How Foolamancy Works

[Shai_hulud]

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/LIAB_Text_18

They kept the rising sun at their backs, relative to the warlords, and spent most of their juice to shine out their shadows.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/LIAB_Text_56

The enemy’s minds would not have to reconcile very much with their eyes, and that was the name of the game.

Trying to understand how Foolamancy works in the setting. The first example seems to be a magic hologram, but the second seems to imply some sort of mental affect.

Also, would I say affect or effect here? I want to say effect but I'm just not sure.

[0beron]

I'm paraphrasing because I don't know where exactly it occurred (I'll try to find it sometime), but Jack actually gave us a very elegant explanation.
"To be a Foolamancer, one must see, after all it is Eyemancy. One must see the world as it is, see the world as others see it, and see it as I want them to see it."
So put simply, a Foolamancer works by changing perceptions. He makes something appear in a way that he knows others will believe.

[Shai_hulud]

Yeah, I actually thought about hunting those quotes down and including them, but didn't for time reasons. My problem with his quotes is he never describes the mechanism by which this occurs, leaving it ambiguous as to whether he means he actually manipulates their minds/senses or he takes advantage of faults in their perceptions via holograms. Thus the use of the archon's quotes; because they do describe the mechanism, but it reads like two different mechanisms. The first talks about shining out her shadow, but the second says she manipulates peoples mind. Thus the confusion on my part.

[0beron]

Well, the answer is both really, and the Archons' quotes support that actually. Foolamancy is about understanding people's perceptions, so that the images/effects you create are in turn not questioned by the observer. The magic doesn't actively target the observer's mind, but rather works kinda like psychology. So that second archon isn't saying she manipulates their minds, she is just saying that the illusion is not something their mind will have reason to question.

Did I put it more clearly this way?

[Nueamin]

Im not sure it is so cut and dry in all cases.

http://www.erfworld.com/2012/06/inner-p ... isode-030/

In this episode Jack targets ONLY Jillian. Jillian's soldiers don't see any illusions. It's possible that a tiny hologram the size of Jillian's eyes is playing, but that would mean people seeing a person targeted by foolamancy would be able to see it visually unless there was a second illusions targetting everyone making Jillian's eyes appear normal.

I find it more likely the foolamancy is affecting the optic nerves which... Well is part of the brain.

[0beron]

Hm good point, I had forgotten that.
It could be explained by the Spot check mechanic, except in this case Jack allowed all other units to automatically make spot checks so only Jillian was left. But that's just a vague theory.

[No one in particular]

Foolamancy is mostly mental, I'd say.

Jack, the archons and even Maggie talk about how Foolamancy is easier when a thing looks like the thing you're trying to fool it as. (eg Bogroll for Parson, Phoebe for a chimney)

In LIAB Text 21, it's mentioned that "Habitually, [Jack] sought out the lines and dots of the scenery, the little hooks that other minds used to build their idea of the world around them."

And being mental would explain how multiple Warlords would have better chances of seeing through a veil; if it was just a projected illusion, fooling 11 eyes shouldn't be any harder than fooling 1... but fooling 11 minds? Much harder.

[Nueamin]

NOIP, (mind if I call you NOIP, No One In Particular?)

Good quote, after reading the quotes and the links so far it seems to me that the closer the illusion resembles reality(Erfworld Reality), or rather fits in reality unobtrusively the harder it is to "penetrate" or notice the illusion.

In example an illusion of a barn in the middle of the MK would be much harder to pull off than some extra portals just because its eaiser for the mind to believe the portals belong there than the barn. It definitely sounds mental. It sounds like it gets much deeper where it not just important to have it fit the surroundings but that to a foolamancer who knows what they are doing its almost feng shui like and the details of placement and lines make all the difference.

This is probably still only a partial understanding as I don't doubt there are other aspects of foolamancy just like most other casters. Maybe foolamancy as in bluffing, or flash and lights type of foolamancy.

[Lamech]

Well, the answer is both really, and the Archons' quotes support that actually. Foolamancy is about understanding people's perceptions, so that the images/effects you create are in turn not questioned by the observer. The magic doesn't actively target the observer's mind, but rather works kinda like psychology. So that second archon isn't saying she manipulates their minds, she is just saying that the illusion is not something their mind will have reason to question.

Did I put it more clearly this way?

Why can't it be both? Wanda in the MK is clearly targeted by a mental effect (the diversion beast), but why can't some of it be altering the light and such?

[mortissimus]

I am also thinking it is both. You cast a directed illusion on one or more particular units (which means you need some knowledge of them) or an Area of Effect type spell so that all that see a certain point in space or unit see something other then that which is there.

Wanda can decroak a particular unit or mass decroak all units in a hex. How it works? Magic!

