Since there's so many questions (which I am really content about; as I said, questions are only a boon), I'll answer them in the similar, list form that I did earlier. :)
Is magical use along the lines of anything can use it, and some things just don't grasp that fact or have any need to?
- Using my explanation and basic definition pertaining to the nature of magic, then hypothetically, yes, anything can use magic, although as mentioned some things don't use it in a civilized sense. Things without the capacity to reason or have complex, abstract thinking (which really means anything that is not a human) will be unable to conduct magic in any organized sense of the word. As said before, they wouldn't cast spells, but some things may be influenced by magic. I will explain this in more detail in the answer to the next question.
Is it an evolutionary adaptation for a tree to have thorns that can put someone to sleep forever, or a hare to be able to jink a little farther than physically possibly when trying to evade a hunting dog? Or do these things need to be added through human interference? Or is it nothing more than an occasional awkward flub, courtesy of the magic itself?
- Considering magic is so integral, it would not be surprising if magic would be factored in to certain evolutionary adaptions. Still, as explained in the following question on the origins of magic (internal or external), the product of magic is not inherently magical, so it would not really be possible for something to adapt to the actual magic but rather to certain products/effects of spells.
To explain, a hare may jink better than normal ones, but only if something had caused this adaptation to be necessary; and whether its caused by magic is debatable. A tree may become immune to fire (like redwood) if it needs to, and the cause may be completely non-magical or magical. Maybe generations of pyromanic witches who launched fireballs and fires every which way caused this, or maybe it was just a naturally flammable area that would burn in the summers. Again, because of the nature of magic, for something to become immune to magic is hypothetically improbable, but in the adaptation to products of magic, it is reasonable.
To put it clearly, evolution doesn't work any different than the way it does now. Adaptation and mutations are still usual to how they are in our world.
I must admit though, that there are anomalies and exceptions to the rule (as there always are). By chance or misfortune or even magical interactions, some things develop a better attunement to magic (which is what I previously described in my post on creatures). Perhaps a witch was somehow able to augment the speed of the hare's jink (maybe causing growth in the hare's leg muscles or something; I confess I'm not an anatomist on rabbits), and somehow this trait become genetic (rather than merely a mutation to that individual). From this, perhaps this trait passed on. Or perhaps the hare just randomly mutated in such a way that, for unexplained reasons (remember, magic is largely unknown and mysterious), it allowed the hare to jink faster. Or maybe it was completely normal.
Does magic come from within the individual or from the natural magically saturated environment?
- Magic is not an element or energy in itself; it is a sort of presence, a catalyst, a phenomena, and thus it can't be decided if magic comes from the internal or external, whether it is created or merely manipulated. It is due to this reason that unintelligent things can't really use it like a witch can (and to this degree, why it isn't well-organized even among civilization), for magic is just too unknown in its underlying mechanisms. Those who have tried to understand it have hardly made steps in figuring it out; at this point, most have just given up. To give a real world example, in order to better understand the ambiguity of magic in the realm, magic is similar to dark energy and dark matter; we know that it can (and does exist, in terms of magic in the realm) but we know nothing about it. It is an invisible actor. Going on, it should be noticed that in organized magic (that is using spells, rituals and other structured methods to execute particular effect), spells produce an effect and this effect itself is not the magic. It is the cause of an effect that is magic, and this echoes my earlier statement that magic is technically everywhere but also completely natural and normal. A fireball itself is unusual, yes, but not magic; magic is what allows the existence of the fireball.
There is a distinction between magic and a spell. Magic, as explained many times, is natural, a sort of nigh-omnipresent phenomena. Spells, on the other hand, are deliberate applications of magic. Therefore, spells are magic, but magic is not necessarily a spell. And even more, the spell is the process, the magic is the force and the product of the spell is the actual effect. Thus, in pure technicalities, the product of a spell is not actually magical but a consequence of magic. To illustrate using the fireball again, a fireball is fire, the creation of the fireball is brought about by magic, while the activity (process) of utilizing magic to create the fireball is the spell.
An obscure reference would be to Aristotle's definitions of capacity, activity and product.
• Magic is a capacity of sorts, really nothing more than potential by itself. [possible, comparable physics term: potential energy as well as force]
• Spellcasting (spells) is the activity in the capacity of magic. [possible, comparable physics term: work]
• The product is the effect brought about as a consequence of the spell. [possible, comparable physics term: matter]
*Note: If any of these comparisons confuse you, just forget about them. They're not completely correct, but merely reference points to help understanding, so if they do the opposite, just try your best to ignore them.*
I do want to mention one final thing though, and hopefully this doesn't confuse anyone to much, but it is entirely possible for magic to bring about an effect without a spell. This is what is considered a natural phenomena, and this magic is usually rare, weak or vague because it isn't caused by a spell (it lacks intent/focus). It is this phenomena present in, say, a child's magical outburst, which is further described in a following question.
Anyways, this distinction is what allows magical entities that can't, in technical terms, cast spells, such as creatures.
Does magic work like an energy or a process? Is a person's magical prowess limited by their individual innate magical reserve or their knowledge on how to perform the magic?
- Spellcasting is most definitely a process and requires some form of basic understanding of the man made methods to try and give a better structure to the ambiguity of magic. That said magic, in being completely natural, is also very intuitive and is an energy. Actually, a better thing to call it is a presence (as explained in another question), as it isn't quantifiable in the realm (at least not in the setting of this RP), rather than an energy which can usually be measured to some extent. Therefore, a person's magical prowess is not limited by an innate reserve, but rather by their knowledge on the execution. That said, it just so happens that because of the complexities, many don't reach a level where they can do very powerful spells (that is, things considered OP, OOCly).
