Runequest, especially from RQ III on, takes a pluralistic or meta-metaphysical approach to magic and religion. There are mechanics for types of magic (in 3e: divine, shamanistic, and sorcerous) but the game doesn't say exactly how they work. Or rather, it has a section for each type that explains from its perspective how it works, and what is "really" going on with the other two. For example shamans, who deal in spirits, see gods as just powerful spirits and priests as their slaves. They see sorcerers as having dried-out spirits, and so forth.

Quote from: Brad J. Murray;728357It should be easier for you with no faith -- there's no faith in D&D either since the gods are objectively real. It's not really about religion, it's about super powers. It's more like a gritty accurate depiction of the Marvel or DC Universe than religion. And you don't get to play Superman -- you run errands for him.

This is a modern perspective (equating religion with faith in the sense of blind belief) which doesn't jibe with the portrayal of religion in e.g. The Iliad. In much of the world and much of history, religion is a kind of patronage, where you give sacrifices or devotion to the gods, and they take care of you in return.

Quote from: dragoner;728359Traditionally, "mana" was from the gods. However, if one wants to suppose there is some "powerz", which does seem a massive handwave. It is kind of a thing where you can totally re-engineer the universe if you want to, but why would you? Plus to the fact, the fantasy milieu does lose part of it's "magic" when say Conan no longer talks to Crom.

I agree, but it works. And although it's a handwave, it's simple and easy to digest for modern minds. As Brad's comment illustrates, modern minds start from powerz and are then comfortable to punt on the metaphysics. How many comics or movies have you seen (e.g. The Mummy) which completely fail to confront the religious/metaphysical implications of the really-real supernatural stuff that happens?

Quote from: Arminius;728361This is a modern perspective (equating religion with faith in the sense of blind belief) which doesn't jibe with the portrayal of religion in e.g. The Iliad. In much of the world and much of history, religion is a kind of patronage, where you give sacrifices or devotion to the gods, and they take care of you in return.

Exactly.

OTOH, that can be exactly what rubs some people the wrong way. The idea of worshiping a more power being just for the rewards seems tacky.

Quote from: dragoner;728359Traditionally, "mana" was from the gods. However, if one wants to suppose there is some "powerz", which does seem a massive handwave. It is kind of a thing where you can totally re-engineer the universe if you want to, but why would you? Plus to the fact, the fantasy milieu does lose part of it's "magic" when say Conan no longer talks to Crom.

Well, you could just be extremely vague as well, allowing people to see whatever they want in the magic, ascribe it to some hazy cosmic force. That might still be too religious for the OP. Not sure how far he wants it stripped down.

Quote from: JeremyR;728363Exactly.

OTOH, that can be exactly what rubs some people the wrong way. The idea of worshiping a more power being just for the rewards seems tacky.

To moderns, yes.

If your god didn't do what you requested, it wasn't because he didn't exist, it was because another god was more powerful, or because you didn't do enough to please the god, or because your god was being a jerk. In that case you could,yell at him, but you didn't stop believing he exists. In the Middle Ages, although the omnipotence/omniscience/benevolence of God was a given (so you couldn't yell at Jehovah), people did make ritual complaints against saints (like taking away some decorations of their shrines) if they didn't come up with the goods.

When the prophets or Jesus or saints performed miracles, they weren't kindling people's faith in the existence of God, rather it was in the power vis a vis other gods and and spirits.

Quote from: Arminius;728370To moderns, yes.

If your god didn't do what you requested, it wasn't because he didn't exist, it was because another god was more powerful, or because you didn't do enough to please the god, or because your god was being a jerk. In that case you could,yell at him, but you didn't stop believing he exists. In the Middle Ages, although the omnipotence/omniscience/benevolence of God was a given (so you couldn't yell at Jehovah), people did make ritual complaints against saints (like taking away some decorations of their shrines) if they didn't come up with the goods.

This is very much true, and one of the major factors in the early middle ages that caused those monotheistic religions, which often offered a more...lofty ideas of gods, to make easier converts by the sword against the pagans who lost a war to them.

Quote from: Arminius;728362I agree, but it works. And although it's a handwave, it's simple and easy to digest for modern minds. As Brad's comment illustrates, modern minds start from powerz and are then comfortable to punt on the metaphysics. How many comics or movies have you seen (e.g. The Mummy) which completely fail to confront the religious/metaphysical implications of the really-real supernatural stuff that happens?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;728365Well, you could just be extremely vague as well, allowing people to see whatever they want in the magic, ascribe it to some hazy cosmic force. That might still be too religious for the OP. Not sure how far he wants it stripped down.

I agree with both of you. Can't say I like it much, it seems to sanitize it for mass consumption; losing the depth, or mystery of the old ways which are being represented. Not that I believe in superstition, but I do think there is something in the old perspective that the Gods were rather ambivalent, or people's attitudes to them, not the sort of Manichean division between evil and good. Stories of Perchta were good for scaring us around the campfire, that she would slice you open and stuff you with straw if you were bad, but that is bad now to scare kids like that.

