Poll: Magic vs Science: Which One Do You Root For In A Story?

Cicada 5

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2015
2,479
1,169
118
Country
Nigeria
There have been a number of stories pitting science against magic. In those stories which one do you root for?
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Jul 15, 2013
4,953
6
13
Magic is just unexplained science, suited best for writers who go "umm, you know what, let's not bother today."

Or so I read in a science cookie once.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,238
0
0
Science. Always. Even in those stories where there's a gossamer thin pretext of impartiality draped over the science dudes being evil.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,343
358
88
Both. Like in a Kaiju movie, I'm there just for the spectacle.
 

EvilRoy

The face I make when I see unguarded pie.
Legacy
Jan 9, 2011
1,840
537
118
I never really realized it until Harry Potter but I pretty much root for science.

I didn't realize it until I caught myself grumbling "yes, our wands are called guns and their only spell is 'kill person'". Its a really effective spell against living things.
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
If i had to choose one? Magic, because I already have science around me. I want something different.

But, if I had my preference? It is always a mix. That's why shadowrun and most steam punk settings are my favorite settings.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Humans are pretty magical, so I'll go magic. Characters are more interesting when they pull out lines like; "Never tell me the odds..."
 
Aug 31, 2012
1,774
0
0
Although I've never seen any of these science vs magic stories, I'll go with science. I'm really not a fan of mixing the two, it very quickly puts me off.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
ObsidianJones said:
If i had to choose one? Magic, because I already have science around me. I want something different.

But, if I had my preference? It is always a mix. That's why shadowrun and most steam punk settings are my favorite settings.
Hrm ... is that how we're definining magic and science, though?

I'm perplexed. The reason I wrote before that 'humans are pretty magical' is precisely thefact that humans implement quasi-magical thinking in order to be happy.

It's actually a pretty accepted psychological phenomena and it makes sense when you think about it. If humans were simply paralyzed to act because of their sapience and trying to consider truthfully the odds of their success nothing would get done and humans would lose all illusion of chaos and control.

But precisely because we fabricate quasi-magical narratives concerning our interaction with the world, it allows us to stand, to fight, to take chances, even if we are likely to fail. And it often leads to unique circumstances where simply with enough quasi-magical thinking humans collectively are capable of performing things they otherwise would be paralyzed to do if they were only thinking in terms of their personal input.

'Magic' is pretty hard to define, all things considered.

Like here's a clear example of magic ... You go to a casino. You see some people just hanging out by the poker machines. One person leaves a poker machine after deciding they're personally lost enough money ... and a lot of times you'll see that person that was just hanging around make a bee line to that machine.

The idea that by fate and the illusion of control, the karmic wheels are turning. That someone simply didn't stick long enough with a machine for it to pay out ...

And because humans are geared to remember instances of faith being rewarded rather than remember when faith has jeopardized them, allows that human to do something ... even if it ultimately means they'll lose money. Quasi-magical thinking ... and there's a decent argument it's one of the strongest forces to maintaining a person's optimism, but also an argument that that optimism even if exploitable does actually allow successes where otherwise a person wouldn't try at all.

Honestly, it's more fun having characters like that than the opposite. No one truly likes C-3PO ... they do like Han Solo telling C-3PO to 'never tell him the odds...'
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
ObsidianJones said:
If i had to choose one? Magic, because I already have science around me. I want something different.

But, if I had my preference? It is always a mix. That's why shadowrun and most steam punk settings are my favorite settings.
Hrm ... is that how we're definining magic and science, though?

I'm perplexed. The reason I wrote before that 'humans are pretty magical' is precisely thefact that humans implement quasi-magical thinking in order to be happy.

It's actually a pretty accepted psychological phenomena and it makes sense when you think about it. If humans were simply paralyzed to act because of their sapience and trying to consider truthfully the odds of their success nothing would get done and humans would lose all illusion of chaos and control.

But precisely because we fabricate quasi-magical narratives concerning our interaction with the world, it allows us to stand, to fight, to take chances, even if we are likely to fail. And it often leads to unique circumstances where simply with enough quasi-magical thinking humans collectively are capable of performing things they otherwise would be paralyzed to do if they were only thinking in terms of their personal input.

