is not based upon personal magical preference, and can happen with any emotion.

Example: A naturally gifted practitioner is in an argument with a friend. Things escalate to a shouting match, and suddenly the ceiling is on fire.



That's all I have for now, please tell me if I have any obvious problems with the system.

 

So now I have this mental image of a whole coven or two of yandere witches running around.

As for the system itself:

On the whole, I like it. Conceptually, it's very sound and I'm intrigued by it.

The one issue I have with it right now is Rule 2b. Now, the idea is not inherently bad, but the way you've presented it bugs me. Emotions just don't work like that. Serenity is not mutually exclusive to towering rage, for example. They're all merely fragments of the human condition. One can feel nearly every type of emotion at the exact same time.

Having it so that casting "peaceful" spells will permanently counter "angry" spells doesn't make much sense to me. Personally, I'd recommend stopping at just Rule 2. When you cast a spell, it makes you more predisposed towards the relevant emotion.

In essence, someone who casts a bunch of spells in one branch, would be highly likely to respond with the emotion attached to that branch, but someone who casts spells in every branch would just be predisposed to being emotional in general.

 

Well I may have explained the idea badly. It's not so much that you reverse what's been done, you're just moving in the opposite direction. I like to think of it in terms of what a normal person would consider a major life decision.

For your example of rage and serenity, imagine a guy who's been angry his entire life. He lashes out, and has gotten even worse over the years. Then, one day, something changes. He decides he wants to be a better person, more in control. He goes to anger management, listens to soothing music and actively tries to reign in his temper.

Only, you know, with magic in this case. Basically you're adding the antithesis to yourself in order to balance out what's already corrupted you. Although...Your point is well made, and I'll think of a better way to present the idea before I either write it in or dismiss it out of hand.

Perhaps I should write it as not actually "healing" you. To borrow the words of Brent Weeks, "It's like hitting my brain with a sharp rock in order to stop having seizures." Hmmm... More thought it definitely required.

Thankee kindly for the feedback.

EDIT: Also, they'd be INSANE yandere witches. Makes it even scarier.

 

Having not read Dresden Files, I can't really judge the similarities there. Thematically, I was more reminded of the colour system that Brent Weeks uses in the Lightbringer series (mainly because each colour invokes certain emotions), but the mechanics are incredibly different.

Only real problem I have with the system is Rule 2b, and how I can see it mixing with Rule 3. If mixing opposing emotions is supposed to be detrimental, then I feel that there should be some kind of negative impact when a wizard uses a magic opposite his primary such as a rage-wizard using contentment(?) based magic.

Over the long run of using both magic, there should be some degree of impact as well, so it becomes more than just a caster attempting to maintain some kind of balancing act to remain 'normal'.

 

So much of this. You could literally have cult that focuses on certain technique that brings a feeling of Ecstasy or another group who uses water magic to soothe the mind, etc.

Otherwise the system is very interesting and I think it all depends on your setting. What's the world it's going to be use into?

 

The setting? Damn, I don't know if I've gotten that far. I'm debating either making a medieval analogue Earth, or modern day setting. Anyway, thanks for the commentary.

 

I'd like seeing such a setting in a modern world (something like steampunk probably), but then again I might be influence by HP:TLA which I've just read

 

I don't believe I've heard of that fic before.

 

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/8616362/1/Harry-Potter-The-Last-Avatar

It's in the For Review at the moment.

 

Seems conceptually sound to me.

I would think there are a few logical consequences to what you've described that you didn't mention (but might already be thinking):

1. The more a person uses one kind of magic the more they are impaired in using its counter. A fire mage full of rage would find it hard to use magic that is patient and mellow due to the long-term effects of being angry so often. It would take self-awareness and a large degree of self-control to manage for someone who'd bee using only fire spells for so long.

2. The more powerful the spell the greater the emotional influence/the more powerful the emotion, the greater the spell.

3. Vulcans would either make piss-poor magic users, or extremely great ones who are very conflicted about what they do.

 

If you read correctly, he said that you don't have to feel the emotion to cast the spell, but casting the spell will make you feel it:

 

Well, the long term effects are more of a subtle change in nature. Like a fire mage who's become corrupted wouldn't be a constant rageaholic, he would just be easier to enrage. Perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. The corruption just makes you more prone to said emotion occurring naturally. It basically emphasizes part of your personality.

Someone who is corrupted by love or affection might find themselves falling into relationships more and more often, and becoming more dedicated faster. However, they wouldn't become polyamorous if they didn't like that normally. Heh, corrupted by love. Sounds off, right?

A corrupted fire mage isn't going to be angered by more things, but what does enrage him is going to be more effective, and get him to a higher level of rage faster.

Puiwaihin: Yeah, sort of. The idea is that every spell would increase the emotion you feel as it becomes more powerful. However, there have to be reasonable limits. I mean, what if you could cast a spell that would put you into a permanent state of blistering hatred for years? Hardcore shit, right there. So, what I'm thinking is that you only have a certain amount of power that you can work with naturally. Every mage has a kind of ceiling of ability, any spell more powerful than that limit will simply collapse.