Quote from: dragoner;728309The only thing it really would start to breakdown for me is that if there are no gods, then there is no magic, logically. As by the definition of magic is from the supernatural, which generally equates to "gods" of some sort. So that begs the question, why play fantasy at all?

I don't see the logical conclusion that magic comes from gods. Magic can simply exist as a part of the world, like water and air, without needing a deity as a source.

I enjoy religions in games because human society has religions, just like wealth inequity and crime. I like to have a world that makes sense for the humans within it, but since I'm good with magic having being of immense magical power that fit the definition of gods existing within that world as well. In fact, despite my atheism in real life I enjoy playing a religious character in a game where gods are proven to exist.

Generally I prefer the concept of a god that simply has more of the magical power and can do more with it than mortals, including massive changes to the world, but not as as a creator of the world.

Quote from: snooggums;728380I don't see the logical conclusion that magic comes from gods. Magic can simply exist as a part of the world, like water and air, without needing a deity as a source.

The definition of magic:

3.supposed supernatural power: a supposed supernatural power that makes impossible things happen or gives somebody control over the forces of nature.

Of which, in that Gods being supernatural, have power over nature and can control it and grant powers; this being the traditional idea. I don't see how magic can exist as a natural force, logically; water and air, for example, having known physical properties which magic doesn't. I understand the sort of "scientific" description, but it isn't correct, I don't see the reason to mix the two.

I'm another who doesn't see 'magic' as requiring 'gods'.

I do like the Patron setup in DCC, and some of them may pass themselves off as gods or angels or demons... but I guess that depends on how gullible their supplicants are.

Quote from: dragoner;728387The definition of magic:

3.supposed supernatural power: a supposed supernatural power that makes impossible things happen or gives somebody control over the forces of nature.

Of which, in that Gods being supernatural, have power over nature and can control it and grant powers; this being the traditional idea. I don't see how magic can exist as a natural force, logically; water and air, for example, having known physical properties which magic doesn't. I understand the sort of "scientific" description, but it isn't correct, I don't see the reason to mix the two.

I don't see a reference to gods in your definition, and being supernatural still doesn't mean it has to be 'from gods'. That isn't a 'scientific' thing, just a different source than from a creator which is very common in many religions around the world.

One example among many: Werewolves are supernatural, and I can't think of a werewolf story that started with a werewolf being created by a god. There might be one out there, but not in the common story. Vampires are often cited as being cursed by God, which I'm also good with as 'supernatural from gods'.

Basically, not seeing a requirement means I'm good both ways. I'm only responding because you are stating one specific approach as the 'definition of magic' instead of your personal preference.

Quote from: dragoner;728387The definition of magic:

3.supposed supernatural power: a supposed supernatural power that makes impossible things happen or gives somebody control over the forces of nature.

Of which, in that Gods being supernatural, have power over nature and can control it and grant powers; this being the traditional idea. I don't see how magic can exist as a natural force, logically; water and air, for example, having known physical properties which magic doesn't. I understand the sort of "scientific" description, but it isn't correct, I don't see the reason to mix the two.

"Supernatural" is basically a disease of language combined with the modern outlook. To the ancients of course magic and miracles were real thus no more unnatural than the sun rising in the morning.

Note, I'm not aware of "mana" coming from the gods according to the cultures from which the word is drawn. Wikipedia's article makes it out to be a an abstract sense of "power" that just exists in the universe, something like "qi". (I'm willing to be corrected, but my college textbook also says that mana, as well as the Native American terms "wakan" and "orenda" are "universal impersonal power" in the interpretations of leading anthropologists of the last century. Needless to say they may have gotten it wrong, and other cultures may see things differently.)

Quote from: snooggums;728399I don't see a reference to gods in your definition, and being supernatural still doesn't mean it has to be 'from gods'. That isn't a 'scientific' thing, just a different source than from a creator which is very common in many religions around the world.

One example among many: Werewolves are supernatural, and I can't think of a werewolf story that started with a werewolf being created by a god. There might be one out there, but not in the common story. Vampires are often cited as being cursed by God, which I'm also good with as 'supernatural from gods'.

Supernatural does suppose "Gods" traditionally as it is their realm.

Werewolves are cursed, like "Vampires", so yes, technically, the more modern Christian perspective, and as such from the Devil, or a God-like being.

Removing the traditional frame of reference for a mechanistic approach to magic ... why? Seems very flat.

Quote from: Arminius;728401"Supernatural" is basically a disease of language combined with the modern outlook. To the ancients of course magic and miracles were real thus no more unnatural than the sun rising in the morning.

Note, I'm not aware of "mana" coming from the gods according to the cultures from which the word is drawn.

Supernatural being beyond the natural world, which people in the past did recognize a division, and did use terms such as unnatural for it.

On Easter Island, the Polynesian religion did seek to gain "mana" from the Gods.