Destroying a ghost : PeMe or PeVi ?

Games Discussion Ars Magica
1

Hi Folks !

I was wondering about the most effective way to destroy a ghost belonging to the Magical Realm. Let's say the ghost has a Might of 10.

The first way is to use a PeMe spell like Lay to rest the haunting spirit : If your spell penetrates the resistance of a ghost or similar spirit, it loses a number of points from its Might equal to the level of this spell. (Base effect) R: Voice, D: Mom, T: Ind.

The other way is to use a PeVi spell like a variant for the Magical Realm of Demon's Eternal Oblivion: If the spell penetrates the ghost's Magic Resistance, the ghost loses Might Score equal to the spell level. (Base effect, +2 Voice) R: Voice, D: Mom, T: Ind.

I notice the +2 Voice parameter has already been taken into account in the PeVi spell but not in the PeMe one. Therefore, I need a PeVi 10 (Base 4, +2 Voice) or a PeMe 20 (Base 10, +2 Voice) to destroy a magical ghost of Might 10.

Am I wrong ? If not, why is it much more easier with a PeVi spell than with a PeMe ?

Nicolas

2

Mentem destroys outright, vim removes might. So against a low level ghost, vim might be better, but against high level, you're going to probably want mentem.

3

I am pretty sure hose spells are meant to work in an identical way. Have you checked the errata?

I think tehre inclusion is mainly for the same reason you can ward against faeries of the forest. In most cases ReVI would do any type of faerie, but if you are better at Herbam you might wanna go down that route instead.

I must admit I dont feel very comortable with a set of 4 spells that can attack any creature form any realm directly in its might pool. It seems a bit too 'omnipotent'. Just another reason why you start off in ArM thinking Vim is a crappy form and come to realise its the best one!

4

We had this discussion a while ago.

  1. First, the spells are in effect the same. A base level 10 PeMe spell should do the same to a base level 10 PeVi spell.
  2. Now you can cast these spells at range touch/voice/sight/hearing. I am not going to get into an argument over how you "touch" a ghost, or why you would want to touch a demon. The fact is that you can cast these spells with various range components. These components add to to spell level, but not to the effect. A base 10 spell removes 10 points of magic might or infernal might. It does not remove the spell level: it removes the base level of the spell. Just like BoAF does the base amount of damage (+30) but is a level 35 spell (+2 for voice), the same holds true for these spells.
5

Yes I did, nothing in there :slight_smile:

Mouska, I do agree with 1), those two spells should indeed work the same way.

But ...

... this isn't true according to the PeVi Guidelines : General - Reduce a target's Might Score by the level of the level of the spell +10, as long as the spell penetrates the creatures's resistance.

(btw, the +10 should be + 2 magnitudes)

So a PeVi Base 4 would remove 10 points of Might whether a PeVi Base 10 would remove 20 point of Might. A PeMe Base 10 would remove 10 points of Might according to the description of the spell.

Nicolas

6

I agree that is what it says, but I would like to see one of the authors comment on this because this seems like needless gimping of the mentem branch. The Vim 'destroy magical might' is much more flexible anyway - so why punish the more limited ghosts spell on top. I do acknowledge the mentem version affects non-magicla ghosts too but still it is a narrower field than 'all beasts of magic'.

7

Well, for one thing, there are many different types of ghosts - holy ghosts, unholy, magical (few "fae" ones...) - and a diff PeVi spell would be needed for each.

But one PeMe spell could handle any and all of them.

They can't. Or, rather, it relies on the SG to prevent it - a DEO does not affect a diabolic spirit, nor the MM of a diabolic animal - only a "demon" proper, hence the spell name.

8

:open_mouth: :open_mouth: :open_mouth:

Any reference to back this up ?

Have a look at the ReVi spell Circular Ward Against Demons : All creatures with Infernal Might equal to or less than the level of the spell are unable to enter the circle of harm those within in.

Following your reasoning, this spell would affect only demons, not a corrupted beast. But such an animal IS a creature with an Infernal Might, therefore falling into the requirements of the spell.

I would like to hear other players about this. I've always applied DEO to any being having an Infernal Might without distinction between demons, corrupteds beasts, infernal spirits, ...

Nicolas

9

It is true that by its RAW description DEO only affects Demons, but in general is more broadly applied: it affects any creature with infernal might, in the same way that the versions for faerie and magical creatures affect any creature aligned with those realms

Cheers,
Xavi

10

I have to admit the alternatives to only 4 spells needed in the Vim tree are pretty grim.

Where do you draw a line once you sub-divide into these fields? Do I need a different spell to attack a dragon's might rather than a unicorn. One for magical fish and one for magical sheep?