A good comparison that Schradinger actually made was in likening magic to a technological development. Sure, this was in talking on a different topic, but it can be used in the area too. In this way, magic is too 'underdeveloped' to produce things like a magical atom bomb, per say. Another illustration would again be that of cooking; anyone can theoretically cook to the same degree as anyone, or to put it better has the same potential, (considering the ingredient is available to all, which considering magic is the ingredient in this comparison, it is abundant), but some people just don't cook well, usually from a poor execution stemming from lack of knowledge, preparation and/or practice.
What's stopping a Theon Vilicus from putting a magical aneurysm in Ned D'Cerf's brain the minute they see each other?
- The restrictions introduced in the prior question regarding magic as a process or energy apply in the case of limiting one's abilities with magic. To put it simply, in order to cast a spell, one needs a few things: the potential to do magic (which all have), the choice to use it (a spell is hardly done on accident, well a spell with the desired effect), some sort of intent (that is a desired effect), and the understanding/knowledge required to both prepare and execute the spell. Now, with that, I must also explain that (as mentioned before) magic itself is intuitive to an extent because of its natural state. Simple spells can usually be discerned and figured out with some thought (think level 0 spells from the D&D franchise), just through intuition. More powerful and/or complex spells are where a larger understanding begins to come into play.
To put it simply, Theon Vilicus can't do that because no one can; it's too powerful/complex at this point, although theoretically it is entirely possible. This is the IC explanation for OOC bans/restrictions, which I alluded to in a previous post.
Will children be magicking like in Harry Potter? Able to have emotional magical outbursts? Do adults naturally get better at focusing their magic or do they require training in a Hogwarts?
- Children can use magic similar to the way in Harry Potter, yes, and it is entirely reasonable for them to have magical outbursts. But, as clarified, spells require understanding. Children's emotional, magical outbursts will be either very weak, not of the child's original intent or just not manifest at all because they lack some (or all) of the components that I described above for proper spellcasting. And as mentioned in a previous question, in pure technicalities, these outburst (and the effects following) is not a spell but just plain magic because it lacks the structure/organization to be considered an actual spell, even if the magic's effect is similar/identical to an actual spell.
To bring up Aristotle again, these sorts of uses of magic that aren't spells mirror the philosopher's distinction between a brave man and a man who does what a brave man does but is not actually brave.
What makes these covens special? How do they retain their political/occult power? If magic is something that is relatively common (akin to a natural force) how do they stay on top? What is their power structure like?
- I must admit that coven, in the simplest form, have no 'right' to governance or really anything special about them. They have no reason to be a political entity or anything when merely considering magic, but you must remember that it is still humanity and human civilization. Relying on only magic, there is no reason, but then when you take in mind all the other aspects of human life, you can see the necessity for some sort of organized civilization. I mean, why are we, in our world, in systems of governance? Because, frankly, it was (to some extent) required; civilization of some sort is a natural consequence of existence, as even exhibited by animals. Magic is just another thing in the world among a variety of so many other things that result in the need for politics.
And in the same way, they is nothing special about coven either if you want to get so deep and philosophical and hypothetical. But then again, in actuality, coven are special because they provide government and politics. They just developed a little differently because of the added variable of magic. But in the realm, they are very similar to structure of government present in the middle/dark ages. Coven is just what I decided to call them. Easily, I could have just easily called them provinces or whatever else. Don't let that term define everything, when the name is just a sort of coincidence, when there is so much more involved.
Regarding how they keep power, coven are considered more powerful based on the usual factors: wealth, size, population, etc. Why? Because ultimately, the most important resource is humanity. What is a coven with no one in it? Who is there to use magic and cast spells, if not the only beings with the capacities of the soul that provide that opportunity? Plus, despite the optimistic futures that are possible with magic, alone, magic isn't enough because of the restrictions I explained earlier; in terms of humans and spellcasting, magic isn't powerful enough to solve every problem. It is just another variable.
Therefore, in regards to a traditional political system, the game of kings and of thrones is still the same. Power is distributed unevenly. There is inequality among coven, both in regards to each other and within themselves. The D'Cerf, in particular, does have a sort of caste system because of the hierarchical roles that people hold. Some are servants, others are nobles, as magic is more than the only thing in deciding power.
Finally, to conclude, every individual is unique and do have their own motivations. Some may not even want to pursue a path to power, in the sense of the word as we have been using it. But then others will. The Vilicus have their reasons and your characters will their own. And as will be stated in the OOC, such is one of the focuses on this RP: the path of power and the whys and hows involved.
Magic is amoral, beyond definition as neutral, good, evil or otherwise; the people are not.
On the topic of the haemonculi:
- Compiling all the information I've given, regarding magic, spells and technology, I can safely say that haemonculi will be basic in their functions, limited. I would say that they are 'simple' automatons, as they should be incapable of any sort of thought or reasoning (which is what defines a human and gives them the ability to cast spells). They will also be incapable of using magic in the way of casting spells because of this. I hope you understand all the reasoning why, which is concluded from all of the other things that have been discussed thus far.
On the topic of magic schools and types:
- As extrapolated earlier, there is no real organization of magic into the types we're used to. The only big distinction is the difference between mere magic and actual spellcasting, which I clarified in prior answers. Spells can come in many forms, as long as they meet all the criteria mentioned above, so singing magic is definitely possible. ;)
And to refer to Schradinger again, as Nemaisare pointed out, I'm sure we all realize how magic, when compared to technology, can cause just as many problems as it solves. Thank you for that, by the way, Schradinger. Although you didn't know my vision, you were able to articulate it quite well in your comparison.
If you have any questions or arguments, again, I encourage it!
Also, the OOC will be arriving within a matter of hours; I will posting a FAQ section that has a record of all the questions and answers we have discussed so far.
