Excellent, another aberration in Societates (goes to add to list).
Thank you, I've started a collection.
The examples are good examples. They represent many of the common options, just as dogs and cats represent the most common pets. Can you think of better examples of pets? Really? Yet do they provide the mammal implication? Now what are the most common PeVi spells we've seen? As such, the spell ideas illustrate well some of the choices that can be made. But the purpose of an example isn't to illustrate all possibilities. It isn't the writer's fault that some people don't understand the what examples are.
Edit: Here's a related one. Let x be real such that 1<=x<=5. For example, x could be 3, 4, 1/2, 5/4, sqrt(5), or cube-rt(4). Have I chosen good examples? I've given prime and non-prime integers. I've given proper and improper non-integer rational numbers. I've given different kinds of roots of primes and non-primes which are irrational. As far as the numbers we've come across, I've given some pretty good examples to represent what x could be. Yet if we use the "reasoning" by examples we see that pi is not an integer, not rational, and not a perfect root. So pi should not be a possibility for x. But I hope we all know it is.
Two pars can be shown to support my point. One part is blatantly incorrect. So combining the four we have two that lead us nowhere, one that leads us away from this conclusion, and another that leads us towards it. That doesn't sound very convincing to me since we'd essentially be saying that the name of the spell trumps the description of the spell is why we get to this conclusion. But if the name trumps the description, then I hope lots of spells all over the place are being changed, such as Wizard's Icy Grip to R:Touch.
How is it an aberration? When I read ArM5 I had always seen this as possible. Prior to this we have, what, two examples of the use of the guideline? That's a pretty small number to give you any sort of a statistical norm. Now we have two more examples. When examined statistically, that makes them even further from being aberrations.
Chris
No, those are "valid" examples. As an author, choosing a "valid" as opposed to an "illustrative" example is a waste of time. I decline to accept that the authors (and editors/etc) have wasted our time.
Take any rule in the book that has "examples". By your interpretation, unless the rules specifically and clearly state that those example represent sample limitations, they are meaningless as such, which makes the rules meaningless.
And, as I've pointed out twice now, dismissing individual points - as individuals - does not negate the weight they carry as a whole. Something you fail to accept or respond to otherwise than to deny its validity.
Your arguments here fail to impress me, on several levels. Out.
The relevant information is in the guideline. That authors can't (be arsed to) follow guidelines mean they produce aberattions.
They are aberattions even if they are in the majority in any case where they contradict the guidelines.
We can argue about what the guideline says/means, but a spell that fails to live up the the guidelines it refers to, the spell is wrong.
Funny thing is, before Hedge Magic was released, I'd have agreed with you (largely) that shapeshfting was acceptable as a field.
But. With HEdge Magic (and Rivals) we have multiple hedge traditions, with rather seperate magics.
So to fulfil the requirements of the PeVi guideline, that spell must be changed - despite being correct when written.
(Well, almost correct, Shapeshifting was still too wide. Non-Hermetic shapeshifting would've been perfect.)
How are they not illustrative? Do you believe illustrative must be all-encompassing? If so, you must feel that any examples for infinite sets are probably useless. Take a look at my examples of real numbers between 1 and 5. I didn't just choose six valid ones, though they are all valid. I chose a whole bunch of ones that hit different areas. That's what you want, right, not just valid but illustrative? However, there are so many other areas left to explore that without an incredibly large number of examples. No matter the finite number of examples I could have given, I could still find something not represented by those examples. Are my six examples really not reasonably illustrative? I have put a lot of breadth in them. Or do you not believe 1<=pi<=5?
No, that is not at all my interpretation, and if you read what I wrote again you will know that perfectly well. Examples are there to help illustrate the uses of rules. But they are still just examples. You also need to remember that the writers have limited space, which you should understand as an author. That means they can give illustrations of only a few ways to use the rules, not all ways. If you can only illustrate two ways, which ones do you choose? Myself, I would tend to go with common ones or ones that might draw attention to a particularity in a rule I'm stating. What's the most common of these PeVi examples? That would be a Hermetic Form. That one is given. Good choice. Now, if you only have room for one more, what do you choose? The writer wrote a bit on being familiar with other types of magic, and the writer gave an example of a type of non-Hermetic magic. Note that that was done prior to the other types existing in ArM5, so it was a tough requirement for the writer but the effort was made anyway. It should also be noted that the referred-to spirit control magic may not be the equivalent of a single non-Hermetic Form. For example, maybe there will be two different Shamanistic traditions each of which control spirits in different ways. So the writer has done a pretty good job with the examples.
Now, just how are these two examples not illustrative while leaving "shapechanging magic" as a valid choice? Or, what if the writer had removed the "Shamanistic spirit control magic" and replaced it with "shapechanging magic"? Would you then disallow Elementalist Fire magic as a choice? After all, you seem to accept it now (tradition+form). But if only Hermetic Forms had been mentioned and action type (shapechanging) magic mentioned for the non-Hermetic example, then by following just the examples you would be left unable to choose non-Hermetic Forms, just actions for non-Hermetic stuff.