'Magic' is pretty hard to define, all things considered.
I define magic as the ability to harness, create, or control energies and/or the ability to manipulate reality by using nothing but the being's thoughts and will to affect said change. We're not talking I thought up a plan to move me out of my home, so I got some friends and we spent the afternoon clearing it out and moving it to my new place. We're talking "I used my mind to literally levitate and move my crap into my new house without any physical effort".

But I'm a contrary person. Everyone is all "Evil is cool, I like the villain, I want more movies with villains". I'm like "Dude, I can turn on CNN to see villains. I'm tired of villains. I want my escapism to help me escape, not be more of the same things I see in my real life, but in a grander scale".
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
Science, because magic too often leads to superstition and ignorance. We know, through science, ie Biology, that witches with magical powers don't actually exist. The poor bastards who lived before science knew that didn't know that.

Likewise we know ghosts aren't real, so we don't have to be afraid of going out at night, in the magical superstition that ghosts can't be around in sun light, but moonlight works, even though moonlight is reflected sun light.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
ObsidianJones said:
I define magic as the ability to harness, create, or control energies and/or the ability to manipulate reality by using nothing but the being's thoughts and will to affect said change. We're not talking I thought up a plan to move me out of my home, so I got some friends and we spent the afternoon clearing it out and moving it to my new place. We're talking "I used my mind to literally levitate and move my crap into my new house without any physical effort".

But I'm a contrary person. Everyone is all "Evil is cool, I like the villain, I want more movies with villains". I'm like "Dude, I can turn on CNN to see villains. I'm tired of villains. I want my escapism to help me escape, not be more of the same things I see in my real life, but in a grander scale".
Quasi-magical thinking is a bit more complex than that. Quasi-magical thought is kind of like peopleconstructing narratives of control even if an illusion in the moment, but on the flipside allows them to do things that they would otherwise be paralyzed to fo in the face of probable failure or the crushing weight of reality. Quasi-magical thinking is the type of thinking that allows a person to enlist to fight the Third Reich, and even if one person amidst literal millions that idea of control to affect change personified by millions like them ultimately achieve even if only because so many thought like them.

The one thing that annoys me is how gritty emo-trash things like Batman are, when clearly Batman is best realized in that 60s naivete of ultimately being someone that is merely Gotham's City's best as they can be in that moment. Judge Dredd only works if only because the comic itself is a debasement and parody... a satire ... of what 'justice' should be. And that's precisely how it should be treated.

Gotham has to be this dark, depressing, depraved place for emo-trash Batman to work... when in truth, someone like Batman couldn't be like that. It's kind of why I have a problem with the late 90s 'mature' take on superhero genre, because ultimately it's stupid and makes it feel dumb.

The people that actually stand up to bullies picking on weaker people is not emo-garbage Batman. It's the Adam West Batmans of the world.

It's not the chronically depressed, angsty, socially maladjusted arseholes of the world. It's the people that actually take a stand, believe that humans are more than the sum of their parts, that ultimately hold justice and social consciousness of the respect that humans deserve for simply being human. Nullified only when such humans seek to bring humanity towards self-debasement.

Which is 'quasi-magical thinking' but it's also the type of thinking they builds civilizations, gives humans justice and creates beauty... as you would say 'from nothing'.

That's what I think when people say 'magic'.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Xsjadoblayde said:
Magic is just unexplained science, suited best for writers who go "umm, you know what, let's not bother today."

Or so I read in a science cookie once.
Well that's the lazy approach to magic. Good writers tend to be a lot better about it. I believe it was Brandon Sanderson who put it best, that "the author's ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic" (explained in greater detail here). For illustrative purposes, it's very vague what, exactly, Gandalf is capable of in Lord of the Rings. By the same token, however, he uses magic rarely and usually in a very limited capacity (such as setting pinecones on fire), relying far more on physical ability than magic for the most part. By contrast, "bending" in Avatar: The Last Airbender is straightforward and its capacities very well understood, and its pervasive usage is part of what defines the franchise. Similarly, Alchemy in FullMetal Alchemist and Allomancy in Mistborn are more heavily employed than the Force is in Star Wars (at least actively employed).
 

Cicada 5

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2015
2,479
1,169
118
Country
Nigeria
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
ObsidianJones said:
If i had to choose one? Magic, because I already have science around me. I want something different.

But, if I had my preference? It is always a mix. That's why shadowrun and most steam punk settings are my favorite settings.
Hrm ... is that how we're definining magic and science, though?

