Forums of the Megaverse®

Is Magic a language?

Are scrolls, spell books, and arcane formulas written in a special language or is it written in the Magic Users native language?

Are spells cast in a special language or are they cast in the Casters native Language?

Does each types of Magic have there own language/dialect?

Can two Magic Users who don't speak the same languages identify each others spells?

I would say magic uses no special language per say. A large number of scrolls would likely be in Draconic. There are cultures that will use special insignia or methods of writing it down such as runes stones for norse magic, Hieroglyphs for Egyptian and so forth for. In other words have fun with it..no two casters need speak the same magic language or cast in the same method.

Looking at pg 104 PFRPG and pg 247 PFRPG, it would seem there is no magic "language", just magical words that are translated differently in each language. There is even a blurb that wizards can try to throw people off by switching languages midway through a spell (pg 104).

Because a specific combination and repetition of magical words are needed to activate a spell (pg 104), it would seem that magic is more akin to mathematics. After all 2+2 is 2+2, no matter what language you pronounce it, and just as magic can direct natural energies (pg 180 PFRPG), mathematics can explain natural energies (magnetic fields for example).

SpiritInterface wrote:Is Magic a language?

Are scrolls, spell books, and arcane formulas written in a special language or is it written in the Magic Users native language?

Are spells cast in a special language or are they cast in the Casters native Language?

Does each types of Magic have there own language/dialect?

Can two Magic Users who don't speak the same languages identify each others spells?

The mysteries of magic book makes it clear that all magic foundationally rests on invoking power words, and all the other words in the spell are mere camoflauge to confuse the sound of the power words intonation. It dosn't really matter what language you learn the spell in so long as the power words are spliced in properly.

However, some beings do not even require the ability to speak to cast spells. The Zembahk mind worm for example.

SpiritInterface wrote:Is Magic a language?

Are scrolls, spell books, and arcane formulas written in a special language or is it written in the Magic Users native language?

Are spells cast in a special language or are they cast in the Casters native Language?

Does each types of Magic have there own language/dialect?

Can two Magic Users who don't speak the same languages identify each others spells?

No. There is no special "magical" language that is required to be able to case magic.

They are written in the language the writer knows and chooses to write them in.

They cast in a language that they know.

No.

By the words they use...and w/o knowing each other...no.
---------------------
Do spell absolutely need to be spoken? No.
There are types of magic that there are no words spoken to cast spells and a invocation mage can learn to cast magic w/o the words, but there is a cost.

Bill wrote:However, some beings do not even require the ability to speak to cast spells. The Zembahk mind worm for example.

Yup and thats why I include non-verbal casting methods as well. such as runes and the finger/sign language ninja use, martial Kata's translate well as a casting method too. (I know its all street Fighter-ish...but some folks go for that.)

Regardin the Power Words used in PF magic, I've always wondered whether or not these must be present in other forms.

Perhaps only one word's cursed magic requires calling upon the Old Ones.

In the Rifts master book and in RUE it says that Dragons can instinctively read Magic.

SpiritInterface wrote:In the Rifts master book and in RUE it says that Dragons can instinctively read Magic.

This probably means there can read the rune in a ward sequence. See the Daibolist OCC.
Otherwise, it would be a hold over concept from PF 1 or the game PF1 was mod'ed from, where the written magic was in it's own special text.

in rifts there is a reduced emphasis on 'words of power' too.. spells are usually spoken, but it is indicated that the language and words don't matter as much as the caster's ability to channel and shape the PPE while they do it.

odds are that in PFRPG magic that same principle is at work, but the existence of specific schools and traditions of magic, each with their own 'words of power' and somatic elements for each spell, help to disguise the underlying PPE based mechanism to the spells.. when you learn by Rote, you tend not to examine how things work as much. (in rifts, you have people more familiar with the idea of scientifc inquiry and experimentation, and the idea of existence as being a cosmic machine with underlying physical laws. thus leading to more systematic experimentation into what does and doesn't work, and theories as to why)

I view it as "Magic is not a language in and of itself."

However, there are a few caveats to that.

Scrolls are written in a language... Dragonese, Kreelok, whatever. That is because scrolls may be used by anyone, provided they can read the language.

Some abilities (q.v. Decipher Magic spell) allow you to make use of written magic, regardless of the language they are written in. You can read the runes and translate what they mean. You can read the scroll, even though it's written in Galstandard Peroxide. It is not a function of the magic of the scroll, or it being written in a magical language, but because of a function of the spell which allows you to make sense of writing that contains magic, either due to another process (i.e. scrolls) or due to the nature of the writing (runes).

relicandcheese wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Do spells absolutely need to be spoken? No.
There are types of magic that there are no words spoken to cast spells and a invocation mage can learn to cast magic w/o the words, but there is a cost.

