StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Didn't Jackson also end up turning into something of a sciencebadass as well? All linguistics genius one minute, busting caps the next?

"Masquerade for the sake of masquerade"

Is there any reason why, let's say, Wizards from Harry Potter shouldn't let us non magical folks into the secret?

Sure, the fundies and magical is satanic, but when people realise "Oh, they can cure cancer, amputees and AIDS with their magic!", I don't see people siding with Jack Chick.

"Blue and Orange Morality."

If it were just animals that were considered to be amoral, that'd be fine. But when thinking, language-using beings are described as being "neither/above good and evil" it pisses me off. NO, dude, if something tortures puppies and burns kittens "as part of its nature" then it's fucking EVIL and should be killed off for being a sociopathic/psychopathic threat, rather then accepted in the same way that you accept being wet when in the rain.

For some americans, having sex with 14 year olds is a crime. Here in Brazil it isn't. Nor is socially unacceptable to have sex with cousins.

Now imagine an Alien society - sure, to humans their actions might seem evil, but they might be acting by their society' s rules, wich might be fundamentally different from ours.

My point is - just beacuse it isn't necessarily evil by their standarts, doesn' t mean it can't be perceived as such by our own, and be considered a threat. The trope itself doesn' t suck donkey balls.

Karma Houdinis. We want the villain to get his just desserts in the end, dammit! This shouldn't be real life!

This is stupid. If the villain escaping is more entertaining, by all means let him escape.

It seems to be implied (surprise) that the Christian God is the creator and that the other gods are powerful but lesser beings that depend on belief for power or for access to our world. Dresden meets Odin actually. It would bother me less if it turned out that the Christian god was just another supernatural critter feeding on belief instead of him just happening to be the one "real god".

Seconded. I hate this trope.

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:I didn't get the impression that he was the "One True God" so much as the most popular and thus the most powerful. In one of the books, Dresden actually discovers a way to turn himself into a god, should he wish to, so it seems like the rank and standing of the various supernatural entities is a fluid thing.

Well, he's pretty much considered to be the greatest of them, and differentiated from the other "Old Gods" (including Hindu ones it seems). But that ritual provides another cosmology that intersects with the many colliding ones. You have a world with no real divine supernaturals, or at least with noninterfering ones, and that's the vampire/superdemon plotlines. But the possessed plotline relies on an interfering, benevolent, and ecumenical God. And another book incorporates a vodoun ritual, which itself is a cosmology incompatible with the other two, and there's another one where you can become a god by accumulation of power, but this then asks the question of where the other gods came from, and why there's two or maybe three definitions of a god. Any of these would work with a story, and I don't mind the Abrahamic God being supreme or immensely powerful, as long as there's a consistent cosmology that explains why exactly he's greater than Shiva or, for that matter, (Dresden Files-wise) how fairies can predate humanity and why these various gods each have mutually incompatible creation myths.

Spekio wrote:"Masquerade for the sake of masquerade"

Is there any reason why, let's say, Wizards from Harry Potter shouldn't let us non magical folks into the secret?

Sure, the fundies and magical is satanic, but when people realise "Oh, they can cure cancer, amputees and AIDS with their magic!", I don't see people siding with Jack Chick.

They have a society wherein the majority of the upper class is virulently bigoted towards the non-magical, at least in England, and there's no reason to think that most of the world is significantly different. The more sophisticated also almost certainly fear that they would be essentially enslaved for the benefits of the rest of humanity. In Harry Potter, at least, only people with a certain gift can perform magic, as far as we know (early interviews for the seventh book suggested that anybody might be able to do it, but that got dropped or may have been a red herring), so I think that going public would essentially force wizards into slavery in many parts of the world (ignoring areas such as Nigeria where violence against suspected witches is common) and in any case their societies would be destroyed outright worldwide as the demand for magical medicine increased.

That's really not all that good of an example, so feel free to dive ever-deeper into the abyss of TVTropes to find others!