Tell you what, you come up with two, and only two, specific examples that cover all of Hermetic Forms, non-Hermetic Forms, shapechanging, cursing, Parma Magica, and some others that I'm not going to tell you because they'll come out in the line after a few years like HoH:S did relative to ArM5. Let's see you do better.
On a further note here: according to you Parma Magica should also be disallowed since it doesn't follow a specific tradition (anyone with the Gift can learn it regardless of their tradition - there's no tradition+form) nor is it of a Form of the tradition that invented it, but it is allowed as a choice in canon. This is yet another place where you and canon disagree. How is it that your interpretation of the PeVi guideline can be so great when it disagrees with what's written in canon repeatedly?
I did respond specifically to them as a whole. Yet you say I didn't? Read the above post better. Or did I dream about writing "combining the four..."? I pointed out how taken as a whole those points support both viewpoints roughly equally. When taken as a whole it comes down to but one thing: which is more important, the name of the spell or the mechanical description of the spell. That is all that separates where those four points lead as a whole.
Chris
Please explain how "shapechanging spell or Supernatural Ability" contradicts "effects of a specific type." That's the guideline: "Dispel effects of a specific type [and numerical stuff]." The examples say "could be" not "must be." Are such a spell or use of an Ability not an effect? Is shapechanging as an adjective not a specification? Unless you can actually show how it fails to fit the guideline, realize that it is allowed in canon and please don't insult the authors/editors.
I understand that many people don't like shapechanging as a specific type, thinking it's too broad. Fine. That's an opinion and you're entitled to it. You're also all entitled to house-rule the guidelines and the spells. But do it and remember that you've house-ruled them.
Chris
The core rules do allow exceptions to the guidelines. But, given that we're talking about an HoH Book, I'm inclined to suspect author error too. Ars Magica 5 is generally very well edited and free from these sorts of errors. The three HoH books, not so much. When I first got True Lineages I tried hard to understand how some of the spells worked, until I finally realized that they were just wrong.
Somewhat shortly after the release of the HoH books, atlas games increased the playtest staff, in hopes of catching these.
The effects where not felt until after MoH, unfortunatly.
In your opinion. Which may or may not be that of the majority (or the authors) in this case.
You can tell me that you disagree with my views all day long - that's understandable given what we've seen of your examples and reasoning. But please don't, for even a second, pretend that you have some monopoly on The Truth when there is so much contrary opinion. That's just a pathetic and sophomoric attempt to dismiss the discussion and claim "correctness" - which, by the posts, no one but you seems to believe. (Anyone else see it Callen's way? Anyone? Bueller?...)
Interested parties should refer to the PeVi Guidelines, p 160, 2nd section under General - and decide for themselves whether "shapechanging" is or is not appropriately "specific" under that description. It's short and to the point. Should be easy for you to figure out what's best for your Saga.
It's not just my opinion, it's what is in canon until it's errata'd. If you don't agree, go read the books. It's there for you to see, and the non-tradition/form is in multiple books, including a more recent one, not that HoH:S is one of the oldest books. Are you seriously telling me that spell isn't available in canon? Or are you telling me Hermetic shapechanging spells are not shapechanging spells?
It's interesting that no one has yet shown or even tried to show how shapechanging spells/abilities are not effects or how the shapechanging adjective is not a specification. Meanwhile no one has shown how my example of real numbers is bad.
Yes, as I said I agree here. But that doesn't change that it's currently accepted in canon.
Chris
My apologies, the word I was looking for was actually "abomination", not aberration.
Sorry for any inconvenience or confusion this may have caused.
That I can definitely see from several persons' opinions. 
Wondering how broad it is, I had tried to do a rough calculation of the breadth of shapechanging magic as compared to one Hermetic Form. Assuming the Forms to be balanced since we don't have much other choice, each one is 10% of Hermetic magic. If we just examine Hermetic magic we're down to Muto, so one fifth of the Hermetic spells. Generally speaking this won't include MuIm, MuMe, and MuVi (did I miss any?). So we're now at 0.7*0.2=14% of Hermetic magic. Then there are spells such as Supple Iron and Rigid Rope, Hardness of Adamantine, Doublet of Impenetrable Silk, etc. You could also do things like MuMe with the various forms such as MuAn for animals, for example. There are lots of non-shapechanging options for Muto. However, the shapechanging ones seem to be more common than any one of the others alone. As a simple estimate, I'll go with 50%. Now we're down to 7% of Hermetic magic. But we also cover lots of stuff outside of Hermetic magic. That part isn't so easy to figure. Part of it comes down to just how common other magic traditions and the like are. Part of it comes down to how many different things they can do. It may not be a bad general guess that there is as much breadth of shapechanging Hermetic magic as there is outside of it. This is the really questionable part. If this is the case, we have a breadth of 14% of Hermetic magic.
Then the question comes down to how much breadth is too much. This is another spot where there's a lot of wiggle room. You might say less than a Hermetic Technique. If so, typical Hermetic examples would be Forms, which fits. Then you'd take less 20%. You might say less than or equal to a Hermetic Form. If so, typical Hermetic examples would be Forms, which fits. Then you'd take 10% or less.