After studying page 21 of The Mysteries of Magic, Book 1, I believe you may be mistaken, Drewkitty, about invocation magic not requiring a vocal component. I think Warlocks may not need to speak, but otherwise it seems every other magic seems to require a vocal, focal point.

The Chi Magic Spells for Wu Shih from Mystic China also lack a verbal component, and the Tao Shih's spells are all a product of being written on special paper with special inks that must be burned to cast.

IMO, standard spell magic is spoken, including Warlockry. There may be incredibly rare traditions that do not require you to speak, but I would not allow someone to start in one of those traditions without, essentially, an RCC... that particular culture's idiosyncratic spellcasting tradition, and all it's baggage.

Requiring spoken words is countered in Underseas.

Also, as a matter of course, if the words have no power in and of themselves and are simply an aide for the caster to focus, then once the caster internalizes the casting of spell through practice, why should the words remain necessary?

--flatilne

I think that depends on how the character learned magic, really. Doctrine can be more dogmatic, after all. You may have learned to cast spells from a guy who told you that demons will steal your soul if you get the words wrong (and it could be the truth for the purposes of a GM's game...). the words are as important as they're made to be.

Though making spell casting "better" or "improving" it is another can of worms. There's nothing i've seen in the rules to support a mage getting better at casting their spells. They just happen. Whether or not your target resists successfully is another matter that doesn't have much to do with how "easy" it was to cast.

flatline wrote:Requiring spoken words is countered in Underseas.

Also, as a matter of course, if the words have no power in and of themselves and are simply an aide for the caster to focus, then once the caster internalizes the casting of spell through practice, why should the words remain necessary?

--flatilne

Underseas has a few issues
1) it is not clear if ALL mages can do this, or just Ocean Wizards
2) related to above its not clear if this works for all spells or just Ocean Magic
3) They are still saying the words....they are just doing it purely mentally.

relicandcheese wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Do spells absolutely need to be spoken? No.
There are types of magic that there are no words spoken to cast spells and a invocation mage can learn to cast magic w/o the words, but there is a cost.

After studying page 21 of The Mysteries of Magic, Book 1, I believe you may be mistaken, Drewkitty, about invocation magic not requiring a vocal component. I think Warlocks may not need to speak, but otherwise it seems every other magic seems to require a vocal, focal point.

Then you did not read what the question I was answering critically. Yes, I choose words carefully at times to produce a specific meaning in what I say.

Invocations: No, a Mage does not absolutely have to use words to cast said spells. However, they can only due so when they have had special training to be able to do so (Rifts Underseas). Or; optionally; the invocation mage may of had a quirky training regiment that left him with the ability to cast invocation w/o speaking, (sorceress proficiencies and deficits R??)

Otherwise the Invocation Mages (or Common Magic Mages) have to use the spoken word to cast spells due to that is how they learned how to cast magic.


The "problem children" of this discussion are the Specialty Magics which while require some sort of special link for them to be able to cast their form of magic (elemental magics, Mirror magic), and the granted magic types (priests, witches...), and Intuitive magic types (Mystics (of all types), Laser Mages,...). None of which specifically say if they are invocational magic users or some other magic type.

eliakon wrote:

flatline wrote:Requiring spoken words is countered in Underseas.

Also, as a matter of course, if the words have no power in and of themselves and are simply an aide for the caster to focus, then once the caster internalizes the casting of spell through practice, why should the words remain necessary?

--flatilne

Underseas has a few issues
1) it is not clear if ALL mages can do this, or just Ocean Wizards
2) related to above its not clear if this works for all spells or just Ocean Magic
3) They are still sayingthe words....they are just doing it purely mentally.

No, they are not "still saying the words". The correct phrasing and words to use here is "They are Thinking the words.".
The word "saying" has in it's meaning a verbal component. Thus, meaning the person is "talking out loud".
So in this sense an analogous difference between the words "Saying" and "Thinking" is like the difference between "Reading Out Loud" and "Reading Silently"
Yes, the word usage IS relevant in THIS subject, because getting the word usage right is imperative to getting the "concepts" correct.
Why you ask? Cause it is all about "The Words".

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

relicandcheese wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Do spells absolutely need to be spoken? No.
There are types of magic that there are no words spoken to cast spells and a invocation mage can learn to cast magic w/o the words, but there is a cost.

After studying page 21 of The Mysteries of Magic, Book 1, I believe you may be mistaken, Drewkitty, about invocation magic not requiring a vocal component. I think Warlocks may not need to speak, but otherwise it seems every other magic seems to require a vocal, focal point.

Then you did not read what the question I was answering critically. Yes, I choose words carefully at times to produce a specific meaning in what I say.

Invocations: No, a Mage does not absolutely have to use words to cast said spells. However, they can only due so when they have had special training to be able to do so (Rifts Underseas). Or; optionally; the invocation mage may of had a quirky training regiment that left him with the ability to cast invocation w/o speaking, (sorceress proficiencies and deficits R??)