I had always been of the understanding the the association of might with a particular realm gave you the option to attack them with that form and the magic resist to use when defending against them. I never read it as a requirement.

I dont mind this at all except for the fact it is too easy - esp when we consider the old charged items options. I would have been much happier if DEO and its kin had a might -10 rather than might +10 or something similar. Attacking them in the generic area being possible - but always harder - than for example attacking forest faeries with PeHe. Or even just adding some sort of sypathetic connection to the PeHe option in this example for using the specific rather than a generic spell.

11

Hi,

And then there's the opposite approach: Conflate the Realms. That's what I do ITSIDR. Thus, DEO works against anything with Might (and the name coined by a Flambeau who declared that anything it worked against must be a demon.
I have been thinking about Might and supernatural beings in general, and some of the problems I have with them.

Consider a dragon. Canonically, its fire is a magic effect and therefore resisted. But... what about a dragon that breathes real fire? If Constantinople can have Greek fire that is not resisted, why can't dragons exhale the stuff? Or the wolf that separates into a pack (and wonderful effects like this is yet another reason I look at RoP:M jaundicedly; RoP:M encourages boring effects, because this does not fit easily into a Might 20 budget but fits wonderfully into the wolf's concept): Technically, all of the copies are resisted by MR 20, since they are a magically created medium. El Yucko. And what if the sound of a mandrake has intrinsic, natural properties, and anything that could duplicate that sound (good luck with that, since you have to hear it first :slight_smile: ) would achieve the same very natural effect? The poison of a demon a very nasty poison rather than a supernatural effect?

Might also makes a creature more vulnerable. A giant with no Might at all is a lot tougher than a giant with Might 7. That Might is not a benefit.

Too many concepts and uses are crammed into a single Might score:

  1. Magical energy points for powering effects

  2. Hit points versus deadly magical drain attacks

  3. Magic resistance

  4. Character Build Points (courtesy of RoP:M and RoP:F)

  5. Penetration of magical effects

  6. Aura Addiction

  7. Delineating the difference between natural and unnatural

Starting at the beginning. I think using Might as character build points was a design botch. On the surface it makes sense: Beings with high Might are more powerful so use Might to measure how much stuff they have. But Might is just another cool thing to have, to be bought with build points. I'd break this free of Might.

Next: Aura addiction. This one is (IMNSHO) another RoP:M design botch. The result of actually applying the associated mechanics is that magical creatures must either flee to high auras or entangle themselves in human affairs (thereby becoming faeries) because they cannot endure long. Again, there's something superficially nice about this: It keeps ancient dragons from lairing in London (if demons can do it, why not dragons). But isn't the Dominion sufficient for that? But if we want this mechanic, or something similar, basing it on supernatural power, maybe Might is the answer.

Natural versus unnatural: I mentioned this earlier, but more now. Various fantastic effects are considered natural in Mythic Europe, yet the creatures who have them, such as Beasts of Virtue, are magical. That's messed up. The animal from which a natural principle derives cannot use it 'naturally' but a natural philosopher can use the occult property as a natural effect. Um.

Magical Hit Points: What if I want a troll who is extremely vulnerable to magic, but is really really tough?

Magical Energy Points: This kind of works, except that powers that penetrate less often are especially draining.... just because.

And so on.

So:

I'm not going to propose a variant build system at this time, because I'd want to use the same system for any creature, ranging from a mundane eagle to a faerie queen to... anything. That's a different topic. Also, these beings are generally NPCs, and are often better created to be what they should be rather than built to a point system.

But----

  1. Not all fantastic beings are supernatural. Such beings might have abilities that the uneducated cannot distinguish from magic, but a natural philosopher can. They might have MR, though more often an immunity to certain kinds of effects. Their powers do not require Might (or necessarily fatigue) to use and are resisted neither by Parma or other MR.

  2. A supernatural being can have powers and abilities that are natural to them, as well as powers that are supernatural.

  3. An entity that can be killed through natural means (even if those natural means involve ludicrously high levels of skill, and a sword that can only be forged once per century from iron that has fallen from the sky) ought not be subject to death by PeVi magical drain. Conversely, an entity that cannot be killed by natural means should always be subject to death by magical means. So a ghost can be 'banished' and an immaterial demon destroyed (although I tend to see most demons as Aspects, which is why Satan can repeatedly walk the earth in various guises, be defeated and walk again; the explanation that "it's just a minor imp pretending to be Satan" is so much less cool than "you crushed Satan, but now he's mad at you, and more powerful than ever." (Another Aspect; why would Satan start with a small Aspect and work his way up? Because succumbing to a small temptation or circumstance is less excusable than failing in the face of something that no one could resist.)) But if that demon appeared to wreak havoc and, um, raise hell, it becomes vulnerable to mundane effects but not PeVi. Note that PeVi does work on a possessing spirit. If it remains in its host, it can be PeVied. (smile And I'm just waiting for the objection "but you can't see it!")

