Is it a bad idea to design a purposefully inconsistent magic system?

Question

I am working on a magic system for my fantasy world. The basic constraints are that most magic occurs naturally and at random. However, some people (sometimes) can channel and use magic. One of the minor plot points in my story is that spells don't always work consistently. For example, the main conflict in my story is that a female dragon kidnapped a dragon hatchling and traveled to another dimension: ours. The spell she used allowed her and the hatchling to change into humans, along with giving the adult the ability to speak fluently the native language of the place she arrived in. I want the hatchling to grow up and travel back to her original homeland, thus reversing the original transformation. That is the main story. However, I want a dragon that she befriends to be able to return to her (read: our) world without turning into a human. As well, I want other humans to be able to travel with her to the dragon world without changing. Are there any ways that I can write this so it makes sense? Please note: I am not asking about creating a magic system, merely how do I write an inconsistent one without annoying or confusing the reader.

Answer 1

The change and the portal are different spells, obviously. Maybe the combination is as simple as reversing two words or actions, or leaving one out, or maybe it depends on exactly where you cast it.

The easiest way to make an inconsistent magic system is to simply reflect actual science in the last 3 centuries.

We did many things with chemistry, and medicine, that sometimes "worked" but we did not know why.

Aspirin was invented by a guy attempting to apply sympathetic magic to cure cholera. Specifically cholera is a water borne disease, and willows grow near water, so he thought God put willows near water as a hint, and tried to cure cholera by giving patients ground up dried willow bark. It did not work.

But it was a good pain reliever, because willow bark contains salicin, the main chemical in modern aspirin.

The point is, throughout the history of science, people use things just because they work, without understanding exactly how they work.

And because of that, often the things they use are kind of hit and miss.

Your magic system may be the same; people use it, but they are following a "recipe" without understanding it, so the results are hit and miss.

You just need to play that up as the magic system is introduced; teachers don't know why: Apprentices are told to do things, change vocal intonations, wear special medallions or clothing, make certain gestures, make certain marks and symbols on their skin, make burnt offerings, etc.

But maybe half that crap is completely unnecessary, and your protagonist starts to figure that out.

Magic is in its pre-scientific stage, and because of that, just like our own science a few centuries ago, often hit or miss.

Heck, doctors didn't even figure out they could dramatically reduce infection rates just by washing their hands before surgery until the mid 1800s. And it was a few decades after that when the first "antiseptics" were discovered to reduce infections even further.

Answer 2

The problem with an inconsistent magic system is that you then have an additional problem in writing: you must ensure that the reader does not think that a particular result was the consequence of you, the author, deciding to use it as a plot device.

You have more leeway if the inconsistencies hinder the characters rather than help them -- if, for instance, instead of their getting an unexpected portal that brings them where they need to go, they get thrown leagues out the way -- but it takes real art to disguise authorial decisions as character luck.

An important point is that you want the magic to do as little as possible in solving the character's problems. This curbs the plot device aspect.

Answer 3

From what you've described, I wouldn't call that an inconsistent magic system - you've mentioned dragons and humans both traveling to other dimensions without changing form, and only a single instance where a pair of dragons changed form. In other words, I would call that an exception, not an inconsistency. If you want your magic system to be inconsistent, that's fine, but it sounds like you are hesitant about that idea.

If you don't like the idea of an inconsistent magic system, you can reframe the question you need to answer as "What was exceptional about that 1 case where the one dragon and hatchling did transform?" Rather than resign yourself to an inconsistent magic system, you just need to decide what factors were involved that one time which generally aren't always possible/available/practical. There are lots of reasons it might not be an option in other cases, despite that original precedent:

• No one else can do it: the kidnapper-dragon who caused them to change form was particularly powerful (or skilled, or knowledgeable), and most people/dragons can't achieve that effect because they don't have the power/skill/secret necessary to do so.
• It was possible at a certain time, because of the conjunction of planets, or whatever reason you want to have. Another opportunity like that won't occur for X years.
• It required particularly rare/expensive/unethical reagents to cause the transformation.

Any one of those could create a consistent reason for the exception.

Answer 4

I would look to the book "Wizard's Bane,' by Rick Cook. In these books magic is very dangerous for new users because it must be done exactly right. For example, the main character (called Wiz because he is a computer wizard from our world) was summoned into generic-magic land. After being told that anybody could do magic, he held out a stick and shouted, "Zap!" Lighting came from it. The wizard with him told him that it would only work for him if he repeated all the relevant steps. These might be the direction he was pointing, the type and condition of the stick, his exact posture, his tone of voice, or even the color of his undergarments.

Teaching magic seemed more along the lines of teaching the students to be aware and methodical so their magic wouldn't be too random. While there were a few small spells that worked pretty much the same for anybody, most spells were more complex than that.

Answer 5

If it can happen to math, it can happen to you. Consistency is not a necessary aspect of the universe, fictional or real.

That being said, stories are written for humans, and humans like consistency. But I have two rebuttals for that:

1. Magic is the one area you can side-step this. It doesn't have to be consistent. It's magic, things that behave in a consistent fashion we call science. How does Gandalf's magic work in LoTR? Well, as a level 7 wizard Gandalf can use his Greater Fireball spell 2x per day with a cooldown of... no, no, no. It's magic! Why does he throw exploding pinecones (or whatever, might be misremembering the exact detail but it doesn't matter) at wargs but fights orcs with a magic sword? That question only really matters if exploding pinecones are clearly superior to magic swords and available in a fight. Just try not to box yourself into a such a corner.
2. If your audience is engaged with your work to the point where they notice non-obvious inconsistencies, you've probably already succeeded.

The trap I see in works of fiction are when magic is dirt common. Things that are commonplace are almost by definition not mysterious, and people have strong incentives to explore the edges of how they work. This doesn't seem to be the case for you, and you have the added benefit that the hatchling grew up in the human world where there isn't much magic.

One way out here is to make the "turn into a human and learn the language" spell different than the interdimensional travel spell. The kidnapper knows both, but the hatchling only knows the later. You could even work it so that the spell is active on the hatchling in our dimension: when she crosses back over she changes but there's no such spell targeting her dragon friend. But back to my earlier point: it could be anything. Maybe her friend is a kind of dragon that the spell won't work on. You get to make the rules, just be careful about how far you bend them.

Answer 6

it's an actively good idea, verisimilitude is a disease that kills writing. a piece of writing doesn't have a magic system, or characters or plot, just a series of words that can optionally create the illusion of those things. a reader who sees the writing as a window onto a fictional world and wants to figure out the workings of that world is just straightforwardly wrong, there is no such thing as a fictional world (not just as in, there is no corresponding physical world, but that there is no thing or idea in this world that can correctly be called a 'fictional world') and their opinions on your writing can be safely discarded. by not worrying about consistency, you're free to write the words rather than the story, which wouldn't have been imprinted on the text anyway. i don't think you have anything to worry about :)