Otherwise the Invocation Mages (or Common Magic Mages) have to use the spoken word to cast spells due to that is how they learned how to cast magic.


The "problem children" of this discussion are the Specialty Magics which while require some sort of special link for them to be able to cast their form of magic (elemental magics, Mirror magic), and the granted magic types (priests, witches...), and Intuitive magic types (Mystics (of all types), Laser Mages,...). None of which specifically say if they are invocational magic users or some other magic type.

eliakon wrote:

flatline wrote:Requiring spoken words is countered in Underseas.

Also, as a matter of course, if the words have no power in and of themselves and are simply an aide for the caster to focus, then once the caster internalizes the casting of spell through practice, why should the words remain necessary?

--flatilne

Underseas has a few issues
1) it is not clear if ALL mages can do this, or just Ocean Wizards
2) related to above its not clear if this works for all spells or just Ocean Magic
3) They are still sayingthe words....they are just doing it purely mentally.

No, they are not "still saying the words". The correct phrasing and words to use here is "They are Thinking the words.".
The word "saying" has in it's meaning a verbal component. Thus, meaning the person is "talking out loud".
So in this sense an analogous difference between the words "Saying" and "Thinking" is like the difference between "Reading Out Loud" and "Reading Silently"
Yes, the word usage IS relevant in THIS subject, because getting the word usage right is imperative to getting the "concepts" correct.
Why you ask? Cause it is all about "The Words".

okay and your point is? Besides being a grammar Nazi who is offended that a lay persons grammar might figure that 'saying something in your mind' = 'thinking something in your mind' Especially if the thought is some how important that it be some sort of 'mental verbalization of a power word'?
I.E. Do you have anything to add to my comment, or are you just randomly desiring to insist on professional linguist levels of perfection in other peoples speech (which I find rude and insulting)?

eliakon wrote:okay and your point is? Besides being a grammar Nazi who is offended that a lay persons grammar might figure that 'saying something in your mind' = 'thinking something in your mind' Especially if the thought is some how important that it be some sort of 'mental verbalization of a power word'?
I.E. Do you have anything to add to my comment, or are you just randomly desiring to insist on professional linguist levels of perfection in other peoples speech (which I find rude and insulting)?

Correctly it would be just "...'saying something in your mind' = 'thinking something'...". Which is a good way to explain what "Thinking" is to those who have not really though about what thinking is.
I was just saying that the proper way to say it was that they were 'thinking the words'.
(Yup, 'mental verbalization' is a another way to describe what 'thinking' is.)

What I would like is for people to do?
To strive to be adults, bettering themselves. In this case, to improve their writing so they do not remain child-like in the way they present themselves. Using what we were given to communicate ideas correctly & fully as an adult, yes.

Not needing to study all the ancient background of the language as a professional linguist would need to do.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

eliakon wrote:okay and your point is? Besides being a grammar Nazi who is offended that a lay persons grammar might figure that 'saying something in your mind' = 'thinking something in your mind' Especially if the thought is some how important that it be some sort of 'mental verbalization of a power word'?
I.E. Do you have anything to add to my comment, or are you just randomly desiring to insist on professional linguist levels of perfection in other peoples speech (which I find rude and insulting)?

Correctly it would be just "...'saying something in your mind' = 'thinking something'...". Which is a good way to explain what "Thinking" is to those who have not really though about what thinking is.
I was just saying that the proper way to say it was that they were 'thinking the words'.
(Yup, 'mental verbalization' is a another way to describe what 'thinking' is.)

What I would like is for people to do?
To strive to be adults, bettering themselves. In this case, to improve their writing so they do not remain child-like in the way they present themselves. Using what we were given to communicate ideas correctly & fully as an adult, yes.Not needing to study all the ancient background of the language as a professional linguist would need to do.

so, no you don't have much more here other than to insult people that do not hew to your own narrow personal version of what the exact and proper grammatical interpretation of every word.
[/adult thinking on]
Saying in your mind =/= just thinking. the book obviously feels that its 'hard' if it takes 'an extra three actions and can be the only spell that turn' so it appears that 'mentally verbalizing' is infact, difficult/demanding. Since most people would not say that 'just thinking' is difficult/demanding, then there must be something about 'casting silently' that is different than just thinking. [/adult thinking off]

Getting back to the topic at hand, Mystic China seems to answer this. "Unlike Western spells, where the magic is mostly spoken invocations". It can be surmised that there is either a way to not speak and only a few know it or only a few spells can be unspoken. Either way, it's rare, but possible.

And so you would allow an infinite number of Fire Globes to fit into a single Dimensional Pocket?

--flatline

flatline wrote:And so you would allow an infinite number of Fire Globes to fit into a single Dimensional Pocket?