[No one in particular]

Another good quote comes from LIAB Text 10:

Foolamancy is Eyemancy. By habit and trade, a Foolamancer must look. At all times, the Foolamancer must observe the nouns around him in finest detail and broadest stroke, in a way that other minds do not. Other minds take shortcuts. Other minds construct, telling themselves stories about what they see, rather than seeing. Foolamancy is therefore only a narrative. To tell a mind it sees something, the Foolamancer must both see the world as it is, and also as it is seen.

[0beron]

Thank you NOIP, that is exactly the quote I have been thinking of and referencing.

[Housellama]

Since Rob went to all the trouble of creating it, I'm very fond of referring to the 'Mancy table. Foolamancy is Eyemancy, which is the Elements of Life and Motion, on the Numbers Axis. What can we imply from this?

1. Foolamancy only works on animate objects. There's a question about Golems, as they can be created by Dirtamancy (which is Matter alone), but Dollamancy is pure Motion, which is also part of Eyemancy. We have confirmation that Foolamancy works on living things, it it speculation to say it also works on Dolls and/or Golems.

2. Foolamancy works behind the scenes. Numbers, as far as we have seen, never directly manifest. Only their effects manifest. Erf and Fate can be manipulated in tangible ways. Numbers, while they can be manipulated, do not show direct results. (This is speculation, as I don't have direct proof of this, but I'm fairly secure in this.) Foolamancy is on the Numbers axis, QED it does not manipulate anything that is directly tangible.

3. Foolamancy is not static. Due to it's very nature (Life and Motion), Foolamancy is always in flux. It does not change the future or the past, it changes the now. In a way, it is very zen. By changing the Numbers that rule the world, a Foolamancer changes that which is perceived in the ever-changing present. That's why Foolamancy is relatively fragile and must be sustained.

Now, are these implications supported by text? I believe so. NOIP's last quote is a perfect illustration of points 2 and 3. By saying that Foolamancy is a narrative, Jack confirms Foolamancy's transitory nature. It also states that it "tell{s} a mind it sees something". It does not physically create. It speaks to the perceptions of the target(s). I propose that the easiest way to do this (and the one that is most supported by the facts at hand) is through the manipulation of Numbers. If the Foolamancer is aware of what actually is and what others are likely to believe the world is, manipulating Numbers is an easy way to make sure that they interpret things the way the Foolamancer wishes them to.

This theory also explains why a Foolamancer must be present to create illusions. Because Foolamancy is an ongoing effect, a Foolamancer cannot "fire and forget", as it were. The Numbers need constant tweaking, as perceptions change moment by moment. A static illusion is practically worthless. The moment that the target moved just a little bit, the illusion would be broken.

[Shai_hulud]

That... sure is speculation I suppose.

1. Foolamancy only works on animate objects. There's a question about Golems, as they can be created by Dirtamancy (which is Matter alone), but Dollamancy is pure Motion, which is also part of Eyemancy. We have confirmation that Foolamancy works on living things, it it speculation to say it also works on Dolls and/or Golems.

I don't understand what you mean by this. What is "animate" in this context? It's not an in universe term, so it's undefined. Do you mean "living"? Life magic doesn't seem to have anything to do with organic life if that's what you mean. The only magic we've seen manipulate organic tissue have been either matter magics or healamancy, so I'm not sure where you're getting life=organic beings if that's what you mean by "living".

2. Foolamancy works behind the scenes. Numbers, as far as we have seen, never directly manifest. Only their effects manifest. Erf and Fate can be manipulated in tangible ways. Numbers, while they can be manipulated, do not show direct results. (This is speculation, as I don't have direct proof of this, but I'm fairly secure in this.) Foolamancy is on the Numbers axis, QED it does not manipulate anything that is directly tangible.

Dittomancy created a king clone out of "nothing", so it's safe to say that "numbers" spells can create things in the physical world.

3. Foolamancy is not static. Due to it's very nature (Life and Motion), Foolamancy is always in flux. It does not change the future or the past, it changes the now. In a way, it is very zen. By changing the Numbers that rule the world, a Foolamancer changes that which is perceived in the ever-changing present. That's why Foolamancy is relatively fragile and must be sustained.

...no spells can modify the past that we have seen, so I'm not even sure what it is you're saying here.

This theory also explains why a Foolamancer must be present to create illusions. Because Foolamancy is an ongoing effect, a Foolamancer cannot "fire and forget", as it were. The Numbers need constant tweaking, as perceptions change moment by moment. A static illusion is practically worthless. The moment that the target moved just a little bit, the illusion would be broken.

Except for foolamancy items like the eyebook, which can be used by anyone. And that's assuming it's an "image" at all.

[Housellama]

That... sure is speculation I suppose.

Well, yes. Like I said it's just a theory. I never claimed that this was the be-all end all.

