Quote from: RPGPundit on May 13, 2024, 11:39:02 PM

Quote from: BadApple on May 13, 2024, 05:25:03 AM

Quote from: Slipshot762 on May 13, 2024, 02:43:17 AMInteresting to me is the lore surrounding how magic users are regarded. What is that dividing line between "muh court whyzhard" and "burn her before she turns us all into newts!" I've often wondered?

Historically you had magicians like dee and kelly, who worked for the crown as magicians, known to be engaged with divining contact with angels to learn from them the enochian language, the language of creation, in order to work magic...the whole thing appearing to have the approval of both government and heaven, as opposed the hated reviled witch or sorceror in lore.

I suppose it likely has something to do with the nature of the practices in question; if man is given earthly dominion by god then it would be contradictory to serve or deal with as equals any demons, devils, undead, entities, or spirits...yet it would seem there is an implication i am detecting which says that conjuring an old bitch-devil and beating it into submission with your wand in the name of god and making it teach you featherfall is perfectly ok or something.

Never quite nailed this down but thats the best i came up with.

In Christian tradition, any use of magic is considered a contract with the devil.  There were no officially recognized court mages in Christian European nations.  This is also true in Islamic countries.  There was no distinction between witches and great wizards, they were all sinners in need of burning.  Many western magic users practiced in secret, always afraid of getting caught.

That's completely wrong. For most of the middle ages there was no distinction between science and magic, and for that matter some of the humanities and medicine too. And there was no notion whatsoever that high magic was "of the devil". Folk magic was a bit different but for most of the middle ages the main view of both Church and Crown to folk magic was that most of it was just empty powerless superstition.

Only certain very specific forms of magical activities were either illegal or banned by the church or both. Poisoning and enchantment were illegal. Making pacts with demons (summoned by evocation) was banned by the church (note: binding demons was not). Doing divinations about the King without the King's express permission was illegal, as it was seen as somewhere between espionage and treason. The church forbade certain practices of Alchemy which required dead bodies, and these were typically outlawed by the crown too.  Magic that attempted to spontaneously create life (homunculi, for example) was banned by the church. And trying to make gold using alchemy required a costly permit.

There were absolutely court magicians in various Christian nations. Dee was Queen Elizabeth's astrologer (and also one of the first spies in Her Majesty's Secret Service, with the code number "007"); he selected the date for her coronation using astrology, everyone knew it, and thought it was perfectly fine. He was later courted by various monarchs of Europe who wanted him to be THEIR court magician. Likewise Edward Kelley.

Of course, a MUCH bigger patron of magic than the royal crowns was the CHURCH. Countless monasteries engaged in the studies of "natural philosophy", including alchemy and all kinds of conjuring. There were popes who had practiced magic. And great saints; including Thomas Aquinas, who studied under the great and renowned philosopher-friar Albertus Magnus, who as not only a Dominican monk but also the CHAIR OF THEOLOGY at the University of Paris in the 1240s.

So you're just unbelievably, ridiculously, moronically wrong.

I fully acknowledge that my statement was way overly simplified.  The middle ages covers a lot of time, a lot of perspectives, and a lot of cultures.  Doctrinal interpretation was spotty at best and so was what magic was understood to be.

If you mean that magic is an umbrella term for anything that doesn't have an immediate corporal explanation, then you are correct.  However, there is a lot of distinction made between "divine mysteries" and "magic" from a Roman Catholic perspective.  The exploration of the first was encouraged while the second was heresy.  Natural philosophies were largely seen to fall into the divine mysteries camp.

I don't have access to my library right now so I can't give you references and I'm unable to give a counterpoint in the developed and intelligent way I would like to.  What I can say is that the Roman Catholic church has reclassified many fields of study but the principle idea that messing with the supernatural for personal gain is magic and heretical just like it was a thousand years ago.