As of yet I haven't decided if that will be a kind of inborn thing, or if you could increase your threshold through hard work.

Now, as to Ched's suggestion: Fucking brilliant! Hell, I didn't even have an antagonist planned out, but now I see so many possibilities! I'm gonna have to think more on how it'd work with the other rules, but it shouldn't be too hard to work with.

Okay, so here is a rough list of the emotions I'm planning to include as linked to power. I haven't decided just yet what element or concept they're to be linked to, but I just wanted to get a feel for what you folks thought of the specific things I picked. Oh, and the short explanation to the side is just how I intend to use them in the story. No way in hell am I going to try to properly define pride or some such thing like that. The arrow after the first emotion is meant to convey what a stronger version could be called, and hopefully further define the concepts.

The classifications go as such:
Outward: It mainly acts on someone else, or acts in very flashy ways when used internally.
Inwards: Acts mostly on you, or in very subtle ways when used externally.
Harmful: Is generally bent towards more damaging and malefic magic. Note that any of those emotions could be both good and evil under the right circumstances, so take it with a grain of salt.
Beneficial: Generally bent towards more edifying and helpful magic.
Expressing: I'm a little "eh" on this right now. If I can think of a counterpoint to it, like I planned, I'll define it better.

Outward Expressing Harmful
Rage -> Malevolence: The desire to cause another suffering.
Resentment -> Hatred: The need for another to experience harm.
Contempt -> Disdain: Acting as though another is intrinsically beneath you.

Outward Expressing Beneficial
Affection -> Love: Willingness to put another’s needs above one’s own.
Admiration -> Adulation: Veneration of another’s positive qualities.
Passion -> Indignation: A righteous drive to affect positive change.

Inward Expressing Harmful
Pride -> Arrogance: The belief that you are, and have always been, better.
Ambition -> Ruthlessness: The willingness and even desire to pursue goals at all costs
Despair -> Misery: Deep and harmful belief that all is lost, and that no purpose exists.

Inward Expressing Beneficial
Confidence -> Self-Assuredness: A steady belief that one is right and that one’s cause is just.
Curiosity -> Drive: The deep abiding need to know or learn.
Stoicism -> Unassailability: The belief that one is sound in virtue and morality.

 

This kind of magic system seems to be the perfect setting for emotion eating creatures. In fact, those type of creatures would be a type of antithesis of the entire system itself, as beings that take in and absorb emotion instead of creating it. Certainly they'd be interesting opponents for your magic users.

 

Rather than "harmful" and "beneficial" I think it might be better to go with "negative" and "positive". Else, why would people frequently use "inward-harmful" spells or effects? "Inward-negative" on the other hand, would not necessarily have the same problem.

For example, there could be a "courage" spell based on channeling pride into oneself, making a person fight fearlessly, but at the cost of being prideful. It's a negative trait, but not necessarily harmful. For someone like HP's Neville, it would actually make him a stronger person overall if only used occasionally. A similar effect could also be achieved by channeling confidence--but too much of a good thing can become overconfidence (even if it is not prideful).

I'm not clear on how the directions/etc. will work with elements. To keep with the fire example, if Anger is Fire, would an inwardly directed fire spell set the caster on fire? And would Anger be divided into a positive and negative version?
Negative Anger=Rage->Fury, Positive Anger=Righteous Anger->Wrath?

Or is it something like: "To cast Purifying Blaze, a person must positively channel their anger towards themselves, carefully targeting any toxins or harmful substances in their body." Or "To cast Shroud of Flame, a person must negatively channel their anger towards themselves, engulfing their entire person in their magic."??

 

Well, harmful doesn't so much describe the magical effect as it does the emotion attached to it. I would consider more negative emotions to be harmful, but the magic based on it that causes them in the caster could be used beneficially if you thought of it in the proper way. And even then, it's hard to simply slap a label of harmful or beneficial on an emotion, seeing as it's such a subjective thing. I did my best on that, but it's not really that precise. The system itself is designed to allow for a large amount of interpretation by an inventive mind. As long as you can convince yourself it's possible, it's possible.

And the elements are just very vague descriptors. For instance, you could make ice with a fire spell by taking heat away from something. You could probably ignite something with an ice spell by removing all the heat from one area and putting it somewhere else. Think of the elements as very loose guidelines.

Now that I think on it, I may not have described the fundamental idea of magic in this setting properly. It's not so much that everyone has said, "Okay, this thing relates to this emotion." It's more along the lines of, "I wanna burn something down! Oh no, I'm suddenly full of undying rage towards everything!" The effect you want determines the emotion invoked. Over time and with a lot of experimentation, people have narrowed down what causes what, but it's still an imprecise art to the man who's inventive enough.