Uh...HOW could they be forced into slavery? Does England enslave doctors and engineers now?

Not only are they still citizens of any country they're in, it's not like you can just march the Army into Hogwart without suffering massive casulaties in the process. Attempting to enslave magicians is a recipe for civil war. And why do that? Just have them pay taxes. Charlatans and fraudsters can charge people tens of thousands of dollars for cancer treatments that don't work ; The magicians have stuff that works, and thus could charge people openly and with no fear of being imprisoned for fraud. They'd become rich, pay taxes, people would stop dying, the health care system would be relieved off expensive and complicated patients...everybody wins.

It's more likely they're just afraid people will flip out at the evil shit the ministry uses, like the fucking soul-sucking hunter-killers that fly around killing people...

Could you bothered to provide one instead of just spamming?

I actually wanted, but wasn't sure whether it would fit. But my point still stands, I am sure we had a thread like this before.


All-superpower-no-real-muscles: a hero who has no strengh or skill or ability to call his own, instead relying exclusively on the technical/magical power of his gadgets or pet.

Batman is the opposite of this idea, even though he is loaded with technical gadgets up the ass (I wouldn't be surprised if that was literary the case). In almost every incarnation he has mastered martial arts and does research work on his enemies (even if he only uses his magic computer to do it).

I have heard that Eragon novels, especially later on, are prone to this. With antagonists, especially of the Overlord variety this is more forgivable but not completely.

I hate this because stories are about people, one way or another. When you leave out the people and instead just let the fights/conflicts with no change or lesson for the characters, thus becoming nothing but wankfests. Unless the story is built around th unchanging nature of the main character.


TV shows that lack continounity with the Reset Button is something I really hate too, but that's just bad writing, not a bad trope.


I am sure that a good deal of romantic tropes are like this too, especially when they ignore such driving forces as physical attraction. Or go the other way around, glorifying sex to a point of something it isn't.


As for what Abyss points out, yeah, that is a gripe of mine too. Why do must urban fantasies always have a conspiracy? Why must we always stick to modern 20st century anyhow?


Also, I kind of hate urban fantasy ghost-hunter-stlye stuff (Supernatural here) that always end up with a Christian world-view. Always and just because.

In terms of the Harry Potter-verse, look at it this way. What are the benefits to the wizards of associating with Muggle society? The only thing technology really does better than magic is kill lots of people simultaneously (not useful for most people's daily lives) and communications such as telephones and computers. It's stated in the books that areas of concentrated magic such as Hogwarts interfere with technology; we don't know what the "lower limit" is before there becomes a problem, but it's entirely possible that computers and telephones simply wouldn't function worth a damn in a wizarding household. Wizarding society has "us" beat easily in the areas of transportation and medicine.

The wizards are also insular as hell, and given the contempt a lot of their aristocracy has for non-wizards, it's entirely possible part of the reason wizard society is kept separate from non-magical society is for the protection of those who can't do magic. The potential for abuse of the Imperius curse and various mind-altering spells are, frankly, horrific. It's also acknowledged in one of the books that Muggle witch-hunters were largely ineffective in catching real wizards -- which means a lot of Muggles got tortured and killed by other Muggles.

Now, non-magical society would possibly benefit (in some areas) from having access to magic, but wizarding society doesn't give a damn about Muggle society -- Dumbledore states in book 6 that most of his contemporaries don't even read Muggle newspapers to know what is going on in the world. Hagrid (admittedly, perhaps not the best source) states in the first book that the wizards are better off left alone because non-wizards would want "magical solutions to their problems."

Maybe my powers of Suspension of Disbelief are just too strong, but I don't get a lot of the complaints about the Potter or Dresden-verses "not making sense."

I agree with Jaevric.

The wizards can get all stuff they want from the Muggles (No one would hinder them to buy a cellphone or a TV and set up an antenna. (If that works in a magical environment - we have no data except for 'not at Hogwarts', I think)

They can buy all their clothes and food, their cars and bicycles, you name it , they get it. And with some nifty magic, they sometimes wouldn't even need to pay for it, if they are inclined to... Conjuring some paper money isn't that hard if you have a note to examine.