--flatline

I don't understand the question or how it relates to my statement. I don't have access to all my books right now so I'm not familiar with Fire Globe. Can you please elaborate? Thanks.

flatline wrote:And so you would allow an infinite number of Fire Globes to fit into a single Dimensional Pocket?

--flatline

Misspost this maybe?

arouetta wrote:Getting back to the topic at hand, Mystic China seems to answer this. "Unlike Western spells, where the magic is mostly spoken invocations". It can be surmised that there is either a way to not speak and only a few know it or only a few spells can be unspoken. Either way, it's rare, but possible.

Considering Chi spells which don't require verbal components are often weaker than Western spells it's possible the verbal component helps to intensify things or at least provides an easier path to more powerful spells than trying to do the spells without verbal components.

Nightmask wrote:

arouetta wrote:Getting back to the topic at hand, Mystic China seems to answer this. "Unlike Western spells, where the magic is mostly spoken invocations". It can be surmised that there is either a way to not speak and only a few know it or only a few spells can be unspoken. Either way, it's rare, but possible.

Considering Chi spells which don't require verbal components are often weaker than Western spells it's possible the verbal component helps to intensify things or at least provides an easier path to more powerful spells than trying to do the spells without verbal components.

Or perhaps it is what makes 'wizard' magic what it is?
So wizard/invocation magic is....magic that uses invocations. There are some other sorts of magic that are sorta kinda like it (necromancy, temporal, ocean, combat, etc) that use words but are not quite 'wizard' spells...and the farther away from 'basic invocation' the less and less likely it is anyone can learn it, the more it costs for those that can and the like.
It almost fits too (except for the stuff like line drawing and gem magic ahh well)

arouetta wrote:

flatline wrote:And so you would allow an infinite number of Fire Globes to fit into a single Dimensional Pocket?

--flatline

I don't understand the question or how it relates to my statement. I don't have access to all my books right now so I'm not familiar with Fire Globe. Can you please elaborate? Thanks.

Sorry about that. I have no idea why this post ended up in this thread.

--flatline

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

arouetta wrote:Getting back to the topic at hand, Mystic China seems to answer this. "Unlike Western spells, where the magic is mostly spoken invocations". It can be surmised that there is either a way to not speak and only a few know it or only a few spells can be unspoken. Either way, it's rare, but possible.

Considering Chi spells which don't require verbal components are often weaker than Western spells it's possible the verbal component helps to intensify things or at least provides an easier path to more powerful spells than trying to do the spells without verbal components.

Or perhaps it is what makes 'wizard' magic what it is?
So wizard/invocation magic is....magic that uses invocations. There are some other sorts of magic that are sorta kinda like it (necromancy, temporal, ocean, combat, etc) that use words but are not quite 'wizard' spells...and the farther away from 'basic invocation' the less and less likely it is anyone can learn it, the more it costs for those that can and the like.
It almost fits too (except for the stuff like line drawing and gem magic ahh well)

I doubt we could claim Wu Shih aren't really wizards because their entire spell repertoire doesn't require verbal components, particularly since they can learn invocation magic without difficulty or that their spells aren't really wizard spells because they lack verbal components. We just don't know why the Western style is so ubiquitous, or why it requires a verbal component (at least in-universe), just that in some ways it's possible to get around that limitation.

Anyone else reminded of wandless and silent casting from Harry Potter?

Mark Hall wrote:Anyone else reminded of wandless and silent casting from Harry Potter?

more reminded of sub-vocal Casting in IWD. which I always took.

Rimmerdal wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:Anyone else reminded of wandless and silent casting from Harry Potter?

more reminded of sub-vocal Casting in IWD. which I always took.

IWD?

-flatline

flatline wrote:

Rimmerdal wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:Anyone else reminded of wandless and silent casting from Harry Potter?

more reminded of sub-vocal Casting in IWD. which I always took.

IWD?

-flatline

IWD is Icewind Dale, and likely means Icewind Dale 2, the 3rd edition D&D sequel to Icewind Dale (which was 2e based). Subvocal Casting was a feat that you could take that made you immune to Silence spells.

I've seen lots of different GMs rule on how casting works, and each one of them did it different.

Personally I'm going with the theory that magic is more of a feeling/intuitive understanding on how to channel PPE. The words, gestures (or combination of the two) are just something you use as a focal point.

Kind of like the Dresden File books, they say that each wizard associates a feeling to a word but it doesn't matter what the word is. One wizard could scream out tomato and cast a ball of fire and another (like Harry) uses the word fuego (less likely to accidentally come up in normal conversation this way).

I have to roll up an NPC mage for a campaign I'm running and that's the way I'm leaning towards. I haven't decided if he's just going to speak complete gibberish, silly rhyming words like a Dr. Seuss novel, or 'magical' words like Abracadabra and Hocus Pocus.