I have another issue in mind when I propose to rule thusly. I really don't want magi going around killing stuff by PeVi their spirits. This includes peasants.

I also want to separate spirit magics from Hermetic practice. Failing to do so allows... well, that's another topic.

  1. PeVi effects that currently drain Might should cause damage instead, using the standard damage system. This eliminates an unnecessary game mechanic. The guidelines for DEO and related spells start to look like the usual "inflict +5 Damage" and "inflict a Medium Wound." These wounds are obviously not physical, but can be perceived with Second Sight.

  2. Magic Resistance, if any, is a separate stat. An entity can have a strong MR but no Might at all--and vice versa.

  3. The Penetration of an entity's powers is represented by its Penetration score. Many supernatural beings lack Penetration (and perhaps need a virtue to have it?) and thus cannot harm a magus with its supernatural powers.

  4. Might is the number of points an entity has to fuel its powers. Note that a power can be natural but require Might. A dragon might be able to breathe fire naturally only few times per day. (I am tempted to say that it is better to set limits and conditions power by power, but this is a big pain to track during play.)

  5. An entity is supernatural if it's supernatural.

This needs a revision.

Anyway,

Ken

12

double post

13

Hi,

And then there's the opposite approach: Conflate the Realms. That's what I do ITSIDR. Thus, DEO works against anything with Might (and the name coined by a Flambeau who declared that anything it worked against must be a demon.
I have been thinking about Might and supernatural beings in general, and some of the problems I have with them.

Consider a dragon. Canonically, its fire is a magic effect and therefore resisted. But... what about a dragon that breathes real fire? If Constantinople can have Greek fire that is not resisted, why can't dragons exhale the stuff? Or the wolf that separates into a pack (and wonderful effects like this is yet another reason I look at RoP:M jaundicedly; RoP:M encourages boring effects, because this does not fit easily into a Might 20 budget but fits wonderfully into the wolf's concept): Technically, all of the copies are resisted by MR 20, since they are a magically created medium. El Yucko. And what if the sound of a mandrake has intrinsic, natural properties, and anything that could duplicate that sound (good luck with that, since you have to hear it first :slight_smile: ) would achieve the same very natural effect? The poison of a demon a very nasty poison rather than a supernatural effect?

Might also makes a creature more vulnerable. A giant with no Might at all is a lot tougher than a giant with Might 7. That Might is not a benefit.

Too many concepts and uses are crammed into a single Might score:

  1. Magical energy points for powering effects

  2. Hit points versus deadly magical drain attacks

  3. Magic resistance

  4. Character Build Points (courtesy of RoP:M and RoP:F)

  5. Penetration of magical effects

  6. Aura Addiction

  7. Delineating the difference between natural and unnatural

Starting at the beginning. I think using Might as character build points was a design botch. On the surface it makes sense: Beings with high Might are more powerful so use Might to measure how much stuff they have. But Might is just another cool thing to have, to be bought with build points. I'd break this free of Might.

Next: Aura addiction. This one is (IMNSHO) another RoP:M design botch. The result of actually applying the associated mechanics is that magical creatures must either flee to high auras or entangle themselves in human affairs (thereby becoming faeries) because they cannot endure long. Again, there's something superficially nice about this: It keeps ancient dragons from lairing in London (if demons can do it, why not dragons). But isn't the Dominion sufficient for that? But if we want this mechanic, or something similar, basing it on supernatural power, maybe Might is the answer.

Natural versus unnatural: I mentioned this earlier, but more now. Various fantastic effects are considered natural in Mythic Europe, yet the creatures who have them, such as Beasts of Virtue, are magical. That's messed up. The animal from which a natural principle derives cannot use it 'naturally' but a natural philosopher can use the occult property as a natural effect. Um.

Magical Hit Points: What if I want a troll who is extremely vulnerable to magic, but is really really tough?

Magical Energy Points: This kind of works, except that powers that penetrate less often are especially draining.... just because.

And so on.

So:

I'm not going to propose a variant build system at this time, because I'd want to use the same system for any creature, ranging from a mundane eagle to a faerie queen to... anything. That's a different topic. Also, these beings are generally NPCs, and are often better created to be what they should be rather than built to a point system.