So they have their magic and everything they WANT from the Muggles, and the Muggles leave them alone with their demands...

If they get into the open, their potions would need to be evaluated, probably regulated, and probably a tax put upon it.
Ingredients would be restricted according to Muggle health standards, licenses for medical practice would be needed, probably demanding university degrees for healers. Licenses would also probably put home brewing for everybody to an end. Shortages would arise as well, as I doubt that most of these ingredients are easy enough to come by for a global population.

Muggles would also demand wizardign world to be integrated into Muggle, disbanding the minsitry (they would - as soon as they see the laws and customs), demand equipment to be able to arrest wizards, equipment to detect all spell use in case of investigations, warding against apparition for most places, and many, many other regulations. Pilot licenses for brooms, full Muggle curriculum in Hogwarts, school before the age of eleven...

So, in a nutshell - nothing to gain...

Todeswind wrote:I'm regularly confused by the "we must solve this alone" solution that pops up in literature and fiction so much in situations where there seems like really no reason they don't approach an authority figure except plot convenience.

I'm not so sure if that's so much a trope as a genre convention.

It's a bit like the way in Godzilla movies it apparently makes perfect in-universe sense for aliens to invade Earth using giant space monsters as their weapon of choice. Sure, in our universe it would make more sense for the Xillians to use King Gidorah's strength to throw large rocks at Japan, but nobody's watching shows like that to watch rocks getting thrown around. Unless, of course, it is giant monsters throwing rocks at each other.

On the other hand, if The Masquerade breaks, muggles will freak out, panic and demand DEAD MAGICIANS instead of mild inconveniences like taxes

Besides, mages are heavily regulated already by a myriad of institutions. They even have magical prisons, a magical police and a government, so it's not like FREEEDOM will be opressed by that regulation shifting a bit here and there and the orders coming in from 10 Downing Street rather than wherever the ministry of magic is hiding...

It's more likely that the nobility simply doesn't want to have to deal with them stupid untermenschen, though it's kinda weird that nobody attempted to challenge the status quo. I know the ministry violently clamps down on any violation (like use of magic where there's even a slighest chance of a "muggle" seeing it), even in self-defence,but governments did worse throughout history, it didn't stop people from challenging established customs.

Zixinus wrote:As for what Abyss points out, yeah, that is a gripe of mine too. Why do must urban fantasies always have a conspiracy? Why must we always stick to modern 20st century anyhow?

Because authors write in a setting that they and their audience can be comfortable with. It's easier for a reader to do a self-insert if there is verisimilitude. The idea of a supernatural conspiracy and contemporary settings goes back at least to Lovecraft. It's a way of allowing the contemporary setting with the supernatural without horribly horribly shattering suspension of disbelief.

I don't want to derail the thread with a long, drawn-out discussion of urban fantasy conspiracy theories and whether they make sense or are a stupid literary trope (actually, I kind of do want to derail the thread, but I'm sure the mods wouldn't appreciate it). Perhaps we should start another thread in Fantasy for that if people actually want to discuss it?

Magic is simply natural phenomena not understood by science yet. A Special Forces soldiers nightvision goggles ability to see in the dark would make it into a magic amulet several hundred years ago. Similarly if scientists studied how Harry Potter cloak worked they can just make a Predator cloaking device and that becomes technology. Study teleport spells and you may get Star Trek style transporters and so on. There is no reason to believe the wizarding community wont benefit from having their stuff studied with the scientific method. I hate to see a clumsy word like TECHNOMAGE but a wizard with magic based war fighting gear would wipe the floor with peers much stronger than him in innate abilities.