It's the second part more than the first part that I believe bothers people. There needs to be nearly double the breadth of Hermetic magic's shapechanging breadth available from other magics to reach the breadth of a Hermetic Technique. This is unlikely. There needs to be less than half the Hermetic breadth from all other magics to keep the overall breadth under that of a Hermetic Form. That is unlikely, too. But as the rules seem to leave a lot open between 10% and 20%, where the cut-off is is left in general to the storyguide. This is why your "abomination" comment makes a lot of sense to me, because you like something more like 10% or less. For me I'm perfectly willing to go over 10%, but I don't want to hit 20%. I also like how it allows the Pralixeans to prepare for unknown hedge traditions since if they're not prepared they're probably in more trouble than are many other magi due to their low magic resistance.
Of course, we should also examine the other possibilities because shapechanging just may be the most broad of this type of thing and it could be ashame to get rid of a general rule based on one such thing. I think we can ignore Parma Magica as that is an extremely restricted type, well under the 10% breadth of Hermetic Forms. But how about Cursing? It's much less common in Hermetic Magic, and I believe there's less breadth of it among the various non-Hermetic traditions. I'll have to look into Cursing more, though. The thing is that Cursing follows the same idea as Shapechanging, so ruling for one makes ruling against the other difficult.
As far as the Pralixeans go, if you want to be good against a known non-Hermetic tradition, go with their Forms. If you want to be good against an unknown non-Hermetic tradition, go with the general types of things done with magic. Sometimes the most efficient may be to mix them.
Chris
What a perfectly anti-social comment. Pretending as if no one had read the book and you were the only one who has done so "correctly", both anti-productive and dismissive in the same breath. You are just the Platonic form of a troll, aren't you? 
Still waiting for someone who agrees with your reading* of your so called "canon" to speak up. And waiting... and waiting...
(* not "interpretation", but reading. Cal claims this is canon, not a judgement call. As if it weren't clearly the other way around.)
OK. Please, has anyone else found the spell "The Heathen Witch Reborn" and seen that it does not contain a /2 or doubling clause? It doesn't matter if you think it was a good decision by the writers or not. Can you find it? Cuchulainshound is waiting for someone who has.
You do realize I pointed out this spell is available in canon, and the entire argument against me is that it is not canon. I've given the page number on which it was listed in an official Ars Magica 5th edition book, but apparently that is not enough for it to be in canon. Just what is then? And you call me a troll?
Chris
After taking a look at the spell(actually had the loaned book here atm, lucky...) i cant see any error in your interpretation. And i have a hard time seeing another interpretation as more "correct".
You are demonstrating amply that you are either an idiot (doubtful, but possible) or pretending to be oblivious to the truth of the matter (more likely - but there is room for both).
The question has never been that the spell exists - if you were not so busy playing sophistic shell games with your position, you'd remember I admitted so early on. The crux of that matter lies in the PeVi Guidelines, and the fact that your so-called "canon" spell (which has been dismissed here in this thread by several other than me) does not fit canon. You seem to think that one spell (in a supplement known for non-canon material) dictates canon over the PeVi Guidelines - you are in a distinct minority.
But that's not the problem, not what makes your posts so offensive. It's that you think that, despite all the counter-arguments (and they are plenty and convincing), that you are "right". Not just right for your saga, but right in some greater objective sense. Which is absurdity compounded with ignorance.
At best, it's debatable (hence our long, if circular, debate).
So quit trying to rewrite the truth and deny that fact in one breath, you.... politician.
Just dropping by to point out that I have stopped reading any of the discussions where CH is participating. It is not that I am not around, but that I find the totally unnecessary heat and name-calling highly disgusting. Weird, since I did not recall CH acting that way in the past. Might be short internet memory though.
So, I have no idea if I would agree or not with Callen. He is probably right, but the mood in the discussion is so childish that I cannot bother myself to read the thread. A pity really.
Have a nice day,
Xavi
You're right, X - when I stoop to calling someone a "politician", I know I've lost control. My bad.
In the end, there are two simple opinions here.
Mine is "There are strong differences of opinion, therefore it's ysmv".
Callen's is "There are strong differences of opinion, therefore what I say is canon".
(It's just that I find the latter offensive on several levels. Ymmv.)
Pick whichever you prefer. I'm done with this one. Out.
I made my evaluation of the Heathen Witch Reborn available earlier in this thread I believe.
Beyond this point, I see little reason to continue the discussion.
CH : Hu, that's your interpretation about this topic...
How I have read this debate, grosso modo:
Spell: the heathen witch reborn (HOHS p129)
Callen: "Here is a canon spell, including a canon example of specific type of magic which can be dispelled by PeVi. People may not like that but it is canon and need house rules to be bypassed."
CH: "That canon spell is not canon because that specific type of magic is too broad even if the canon examples of type of magic include it. Accepting this spell is going against RAW."
IMO: shapechanging is specific type of magic, like is "counterspelling" (or in fact, most of focus topics). Would I forbid that spell, I'd house rule it.