RoP:M (p102, 107) says that different aspects of a daimon can have different Might scores and abilities, that the printed gamestats are for aspects of a daimon, and that the actual daimon usually has a much higher Might score.
The rules in TM:RE on the other hand appears to assume that daimons have a single Might score that is shared by its aspects, and the stats given in this book seems to be for the daimon itself - otherwise it would be hard to adjudicate spells like Invoke the Pact of (Daimon) if you don't know what the Might score of the daimon itself is.
In addition, some of the stats given for more powerful daimons in RoP:M include Might scores of 75+. If that is just the stat for an aspect and the actual daimon has much higher Might it would seem to go outside the general guidelines in ArM5 for Might scores.
This is from a game I play in, where we have.a sort of Daimon / immortal ghost magi hybrid character. He manifests different aspects of himself in the covenant he lived in according to the hours of the day. When the sun rises, he's an apprentice, at dinner time he's an experienced magi, and at night, he's the not-quite-an-archmage he was just before death. The later pretty much has the full power of the Daimon, but the other aspects have more restrained might and powers.
Daimonic aspects need to be clarified- does a spell to summon a particular aspect-template penetrate the might of that aspect or of the core daimon, and if it only penetrates the might of that aspect-template then why can a single aspect be convinced to upgrade itself in Mythic Locations under the Wolf Court. It seems to me that summoning a weaker daimon and then persuading it to become a stronger daimon is an end run around the intent of the rules, but it is included as a legitimate possibility.
Also is the true name for summoning a daimonic aspect-template unique to that template or does it cover all templates that that daimon might manifest?
Aspect-template? I do not remember seeing any reference to such a concept (by any name) in connection with daimons in any of the books, but it is quite possible I have missed something. Where is it from?
If I understand correctly, as I believe I do, Silveroak differentiates between "aspect template" and ... let me call it "aspect instance". A powerful daimon has multiple aspect templates (each essentially the stat block in the book). For each aspect template, there may be multiple instances in existence at any given time (though not in the same place) all identical. These are what you actually interact with; once it has spent all its might, or when the daimon so chooses, any instance gets "reabsorbed".
A theurgist who binds a daimon as a familiar appears to create a bond neither with the daimon, nor with a specific aspect instance (which is too ephemeral), but with a specific aspect template. As far as I understand it from TMRE! I think the slightly confusing issue here is that TMRE calls "aspect" both the template and the instance.
"Note that, while a single Aspect attends the maga, her bond is with the Daimon itself, and the attending Aspect may be reunited with the Daimon, which sends another Aspect to fulfil the bond."
TMRE p81
A theurgist who binds a daimon as their familiar does create a bond with the daimon itself.
What is not clear is if all the aspects ("aspect instances") it sends out to the theurgist in question need to be identical.
TMRE makes no mention of different aspects having different stats, nor of them having a different Might score than the Daimon itself.
RoP:M on the other hand does say that aspects can vary in their stats, and they usually have a much lower Might Score than the Daimon itself - which leaves the question open which Might score is to be used when invoking Daimons since the given stats for daimons are said to be those of aspects.
Personally I would be inclined to ignore RoP:M on this - it makes things so much simpler that way.
One way to errata would be to just remove the mention from RoP:M that there are, to use Silveroak’s terminology, aspect templates with different stats than the daimon itself. If that is true then it seems odd that some of the more powerful daimons haven’t been summoned in some less powerful form which is mentioned in the same book. Now, maybe what the author of that bit was going for was an attempt to represent the syncretism of Graeco-Roman religions where a local god was, of course, a localized veneration of Helios, or whatever. But they don’t say that in RoP:M and that does lead to some interesting possibilities, IMO, but the idea that one can summon a might 20 variant of a Protogonoi or Kosmokrator doesn’t really seem to add a whole lot and creates confusion around how that works, exactly with respect to true names, penetration, etc.
The way I would do it - which is certainly not the only reasonable way of clarifying things - is as follows.
All aspects of a Daimon have the same Might score as the Daimon itself.
A True Name is for the Daimon itself.
Aspects can have different stats from each other, but usually all the aspects a particular Daimon sends out are identical.
The Daimon (and no other) chooses the stats of the Aspect it sends out - so you cannot summon a particular aspect of a daimon.
In general, all invocations, summonings, bindings, etc are with the Daimon itself - aspects are too ephemeral for this since the Daimon can absorb them at any time it chooses.
It's not really an issue of "local". Forgetting briefly that most graeco-roman gods should be faeries, the issue is that basically the same god could incarnate two or more very different principles. Venus could be a divinity of good weather and good sailing, or the more well-known divinity of (extra-marital) love. Apollo could be a divinity of prophecy, or a mouse-god of pestilence. Etc.
I think that essentially these different "aspect templates" are for all practical purposes sufficiently different entities that making a pact with one has nothing to do with making a pact with another.
Re: Faerie vs. Magic - Yes, why I mentioned Helios and not Apollo. The titans were also gods.
But these often also were local. A temple devoted to particular aspects of Aphrodite in Cyprus, a temple devoted to a different aspect on an island just South and west of Greece, etc. they even gave these gods different names though I can’t rattle any off the top of my head. But, what I was more speaking of was the Syncretism of Hermes = Mercury = Thoth = Lugh = Odin (IIRC) and that was how they wrote about many of them.
While I don't disagree with you per se, this would have been better applied prior to Dies Irae, in which (IIRC, noble's parma) we encounter multiple aspectsof the same Daimon, with different Might scores.
And I'd personally love some more info on this. Because it is potentially a very interesting thing for a daimon with a cult to do. And that means theoretically an Ascended PC.