Except that most settings have a "magic can't be replicated with technology!!!" rule

Hell, in some settings technology outright refuses to work when magic is around. Which is kinda illogical, since technology works on the same laws we do

Which is kind of a cliche in itself, to be honest

PeZook wrote:Except that most settings have a "magic can't be replicated with technology!!!" rule

Hell, in some settings technology outright refuses to work when magic is around. Which is kinda illogical, since technology works on the same laws we do

Which is kind of a cliche in itself, to be honest

I thought on the worlds that did that it was more the tech level and field interference from the magic? There's typically technology that works because the magic doesn't interfere with the electronic/magnetic fields either because the tech is from the fifties or the tech has something comparable to EMP shielding.

Garlak wrote:"Blue and Orange Morality."

If it were just animals that were considered to be amoral, that'd be fine. But when thinking, language-using beings are described as being "neither/above good and evil" it pisses me off. NO, dude, if something tortures puppies and burns kittens "as part of its nature" then it's fucking EVIL and should be killed off for being a sociopathic/psychopathic threat, rather then accepted in the same way that you accept being wet when in the rain.

I don't think the "torturing puppies and burning kittens" thing is really a good example, given our barbarous actions toward cattle and poultry in the US, unless you advocate mercy-killing the owners and operators of factory farms.

Additionally, non-human intelligences might view us in the same light; an organism that can utilize photosynthesis and chemosynthesis for all its energy needs might view us as horribly murderous for eating anything with a brain, even shrimp and fish. Would they be justified in obliterating us for our evil natures? That's not to say all things are acceptable (obviously things inimical to human existence should be kept at arm's length or killed for the maintenance of our own existence), but they shouldn't be destroyed merely for engaging in behaviors that are distasteful to us that don't cause widespread harm to sapient creatures (no slavery, for instance).

PeZook wrote: It's more likely that the nobility simply doesn't want to have to deal with them stupid untermenschen, though it's kinda weird that nobody attempted to challenge the status quo. I know the ministry violently clamps down on any violation (like use of magic where there's even a slighest chance of a "muggle" seeing it), even in self-defence,but governments did worse throughout history, it didn't stop people from challenging established customs.

Isn't that what Lord Voldymoid did, or tried to do? Albeit in a Nazi genocidal kind of way?

Shroom Man 777 wrote:

PeZook wrote: It's more likely that the nobility simply doesn't want to have to deal with them stupid untermenschen, though it's kinda weird that nobody attempted to challenge the status quo. I know the ministry violently clamps down on any violation (like use of magic where there's even a slighest chance of a "muggle" seeing it), even in self-defence,but governments did worse throughout history, it didn't stop people from challenging established customs.

Isn't that what Lord Voldymoid did, or tried to do? Albeit in a Nazi genocidal kind of way?

Voldemort, and prior to him Gellert Grindelwald both planned to subjugate nonmagical society. Dumbledore and Arthur Weasely both pushed for more and stronger laws to protect Muggles from wizards. Nobody seems to have pushed for an effort to actually integrate the two societies in a positive fashion. Honestly, I'm not sure how you would do so, given issues like mind-control magic and readily-available love potions from a joke shop! No sir, no potential for abuse THERE.

Regarding the Dresden universe, it's strongly implied that a 'god' is just a sufficiently powerful being. The Lords of Outer Night are described as old, mostly-forgotten gods, which are in turn subordinated to the Red King, who is not referred to as a god. Kemmler's Darkhallow would have created a 'god' by virtue of concentrating a stupefying amount of necromantic power in a single person. The qualifications for godhood seem to boil down to 1) a fuckload of power, and 2) the ability to survive and encompass said power without either exploding or turning into a bowl of petunias.

As for the Christian god, the Dresden universe never goes into creation myths, so whether or not he's old enough to have had a h and in it is unknown. With regards to the White God (as Mab refers to him) and his lieutenants being seriously strong, that just comes down to marketing. Established deities seem to rely on belief to sustain themselves, however they originally ascended. Odin doesn't exactly draw much worship and devotion these days, so his reach is limitted. The White God, on the other hand, has one hell of a marketing team on his side, so he's got a lot more juice to play with. This is actually explicitly supported by one of the short stories in Side Jobs, wherein it's revealed that a secret faction is trying to erase some of the more malicious old gods/mythical creatures from human memory so that they'll die in obscurity once no one even recalls their existence.