I don't understand what you mean by this. What is "animate" in this context? It's not an in universe term, so it's undefined. Do you mean "living"? Life magic doesn't seem to have anything to do with organic life if that's what you mean. The only magic we've seen manipulate organic tissue have been either matter magics or healamancy, so I'm not sure where you're getting life=organic beings if that's what you mean by "living".

Animate means moving. Living things move. Things like Dolls and Golems also move, making them animate. However, it's unknown how, if at all, they think, or if they are considered 'alive'. So yes, living creatures, but not necessarily just living creatures.

Dittomancy created a king clone out of "nothing", so it's safe to say that "numbers" spells can create things in the physical world.

Did it? Dittomancy isn't Dirtamancy, that shapes existing things, nor Changeamancy that takes an existing objects and makes it into something else. So what, exactly did Dittomancy do? It changed the Numbers. The clone was an indirect result of the direct change made by the spell. The Numbers themselves aren't seen. The results of the Numbers are. That was my point. I never said that Numbers spells couldn't create tangible results. Just that their direct results (i.e. changing the Numbers themselves) aren't tangible.

...no spells can modify the past that we have seen, so I'm not even sure what it is you're saying here.

Retconjuration can change the past. That is, in fact, the entire point of Retconjuration. What I was saying was that Foolamancy is an active process. It's not like creating a Golem or (re)building Cities, spelling up a tower with Shockamancy, etc. It's not a discipline that can be done remotely, and other than scrolls and specific items I'm sure, isn't a cast and forget kind of thing. It also only produces results while the process is ongoing.

Except for foolamancy items like the eyebook, which can be used by anyone. And that's assuming it's an "image" at all.

...Except that the Eyebooks were created in a Trimancer link that enhances all disciplines involved, so that's a bad example.

[Shai_hulud]

Animate means moving. Living things move. Things like Dolls and Golems also move, making them animate. However, it's unknown how, if at all, they think, or if they are considered 'alive'. So yes, living creatures, but not necessarily just living creatures.

Which doesn't seem to have anything to do with Life as a magic element.

Did it? Dittomancy isn't Dirtamancy, that shapes existing things, nor Changeamancy that takes an existing objects and makes it into something else. So what, exactly did Dittomancy do? It changed the Numbers. The clone was an indirect result of the direct change made by the spell. The Numbers themselves aren't seen. The results of the Numbers are. That was my point. I never said that Numbers spells couldn't create tangible results. Just that their direct results (i.e. changing the Numbers themselves) aren't tangible.

Dirtamancy creates matter. Wanda saw it when she raised Goodmintons tower, and sizemore has seen it when he made wooden planks. He doesn't just shape matter. He does matter effects that use Erf, which is the firmament.

Retconjuration can change the past. That is, in fact, the entire point of Retconjuration.

Which is a joke school that at least one caster in the setting doesn't even believe is real.

What I was saying was that Foolamancy is an active process. It's not like creating a Golem or (re)building Cities, spelling up a tower with Shockamancy, etc. It's not a discipline that can be done remotely, and other than scrolls and specific items I'm sure, isn't a cast and forget kind of thing.

Who says it's none of these things? Who says they can't hang foolamancy on a tower? And it's not like anyone else besides lookamancers and charlie can cast spells at a distance. It's not like the archons are constantly spending juice to keep themselves veiled. They cast the veil, then it either breaks or doesn't that we've seen.

It also only produces results while the process is ongoing.

We've never seen any evidence that veils require constant maintenance. Other wise why do they break and have to be recast.?

...Except that the Eyebooks were created in a Trimancer link that enhances all disciplines involved, so that's a bad example.

Fair enough.

And none of this really helped resolve the issue at hand, which was if it's a hologram or a psionic hallucination.

[drachefly]

It can definitely reach inside the body - to create those illusions Jillian felt in the box, for instance.

But if it only worked that way, it'd be simple to make eyebooks super-private, by only having them send to the holder or owner.

As for those, by the way - they're not trying to look like something else, just take on a contingent appearance. That might not, in itself, be beyond an unaided foolamancer.

[randomthought]

I think you are forgetting when Stanley went back to Gobwin Knob and using a shockamancy spell blew up a projection of his head. That makes me think that it isn't just a mind trick.

False edit: I read that page again and concede that it might be ambiguous. Also page in question is Image 7 of Summer Update.

[No one in particular]

After all the discussion here, I'm coming to think that Foolamancy is a sort of Area-of-Effect mental trick; it can target a specific unit or anyone in the area.

Also, when was it decided that Wanda's box-o-torture was Foolamancy? It could've been perverted Healomancy, weirdomancy, or heck, even croakamancy on a living unit.

[drachefly]

I deduced it from the immediacy with which its effects vanished.