That, and EVERYTHING is based off the individual in question. To use the example of burning something above, a person who is naturally angry would simply gravitate towards throwing fire (and thus invoking more rage, which is closer to who he is) to cause ignition, while someone who isn't would end up using something else to achieve the same basic result. A more mercurial individual might say, "I want to burn this down" and then fling lightning from their hand which causes a circuit to overload and ignite wood paneling around it and carpeting below it. Same basic effect, way different execution.

 

The one thing I don't like - or maybe I'm just getting the wrong vibe here - is that fire can only be about anger or short-temperedness. I'd argue that the element of fire isn't what's important, you need to dig a little deeper here for an explanation that allows for a more flexible system, for more flexible characterization. I do like the idea of someone "taking away heat" from something to create "heat" but that wouldn't probably create a blaze, but just make something very hot?

To create magical fire, you need a spark to ignite something. That's how I'd explain it. The "something" that's burning is the fuel, it's usually oxygen, but "fire mages" can create other kinds of fuel via magic to create different kinds of fire with their spells. The method of ignition is also imporant, the wrong kind of spark, the wrong kind of air/fuel mixture, can result in an uncontrollable fire spell, an explosion at the source of the caster, nothing, or the proper spell.

Creating a spark could be anger, but it could simply be a passion for something - perhaps the caster is a lover of music, and by utilizing music, can create a feeling of passion, allowing for the creation of a blaze. A fire could also be created by feeling 'suffering', recalling moments where one endured agony, which could be the accelerant for the blaze (I'm thinking someone like Shishio Makoto from Ruroni Kenshin along those specific lines). Symbols are useful for evoking emotion, so symbols are often used for fire magic as well, perhaps there are some mages that use their blood - cutting themsleves to cause pain, to help start fires - in a sense, the blood itself is what burns.

Fire shouldn't intrinsically be about rage, suffering, wrath or any single kind of emotion, but more about the user's interpretation of fire, the feelings they evoke by creating fire. In a sense, it's circular, doing magic feeds their emotions, and their emotions feed magic?

The major flaw I see with this system though - is that it can be hard to convey multiple emotions interacting. Or at least, I find it hard to visualize someone who can both be furious and anxious. A trap a lot of writers fall into is that they tell emotion and don't show it. A system like this could be great if you're good at writing characters actively experiencing emotion, but if you find yourself saying, "He used his rage to do <magical thing>" or something direct/bland along those lines, the system could feel a little thin.

 

Fire has often been associated with spiritual cleansing as well as destruction.

On a more general note, I'd recommend reading a lot into the nature of emotion, as it's going to be the centre of your story. You might be able to find a lot of inspiration there. And actually, it's a fascinating subject. What we instinctively group together under one banner "emotion" is actually a very broad spectrum of things, and not a natural kind at all. Some emotions are very different in terms of what's going on in the body/mind in comparison to others.

 

Yeah, my prep work isn't anywhere near complete. Thanks for all the suggestions, and I'll keep working on it.

 

I don't know if you've read this, but there was a fairly interesting theory on FSN's magic system in this fic http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7207791/21/From-Fake-Dreams (specifically that chapter). I rather liked how certain parts of an element could be removed, giving an item an interesting property (removing the concept of 'wet' still allows something to enter water, but cannot get wet; it can be dissolved by water or interact in other obvious ways, but cannot get soggy or drenched). It's the kind of mindset for a system I'd enjoy reading about and is an example of what I'm struggling to articulate.

On the other hand, "scientific magic" kind of violates the spirit of magic. Any story which attempts to use magic has to overcome this modern hurdle; "God is dead" in a sense when it comes to magic. Any magical system is going to feel inadequate under scrutiny until it becomes a science. Your readers are probably (?) expecting a magical system to have a very fixed understanding. I mean, think of it this way, "fire" is no longer this mysterious thing which cannot be explained. Even the most uneducated of reader is probably going to know that fire requires oxygen and they may even know that fire is 'oxidation' which puts it in the same vein of rusting or other chemical processes. Trying to tell your readers that fire is something else in your story may violate some unspoken contract with your readers? At least, that's how I look at it.

HP (and even FSN) have some non-sciency explanations for their magical systems, but that requires the reader to suspend their disbelief and gets awfully confusing and vague under reader scrutiny. FSN skates the issue by tying magic to a known entity which provides it ("The root"), so it keeps things mysterious, but grounded in a simple explanation that readers can accept. WOD uses a similar system, where magic is about observation and the collective consciousness of the masses, who provide some kind of known framework for how magic must work, even if the details are murky.

My suggestion then is, if you want a 'sciency' magic system, you'll want to be thorough in writing down the details of how your magic works from the very beginning so you can't contradict it as you write. Or, if you want a less sciency magic, I think you should ground it in a god that provides it, or an explanation which encompasses a lot of potential scrutiny. Maybe something like a mythical origin story, "The great So-and-so, ten thousand years ago, contracted his spirit with the earth-mother. His children since have been attuned to the world, their emotions evoking its natural forces."