While I certainly agree with the dislike of the 'Christian God BEST God' theme, it just doesn't really apply to the Dresden universe. The White God is powerful because he is popular, not because he is the One True God.

Big Orange wrote:

Johonebesus wrote: It was really bad on Stargate, where Jackson was so often the maid in distress until plain old O'Neil saved the day by trusting his gut, often supplemented with a little violence.

But strongly suggesting teleporting up an alien enhanced hydrogen bomb to destroy the villain seems like a lot of violence.

Considering that his other choice was to let the bomb go off on Abydos, killing him, all of the locals, and who knows how many other people that might live elsewhere on the planet, sending it up to Ra's ship doesn't seem like such a very violent act. His character did become less of a "bitch" (Shank's word, not mine) after descension, but in the early seasons it seemed he was always the one activating dangerous devices or getting infected or possessed or kidnapped. It was quite jarring when, while Jackson was helping another team deal with some local Unas, the team leader said to Jackson, "O'Neil told me to listen to you, because you're usually right about these things." My first reaction was, no he isn't.

As for Dresden, part of this confusion might come from our own culture. Thanks to Christianity, the word "god" brings to mind an omnipotent and transcendent being. That would exclude the vast majority of gods ever worshiped by man. An ancient pagan wouldn't understand how an angel isn't a deity of some sort. It could be that YHWH is a transcendent Creator, and other gods are a different class of beings all together. We just don't have the vocabulary in English to easily distinguish between the two.

In regards to Harry Potter, didn't they handwave that in the first book with 'wizards don't want to be left alone and not pestered with magical solutions for everyday problems'?

Gaidin wrote:

PeZook wrote:Except that most settings have a "magic can't be replicated with technology!!!" rule

Hell, in some settings technology outright refuses to work when magic is around. Which is kinda illogical, since technology works on the same laws we do

Which is kind of a cliche in itself, to be honest

I thought on the worlds that did that it was more the tech level and field interference from the magic? There's typically technology that works because the magic doesn't interfere with the electronic/magnetic fields either because the tech is from the fifties or the tech has something comparable to EMP shielding.

One interesting approach I've heard of is:

Normally we are kept alive by physical laws.

Around magic the physical laws break down... and we are kept alive by magic: by spirits or the interaction between the elements or the will of the gods or whatever. The effect is the same (people are alive and self-aware), but the cause is different.

Yes, yes, violation of Occam's Razor. But it at least explains why people work and cell phones don't: people have magic-mechanism-spirits that keep them functional in a magic-rich environment; cell phones do not.

Garlak wrote:"Blue and Orange Morality."

If it were just animals that were considered to be amoral, that'd be fine. But when thinking, language-using beings are described as being "neither/above good and evil" it pisses me off. NO, dude, if something tortures puppies and burns kittens "as part of its nature" then it's fucking EVIL and should be killed off for being a sociopathic/psychopathic threat, rather then accepted in the same way that you accept being wet when in the rain.

The problem comes when you have multiple frames of reference for your moral system. For example, abandoning children to die in the wilderness is evil... but there are animal species that have dozens of children per litter where that would be necessary, and is routine: the tadpoles/caterpillars/whatever are left to fend for themselves and most of them die.

Imagine an intelligent species that evolved from that background. Barring an indistinguishable-from-magic biotech solution, they're stuck with accepting a 90% or higher infant mortality rate just to keep the species from being destroyed by population pressure.

Is that evil? Can we judge them as evil for the fact that they are seemingly OK with this, that they accept the premise that out of a litter of dozens of offspring, only a few will survive to adulthood? Because they really are kind of stuck doing that; it is by no means obvious that they could alter themselves to just not massively overproduce children, except by rather iffy means like sterilizing 90% or more of the population and having only a tiny breeder caste.

