"Well, there are - probably in theory infinitely many actually, but surely at least a thousand at an absolute lower bound meaningfully distinctive ways for magic to work- I, um, read a lot? And the worst writing sin that I cannot tolerate is characters who use magic stupidly!"

Hammond nods sympathetically.

"It is, if anything, worse when people use magic stupidly in real life," he agrees. "Would you prefer a system of magic that's hard to misuse, do you think? Such as one that operates purely in the background, not subject to any one person's manipulations?"

"That's... No, then there's no choice going into it at all, is there? My problem is- Okay, so there's this one book where the hero gets, basically, weather and terraforming magic. There's a lot of things you can do with that, a great clanhold with year-round perfect weather, a caravanner who passes arid plain and mountain pass with equal ease, or a shipmaster who the wind and waves always love. You could trade, you could build alliances, you could help people- And this character uses it for revenge. In the stupidest, short-term-est possible ways. Summoning storms and breaking the earth into crags upon their enemies. Which generates more enemies. Instead of the - simplest, leanest gesture of cooperation, it's like this one person took it upon herself to burn down as much of the commons as she possibly could. Paranoid bitch. But she was the one with magic, wasn't she, so it's not like anyone could stop her... Which I think is maybe the point of the story in the end. Individual power can lead to ruin."

Hammond puts a flipper to his chin, in thought.

"So there are a few ways that a magic system could avoid an outcome like that. You could have the magic just not be usable for acts of destruction. You could have a sense of cosmic balance that always opposes big disruptive changes. But it sounds like you might want a magic system where groups of people can do magic, but individual people can't. Does that sound right?"

"...Well, it doesn't sound wrong. But it doesn't sound right either. I think magic should not allow a single individual to amass great power without using the... Structures of society like we have today, to do it. Knowledge is power, and resources are power, and military force is power, and consensus support of the community is power, but no one person has a monopoly on these things. One person should not be vastly more magically powerful than arbitrary other persons."

"Oh, I see! So it's not about the fact that this fictional character uses magic destructively, per se, but rather the fact that she was able to do so unopposed, because she was the only one with this power. Is that right?"

"Mhm, that's much closer. I think that captures the important part of that opinion. I'd still dislike her if others had such magic, but it wouldn't be such an infuriating story - or way for the world to be."

Hammond nods and makes a note.

"Okay, that makes sense. You brought up this book as an example of how things shouldn't go — are there other stories that you think are good references for how magic should or shouldn't work?"

"...Well, reality is quite different from storybook tropes. I mean, it might be nice if things were a little more - tropey. Maybe you could boost your chances of success in a challenging endeavor a bit by taking a solemn oath, or something like that. But... Then the tragic tropes would be... Imagine being doomed to fail and there's nothing you can do about it, because the story has designated you as a side character to demonstrate the superiority of the main character, or the enormity of the challenge before them, or something like that? Not everyone gets to be a hero, and even in ensemble cast works there are usually those who don't win as hard. Hmm... Well, the Iron Ring series has a really crunchy and thought out magic system for how monks get stronger over time and under what circumstances they are weak, involving nodes with different properties in bodies, and graph theory, and it's well integrated into the plot... Like, the pivotal moment is making use of a non-obvious weakness in the otherwise very strong powers of the monsters, which was discovered after the hard work of many people and a singular moment of genius. There's actually a formal logic proof in there that they use to discover the exploit is possible, and then everyone works together to iterate spells until they manage it... It's good stuff."

Hammond nods, scribbling some notes.

"That does sound like a good book," he agrees. "Do you think that magic should generally be amenable to scientific and mathematical analysis like that?"

"I think it would be nice if there is some component of magic that tracked emotions and intent as fundamental properties, actually. Those kinds of tropes where sweeping joy or sorrow or determination can change the world if they're intense enough... Are nice. As long as you don't get a utility monster where people feel so much sorrow after a disaster that it spawns new disasters and drowns the world in a sea of negative miasmatic energy. Er- Rain of Tears by Harsi Bai la Iwa."

Hammond shivers.

"Yeah — my homeworld is next to a place like that. Monsters made of elemental destruction that feed on the negative emotions their destruction causes. Luckily we were able to flip things over into the other metastable state with roving creation beasts once our worlds made contact. Now they just have to worry about art turning up in the night."

"Okay. So no runaway negative emotional cascades — would you mind a runaway positive emotional cascade?"

"...Anything being 'runaway' seems like it could be highly disruptive? I'm really not sure."

"I would tend to agree with you. But I mean something like — if happy thoughts made you able to fly, and flying made you happy, and so everyone started being able to fly. That seems like the same kind of self-reinforcing emotional effect, but with a positive valence instead of a negative one. Does that help? Or should I just put you down as unsure and move on?"

"...Probably best to put me down as unsure, yes, since I don't know where I would define the edge cases there."

Hammond nods.

"Alright! Let me see ... I feel like we already covered some of the 'should' and 'shouldn't' questions, but are there specific effects that you think should definitely be achievable via magic?"

"No paradoxes! No split timelines. Single, consistent time history. No retcons. What happened has happened, will have always had happened, and is having happened."

Pause.

"You said should, not shouldn't. Sorry. Uh... Magic should make tail diamonds real. I mean, they are real, but it should have some sort of... Magical effect instead of just being strange physics about carbon dioxide deposition and quantum waveform amalgamation. Preferably one that is a skill that people can practice and grow at more than the simple yes-or-no of meditation."

Hammond chuckles.

"Both the 'should' and 'shouldn't' are important, so it's all good."

He quickly scribbles down the list.

"Do you have opinions about what the experience of using magic should be like? Should it be something that operates subtly, or have associated sensory effects? What does it feel like to use a skill like the tail-diamonds one?"

"Most novels and stories have it have sensory effects. The usual case is the ability to feel magic energy move within yourself, or see magic energy as if it was a colored fluid, and to manipulate it with words, gestures, or thoughts. I've seen some take it more in the way of mental constructs, or math. I'm not sure if I have meditation right- You need to have at least four tails to make tail diamonds and as you can see-"

Wave. She has one, where his previous interview had five.

"But it's always just described as deep meditation. Sometimes as a tingling or warmth in the tails. I don't know if that's what magic should feel like... Though, does it really need to be just one way? I've also seen in stories martial arts magic, and purely mental magic, and feedback-less magic, and gesture and word and implement magic, programming magic, and ritual magic, and animist magic, and dance or music magic. I almost think the direct loop of feedback, sensory feedback, to the person performing the act, of knowing- Is what makes some type of magic interesting and compelling in many of these stories... I might be going off on a tangent there."

"You can definitely have magic be more than just one way," Hammond assures her. "Many places have different schools, subdivisions, or approaches to magic with different aesthetics and effects. But it sounds like you prefer stories where magic has obvious sensory feedback? Is that right?"

"That's what all the books are based on, and that's what... I think makes it feel amazing and wish-fulfilment-y instead of being a new branch of engineering or physics. So, yes."

"How do you think people should learn about how to perform magic? Should it be instinctive? Should there be a process of discovery?"