A little writing advice on the subject for you writing guys to chew on:
Distinguished Orson Scot Card, in his power-house book How to Write Fantasy Science Fiction asks this amazing question: "What is the price of Magic?" In the hands of an oversimplified script magic can just be that goofy, contrived, intelligence-insulting, care-bears "it’s magic" type of magic. This trope is most famously called a (and note I did not come up with this title)… http://tvtropes.org/...hp/Main/AssPull. Despite the exsistance of this trope, you can still have an elaborate system that is based on various transcendent-laws and maximums (http://tvtropes.org/.../MagicAIsMagicA), though it is still supernatural in origin and has a flare of debateable ambiguity and mystery (which readers love, because it give them ability to get involved in the story and try to make up their own minds on things).
As for me, I see (and plan to write in my own work) Laazar’s crystal-computer as a truly enchanted construct designed to contain magic. However there is a technological medium the user can use in order to manipulate various magics while being still being - for lack of better word - a “muggle." This akin to a magic-scroll or enchanted weapon in Skyrim. You can play that game as completly non-magic user, and still use one of those scrolls, all the sorcery is done for you, kinda like a TV Dinner.
Do note that, in general, supernaturalist answers in a narrative (and meta-narrative for that matter) can both be as complex and believable as naturalist answers in a narrative: one small element from that broad term being magic http://tvtropes.org/...FunctionalMagic) .
In fact, all naturalist axioms/basic beliefs are indeed articles of faith, tantamount to many grounded supernaturalist preconceptions. On the reverse “natural” explanations don't have to equate being reasonable or logical, it can be fallacious and wrong to a critical reader ( am sure the science of the Colbalt Effect, stinks sour for you guys as much as it does for me. And in-universe, like any other worldview , and that definitely precludes a world where you write all the rules a "natural" explanation can be outright wishfullment or crazyness (http://tvtropes.org/...trarySkepticism).
Know that you can't be an evidentalist or reductionist all the way down, even in your writing. You can’t explain your rational explanation for this plot point, and then explain your rational explanation’s explanation for this character’s superpower, ad naseum. To quote C.S Lewis (famous fiction writer, intellectual, and philosopher): “…you cannot go explaining away forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go seeing through things forever. The whole point of seeing through something to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to see through first principles. If you see through everything, since everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world.” (Abolition of Man, 49.)
Somewhere along the line of your explanations you got to assert something (unveil the series’ presuppositions, write its rule book, or establish its creed if you will, as the writer), stick with it as well as you can, and hope it sticks to the audience. What matters, the rational flow of the story, then on is in the interconnectivity and logical cohesion (non-contradiction) of these intertwining chain of elements: plot, characters, theme, and tone. These elements give your readers the ability to suspend any (superficially?) farfetched concepts in the light of the stories overall concatnated believability. When this is achieved the reader can get lost in the story and enjoy the plot more and more without jarring and depreciating distractions.
I'm sorry if that went over your guy's head any (I’m a bit of an overthinker
).
My own thoughts on the subject of Laazar's Crystal and magic in fiction general:
I am a big fantasy and sci-fi writer and one of the big themes I play with is blurring the line between the natural and the supernatural, the mundane and the miraculous, instead of a fine line it is an elaborate and interconnected continuum spanning from miracles to quantum mechanics all a subtextual revelation linking up the elaborate thematic chain. I try to show that naturalistic, reductionist thinking ultimately implodes in on itself, and reveal that every character ultimately has diverse fundamental beliefs and non-beliefs that come from their backstory or personal choices that are on an equal playing field at the start of the story. One grand unknown blows by and can rapidly change the way the characters view the world when the story’s conflict comes around, challenging their reasons for believing and being what they are. They must either change their belifes and ways or stand their ground throughout the conflict against their ideological-opposite (the main villain and/or anatagonistic foil) or some other faith-shaking event or encounter. That, my friends, can create the best of stories. I find allowing a plurality of concepts less limiting and more effective than the alternate approaches of contrived and mindless @**-pulling (eg. Elsie’s magical kiss healed Sonic because it was magical!) or the latter evidentalist, constantly deconstructing viewpoint (story element X must not really be X it must be Y, and Y is because of Z, ad naseum, ad reader’s are a snoozum) in my writing.
To sum up: What we deem rational in a story comes from our story's preconceptions about the nature of things and how they stand their ground in the light of other worldviews and their finite number of arguments, perspectives, and rationalizations they have in their arsenal. As for the characters, and ourselves …
“We see things not as they are; we see things as we are.”
*TheRedStranger glides backwards, melding into the mist and shadows, leaving you to ponder his words*
So, I ask you this. Assuming it is an elaborate set of higher powers that achieve the extraordinary (like functional magic). What is the price of Magic in Satam? Is there more than one type? How do character’s explain/percieve it in their own minds.