I'm perplexed. The reason I wrote before that 'humans are pretty magical' is precisely thefact that humans implement quasi-magical thinking in order to be happy.

It's actually a pretty accepted psychological phenomena and it makes sense when you think about it. If humans were simply paralyzed to act because of their sapience and trying to consider truthfully the odds of their success nothing would get done and humans would lose all illusion of chaos and control.

But precisely because we fabricate quasi-magical narratives concerning our interaction with the world, it allows us to stand, to fight, to take chances, even if we are likely to fail. And it often leads to unique circumstances where simply with enough quasi-magical thinking humans collectively are capable of performing things they otherwise would be paralyzed to do if they were only thinking in terms of their personal input.

'Magic' is pretty hard to define, all things considered.

Like here's a clear example of magic ... You go to a casino. You see some people just hanging out by the poker machines. One person leaves a poker machine after deciding they're personally lost enough money ... and a lot of times you'll see that person that was just hanging around make a bee line to that machine.

The idea that by fate and the illusion of control, the karmic wheels are turning. That someone simply didn't stick long enough with a machine for it to pay out ...

And because humans are geared to remember instances of faith being rewarded rather than remember when faith has jeopardized them, allows that human to do something ... even if it ultimately means they'll lose money. Quasi-magical thinking ... and there's a decent argument it's one of the strongest forces to maintaining a person's optimism, but also an argument that that optimism even if exploitable does actually allow successes where otherwise a person wouldn't try at all.

Honestly, it's more fun having characters like that than the opposite. No one truly likes C-3PO ... they do like Han Solo telling C-3PO to 'never tell him the odds...'
You need to find a balance between those two extremes.

Being hindered by doubt and depression isn't good but neither is unjustified optimism and lack of reasoning. characters who prefer seat
of your pants decision making being depicted as being almost always right compared to their more rational counterparts only promotes anti-intellectualism.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Agent_Z said:
You need to find a balance between those two extremes.

Being hindered by doubt and depression isn't good but neither is unjustified optimism and lack of reasoning. characters who prefer seat
of your pants decision making being depicted as being almost always right compared to their more rational counterparts only promotes anti-intellectualism.
Yeah, but confidence is sexy. In a modern setting with utterly 'unmagical' mindsets, you're running into characters that almost seem like they're on (or need) benzodiazepines and NaSSAs. Trope of the quiet, shy person... who ultimately never rocks the boat and is utterly anxious in the spotlight. The thing is, it's a trope and trope only of the 'unjustifiably confident social person' ... because extroverts tend to balance their risk-taking with experience through life.

Like I almost died in a motorcycle accident during a race. I survived that, and I became less enamoured with such things due to the toll it took on my life... but that being said I am still more skilled at riding than most motorcyclists if only because of those associations I made in my youth that would lead to pushing myself for the sake of whatever inflated ideas I had about the importance of social esteem. About proving I was the best (even if it wasn't ever going to happen).

It's why rags to riches people, even in so called 'nerd scenes', tend to be extroverts. It's why tech companies try to summon a (what I like to call) 'keyboard jockey rock star' type of media and lifestyle presence and projection. Trendy workspaces without cubicles and rather multiple means to engage with workers around them. They run strange theatrics of internal company presentations.

It's an extrovert's world... and being the best is secondary to being seen as the best.

By dint of that, either as villains or heroes, extroverts are more interesting types of plot driving characters. Because they're actively associating with other characters and because of nascent increases in risk-prone behaviour, they create a more realistic understanding and realization of conflict creation and conflict management.

As I was saying before ... 60s Batman is actually the type of Batman that gets stuff done in reality. Not the brooding, angsty, chronically depressed person... no, they just remain broody, angsty, chronically depressed people.

And while I'm not saying that you can't do anythng with that, I'm just saying there's less you can do with that... particularly if the narrative calls for complex social interactions and time-tested ideas of conflict and drama.

An extrovert can just literally steal the scene ... and they will believably do so. Often with spectacular effects to their detriment or success.
 

the December King

Member
Legacy
Mar 3, 2010
1,580
1
3
In the context of a sci-fi or fantasy story or movie, they are often just different words for the same thing. And on their own merits I can't really choose, as it depends more on the story. I've got favourite fantasy, I've also got favourite sci-fi... I'm honestly hard pressed at the moment to think of a story I liked where there was a conflict between magic and science.