But----

  1. Not all fantastic beings are supernatural. Such beings might have abilities that the uneducated cannot distinguish from magic, but a natural philosopher can. They might have MR, though more often an immunity to certain kinds of effects. Their powers do not require Might (or necessarily fatigue) to use and are resisted neither by Parma or other MR.

  2. A supernatural being can have powers and abilities that are natural to them, as well as powers that are supernatural.

  3. An entity that can be killed through natural means (even if those natural means involve ludicrously high levels of skill, and a sword that can only be forged once per century from iron that has fallen from the sky) ought not be subject to death by PeVi magical drain. Conversely, an entity that cannot be killed by natural means should always be subject to death by magical means. So a ghost can be 'banished' and an immaterial demon destroyed (although I tend to see most demons as Aspects, which is why Satan can repeatedly walk the earth in various guises, be defeated and walk again; the explanation that "it's just a minor imp pretending to be Satan" is so much less cool than "you crushed Satan, but now he's mad at you, and more powerful than ever." (Another Aspect; why would Satan start with a small Aspect and work his way up? Because succumbing to a small temptation or circumstance is less excusable than failing in the face of something that no one could resist.)) But if that demon appeared to wreak havoc and, um, raise hell, it becomes vulnerable to mundane effects but not PeVi. Note that PeVi does work on a possessing spirit. If it remains in its host, it can be PeVied. (smile And I'm just waiting for the objection "but you can't see it!")

I have another issue in mind when I propose to rule thusly. I really don't want magi going around killing stuff by PeVi their spirits. This includes peasants.

I also want to separate spirit magics from Hermetic practice. Failing to do so allows... well, that's another topic.

  1. PeVi effects that currently drain Might should cause damage instead, using the standard damage system. This eliminates an unnecessary game mechanic. The guidelines for DEO and related spells start to look like the usual "inflict +5 Damage" and "inflict a Medium Wound." These wounds are obviously not physical, but can be perceived with Second Sight.

  2. Magic Resistance, if any, is a separate stat. An entity can have a strong MR but no Might at all--and vice versa.

  3. The Penetration of an entity's powers is represented by its Penetration score. Many supernatural beings lack Penetration (and perhaps need a virtue to have it?) and thus cannot harm a magus with its supernatural powers.

  4. Might is the number of points an entity has to fuel its powers. Note that a power can be natural but require Might. A dragon might be able to breathe fire naturally only few times per day. (I am tempted to say that it is better to set limits and conditions power by power, but this is a big pain to track during play.)

  5. An entity is supernatural if it's supernatural.

This needs a revision.

Anyway,

Ken

14

ARGGGGH!!!!

15

Triple post! Ouch! (still need to delete one more!)

How about the spell description:

"Weakens and possibly destroys a demon..."
(emphasis added) 8)

Is there something about that spell description to cause :open_mouth: :open_mouth: :open_mouth: ?

Sorry to be blunt, but... so what? Wards aren't even Perdo, they're Rego, and a very specific sub-set of it.

Wards always work on far broader levels, and have separate Guidelines to cover them. Any and every Form, Wards and Perdo effect have very little in common. Really - one might as well base an interpretation off some paragraph in Aegis of the Hearth or Scales of Magical Weight. Not same same.

Again, apologies, but when flawed logic accuses me of flawed reasoning, it pushes buttons.

Your reasoning may suggest the above, but mine was that a demon is different from a ghost from a tainted beast, and made no comment whatsoever about wards. Just to point out that little detail.

I'm also drawing from several canon comments that seem to form a constant regarding the scope of spells, including many that deal generally with other-worldly creatures and effects - Corpus spells (Inexorable Search) that cover either living or dead bodies, not both. Parallel limitations with Mentem (and maybe even more narrowly limited). InVi spells that are broken down into the 4 Realms, but then can only investigate either Spell Effects or Creatures or Items, never all of the above.

And the fact that Demons are separate and distinct from "infernally tainted creatures" in their very nature, the way they operate, and their origin. (And that's at face value, without diving into RoP:Infernal.)

And the spell description for DEO. That too. :wink:

16

Ahh, irony. Your reasoning operates on the assumption that a difference in the language used to describe the rules matches a difference in the rules and in the world. What is a demon? What do the rules define as a demon? Do any other spells differentiate between creatures of a given realm?