For HP? It's pure writer's fiat given she showed some technology working, but others not. What Rowling deigned as modern doesn't, but antiques work even if the processes are similiar except compacted.

Srelex wrote:In regards to Harry Potter, didn't they handwave that in the first book with 'wizards don't want to be left alone and not pestered with magical solutions for everyday problems'?

That was Hagrid's explanation. He's not exactly a cunning sociologist capable of foreseeing the effects of magic on Muggle society.

I'm not really a fan of 'Proud Warrior Races'. I can see people having a militant tradition and warrior sub-culture, but when you decide to base your entire culture around the fine art of killing someone, then you should probably do something differently before the other peoples get sick of you.

As for the Harry Potter thing, I always figured it was because the wizards were scared of Muggles; after all, a shotgun is more powerful then most spells, and Muggle weapons outstrip displayed magic/magical creatures by a incredible factor.

White Haven wrote:Regarding the Dresden universe, it's strongly implied that a 'god' is just a sufficiently powerful being. The Lords of Outer Night are described as old, mostly-forgotten gods, which are in turn subordinated to the Red King, who is not referred to as a god. Kemmler's Darkhallow would have created a 'god' by virtue of concentrating a stupefying amount of necromantic power in a single person. The qualifications for godhood seem to boil down to 1) a fuckload of power, and 2) the ability to survive and encompass said power without either exploding or turning into a bowl of petunias.

As for the Christian god, the Dresden universe never goes into creation myths, so whether or not he's old enough to have had a h and in it is unknown. With regards to the White God (as Mab refers to him) and his lieutenants being seriously strong, that just comes down to marketing. Established deities seem to rely on belief to sustain themselves, however they originally ascended. Odin doesn't exactly draw much worship and devotion these days, so his reach is limitted. The White God, on the other hand, has one hell of a marketing team on his side, so he's got a lot more juice to play with. This is actually explicitly supported by one of the short stories in Side Jobs, wherein it's revealed that a secret faction is trying to erase some of the more malicious old gods/mythical creatures from human memory so that they'll die in obscurity once no one even recalls their existence.

While I certainly agree with the dislike of the 'Christian God BEST God' theme, it just doesn't really apply to the Dresden universe. The White God is powerful because he is popular, not because he is the One True God.

Are all gods apothesized mortals? Why are they affected by belief, or rather, why are only some things affected by belief? The three swords, for example. One of them is supposedly Excalibur. Yet it is not significantly more powerful than the others and does not have the powers attributed to Excalibur by legend- but at the same time we are expected to believe that it only has those powers by belief, despite being a secret. Then there's the problem that the series validates Christianity, if wussy ecumenical Christianity and also has fairy wars being responsible for climate shifts and also has voodoo. Speaking of fairies, they should be dependent on worship too, seeing as the sidhe at the very least are the Tuatha De Danann, the gods of pre-Christian Ireland. But they are not.

In other words, it's a mess because it is set in the modern world, and has elements of Aristophanic deities, and elements of consensual solipsism, but they are part of a larger jumble. The cosmology lacks anything unifying it together at even the slightest, and more importantly, is set in the current world. Other writers could get away with this with a different world altogether, but here all these are part of myth, and yet they operate under several sets of mutually-contradicting rules.

As for Dresden, part of this confusion might come from our own culture. Thanks to Christianity, the word "god" brings to mind an omnipotent and transcendent being. That would exclude the vast majority of gods ever worshiped by man. An ancient pagan wouldn't understand how an angel isn't a deity of some sort. It could be that YHWH is a transcendent Creator, and other gods are a different class of beings all together. We just don't have the vocabulary in English to easily distinguish between the two.

But the problem is that there is no consistency. You have several creators- Bondye, Odin, El-Shaddai, and Trimurti can all be extrapolated from onscreen stuff, and that could probably be expanded significantly, let alone that the Earth/Universe are as old as geology and astronomy suggest or that climate is heavily influenced by fairies.