Bit of a tangent- Richard Bachman's Thinner had a cool sort of arc where an old gypsy cursed a bunch of people he felt were responsible for the death of his daughter in a collision - the whole trial was a farce of justice. The protagonist, one of the hexed, felt like he had been unfairly damned, and although he was suffering from the curse of growing thinner and thinner (like, cancerous or wasting away to nothing), he put a 'modern' curse on the gypsy... by hiring a hitman who shot up the gypsies. Ultimately, it was hard to feel good about any of the characters- it was a dark tale- but the juxtaposition of a magical curse with a modern variant in kind was kinda cool.

In roleplaying games, I mostly prefer the trappings of magic - the medieval, vaguely European, low-level magic, punctuated by great displays of overt magic (almost always either connected to legends of worldbuilding events/folklore/religion, or events directly involving the characters/heroes), but occasionally will enjoy a d20 modern game sans overt sorcery or magic. We even have a few sci-fi games on the go.
 

Cicada 5

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2015
2,479
1,169
118
Country
Nigeria
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Agent_Z said:
You need to find a balance between those two extremes.

Being hindered by doubt and depression isn't good but neither is unjustified optimism and lack of reasoning. characters who prefer seat
of your pants decision making being depicted as being almost always right compared to their more rational counterparts only promotes anti-intellectualism.
Yeah, but confidence is sexy. In a modern setting with utterly 'unmagical' mindsets, you're running into characters that almost seem like they're on (or need) benzodiazepines and NaSSAs. Trope of the quiet, shy person... who ultimately never rocks the boat and is utterly anxious in the spotlight. The thing is, it's a trope and trope only of the 'unjustifiably confident social person' ... because extroverts tend to balance their risk-taking with experience through life.

Like I almost died in a motorcycle accident during a race. I survived that, and I became less enamoured with such things due to the toll it took on my life... but that being said I am still more skilled at riding than most motorcyclists if only because of those associations I made in my youth that would lead to pushing myself for the sake of whatever inflated ideas I had about the importance of social esteem. About proving I was the best (even if it wasn't ever going to happen).

It's why rags to riches people, even in so called 'nerd scenes', tend to be extroverts. It's why tech companies try to summon a (what I like to call) 'keyboard jockey rock star' type of media and lifestyle presence and projection. Trendy workspaces without cubicles and rather multiple means to engage with workers around them. They run strange theatrics of internal company presentations.

It's an extrovert's world... and being the best is secondary to being seen as the best.

By dint of that, either as villains or heroes, extroverts are more interesting types of plot driving characters. Because they're actively associating with other characters and because of nascent increases in risk-prone behaviour, they create a more realistic understanding and realization of conflict creation and conflict management.

As I was saying before ... 60s Batman is actually the type of Batman that gets stuff done in reality. Not the brooding, angsty, chronically depressed person... no, they just remain broody, angsty, chronically depressed people.

And while I'm not saying that you can't do anythng with that, I'm just saying there's less you can do with that... particularly if the narrative calls for complex social interactions and time-tested ideas of conflict and drama.

An extrovert can just literally steal the scene ... and they will believably do so. Often with spectacular effects to their detriment or success.
I don't think you can do more with extroverts necessarily. They just seem easier to write because they are more plentiful compared to introvert characters. Cassandra Cain is an introvert and one of the most complex and well written characters I've ever read in any comic or encountered in any media. People who have depression aren't less effective than those who don't have it. Not if they have ways to cope with it. Believe me I know. Batman's issue isn't being chronically depressed, it's him not seeking out help for it.

Rock star types might seem fun at first glance. Until you actually realise some of them have no idea what the hell theyre doing and end up running things into the ground. The movie Shattered Glass was a great deconstruction of this type of person. And we only need to look to reality to see examples of such. From CEOs who acted life was one big party and didn't know the first thing about running a business to politicians who ran the premise of having zero political experience (didn't one of those recently win an election?).

Wanting to be seen as the best as opposed to actually being the best is a pretty easy way to screw up. And contributes to that anti-intellectualism I mentioned before.

In fact, tying into the thread topic, I myself like when magic is depicted as a discipline to be taught which makes it a science of sorts.