I agree that it's something very poorly explained in the books. Nevertheless, your logic is, I would say, more flawed because it's language dependent. The wording of DEO, language hopped twice, could be rewritten as "infernal creature" without losing any meaning except in one context in one language. Were the spell named Devil's Eternal Oblivion, would you limit it still further? As for Lay To Rest The Haunting Spirit, one could argue that it works only on human ghosts of the Magic Realm, on human ghosts of all Realms, on all spirits of the magic realm save those with cunning ... And the RAW aren't actually any help here since there are conflicting examples of spells in various books

Yes, one might as well. Hermetic Magic is a coherent whole and the rules for requisites, affecting things across Realms and what have you should all work the same way barring exceptions. Whilst I don't think you'll find a single person here who would disagree that Wards at the moment are realy poorly and inconsistently contructed, analogy between Forms and Techniques is vital to using, describing and playing with hermetic magic.

And for my two silvery pennies - ReVi (summoning and warding) and PeVi (might removing and might score removing, etc) spells work on all creatures possessing the Might associated with a Realm, regardless of form or origin. ReForm and PeForm spells work on all creatures with Might associated with that Form, regardless of Realm. Since the hound's hound would like precedent, I point at the summoning rules as seen in, mfor instance, Mysteries and Societates. I'd als say that I rule that DEO and the like remove Might Pool, rather than Might Score, and that the spells to remove might score are two magnitudes higher for the same loss. This is to avoid the problem (as I see it) that otherwise outright destruction is in every way easier than warding, weakening or hindering powers and this both fails to capture the feel of many myths and reduces the number of interesting stories available.

17

For me:

Demons means "infernal might". Only demons have infernal might. The demon can be ghost, beast of "demonform" demon, but it's still a demon.

And a "description" can't go against guideline used.

18

I think you a are wrong. DEO and Lay to rest the haunting spirit have identical parameters and descriptions, so the basic guideline must be the same. To me the omission of +2 Voice in the last line is just a typo (there are quite a few other general spells where the parameters are missing in this last line).

19

[b]For some strange reason two previous posts are missing ...

Here's the one from Fhtagn :[/b]

by Fhtagn » Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:05 pm

Cuchulainshound wrote:

Ahh, irony. Your reasoning operates on the assumption that a difference in the language used to describe the rules matches a difference in the rules and in the world. What is a demon? What do the rules define as a demon? Do any other spells differentiate between creatures of a given realm?

I agree that it's something very poorly explained in the books. Nevertheless, your logic is, I would say, more flawed because it's language dependent. The wording of DEO, language hopped twice, could be rewritten as "infernal creature" without losing any meaning except in one context in one language. Were the spell named Devil's Eternal Oblivion, would you limit it still further? As for Lay To Rest The Haunting Spirit, one could argue that it works only on human ghosts of the Magic Realm, on human ghosts of all Realms, on all spirits of the magic realm save those with cunning ... And the RAW aren't actually any help here since there are conflicting examples of spells in various books

Cuchulainshound wrote:

Yes, one might as well. Hermetic Magic is a coherent whole and the rules for requisites, affecting things across Realms and what have you should all work the same way barring exceptions. Whilst I don't think you'll find a single person here who would disagree that Wards at the moment are realy poorly and inconsistently contructed, analogy between Forms and Techniques is vital to using, describing and playing with hermetic magic.

And for my two silvery pennies - ReVi (summoning and warding) and PeVi (might removing and might score removing, etc) spells work on all creatures possessing the Might associated with a Realm, regardless of form or origin. ReForm and PeForm spells work on all creatures with Might associated with that Form, regardless of Realm. Since the hound's hound would like precedent, I point at the summoning rules as seen in, mfor instance, Mysteries and Societates. I'd als say that I rule that DEO and the like remove Might Pool, rather than Might Score, and that the spells to remove might score are two magnitudes higher for the same loss. This is to avoid the problem (as I see it) that otherwise outright destruction is in every way easier than warding, weakening or hindering powers and this both fails to capture the feel of many myths and reduces the number of interesting stories available.

And the one form ExarKun :

by ExarKun » Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:50 pm

For me:

Demons means "infernal might". Only demons have infernal might. The demon can be ghost, beast of "demonform" demon, but it's still a demon.

And a "description" can't go against guideline used.

20

That's what I thought, but I wanted to be sure, it could have been a typo in the DEO spell.

First of all no need to become aggressive, I believe I haven't been...

Well, may I remind you that the DEO spell dates back to the first edition of Ars Magica. At that time there was no distinction between a demon, a corrupted beast or an infernal spirit. The distinction came later, in RoP:Infernal (I haven't read Pax Dei and The Maleficium in details, so it could have been sooner).

And there's no such distinction in the PeVi Guidelines, which I tend to follow more than the spell's descriptions.

Finally, your interpretation is quite subjective. Let's consider a PeVi spell intended for the Faerie Realm. How many PeVi do you have ? One per Faerie type ? Where do you draw the line ?

I agree, it is my interpretation too.

Again, I agree.

Nicolas