Detecting spirits without intellego

Games Discussion Ars Magica
26

Nightwalkers interact with spirits that have real shapes. Lots of them.

So here's a rewrite boosting the level so that it doesn't outshine the MuMe option, pointing out that many spirits don't have shapes and would this be unaffected, making magic realm specific, and adding shadows cast by spirits.

Earlier I said:

The answer to this query is that magical light is itself doing something magical, while venomous drool is doing something mundane. It's more akin to something like the drool growing wool on things that it touches.

I'm not making a breakthrough required. I'm not yet sold on the intellego requisite but more open to being convinced on that issue.

Shadows do bring up another difficulty however. With the reflected light only version it was pretty clear that magic resistance applied (at least it was to me). While one could alter a fire to create light that reflected off of immaterial spirits light that reflected off of magic resistance that it couldn't penetrate seemed silly on the face of it and was never seriously considered. However it seems to me that whether or not my enchanted light penetrates magic resistance it is still unlikely to get through the spirit and will still leave a shadow. How would you judge that?

How's that?

27

The section about immaterial faeries ROP:F p.48 "Immaterial faeries... can pass through solid objects. Some can interact with humans simply by shedding specied with glamour." This implies a surface to shed pecies from and gives the impression that glamour is like aether- immaterial but posessing volume and shape- a shape which their bodies fill in when they gather incidental matter to themselves. Note that faeries appear to have an even less material form which defines them as they take on or shed roles which are defined by its glamour...

28

This is a much cleaner setup, mechanically, and doesn't feel like it overshadows (hah, Ignem joke) the 'normal' methods of it. The fact it doesn't 'define' individual spirits clearly (just reflects) and the complexity magnitudes makes it feel on par with MuMe(Im); The fact it requires a spirit to have a form to be illuminated means it doesn't beat out InVi. I like the shadows aspect, but I'm biased on that...and spirits may be able to hide their 'shadow' in many circumstances with torchlight, et cetera. You may also be able to make a MuIg(Me) to reveal all different realm ghosts but not other spirits... hmm. Possibilities.

29

I find the spell incredibly cool, and thematically appropriate (fire/light should reveal hidden things!).

I would say Base 5, to keep it in line with InVi and InMe creature/spirit locators guidelines. And then you could eliminate 1 complexity magnitude, keeping it at the same level, so same magnitude.

Now I wonder if this an Unnatural Fire spell (Yes Focus 8) ) or an Unnatural Light spell (no Focus :frowning: )? It seems that the Unnatural fires Focus is extending into Light Focus territory? But perhaps there's no issue with an overlap, and it could be both.

30

I'm wondering if it should be Mentem or Auram, not Vim. Here is my thought process:

  1. How can people interact with spirits by touch? Well, we have this:
  1. But the core book indicates Auram and we have this comparison:

versus

So maybe it should have been Auram, not Mentem in the effect mentioned in #1.

  1. Now let's try to do this with fire.
    Base: Level 4: Change a fire so that it is completely unnatural.
    We don't want to just make the flame ghostly, though, but both normally visible as well as interacting with the ghostly, so +1 magnitude just like for the effect in #1 above.

That gives me MuIg(Au or Me) base 4, +1 Touch, +2 Sun, +1 requisite for MuIg(Au or Me) 20. Are extra magnitudes needed for complexity? I would think so if you want it to treat the spirit as reflective. So maybe MuIg(Au or Me) 25. Still have to figure out the Au v. Me bit, though.

31

Jusr as Ward Against Faeries of the Waters ReAq, and Circular Ward Against Faeries ReVi are both valid spells, I don't think that a mentem ghost specific version invalidates this spell.

I chose base 4 because it is "change a fire so it is completely unnatural" When someone reads the spell they'll go to the MuIg guidelines first I think that this will be clearer. As you said, the level doesn't change.

Now that I've got a few ok's I'm going to copy it back to the other thread here:

edit: I wanted to add how that I appreciae how great you all are. Every post here is foused on making a better spell. thanks

32

I have an additional question sort of related to this so necro'ing the thread. As the MuMe(Im) guidline allows spirits to be made visible (in raw), and the spell discussed here uses MuIg(Vi) (or arguable Mentem) to make spirits detectable.

Is it also plausible to CrIm a ghost if you can target it with magic?
If so, I assume it does not need a Me or Vi requisite? As most CrIm spells don't need the form they are affecting.

33

Something like this?

The spirit would have to have a shape, which is an issue that we've been confronting with the fire spell, but otherwise I can't see why it wouldn't work. I don't see a complexity modifier for a moving image being appropriate, the image is moving itself. It's more or less spraying magical paint on your ghost.

34

That’s awesome Erik.
The use I have in mind is cast a CrIm spell targeting Intangible Tunnels in a room to make them visible, in the same way a PeVi can target hidden demons in a room. Once painted the people in the room can target the tunnel.

35

Hmm, I get the sense that it shouldn't work based on my understanding of Creo and tunnels - intangible tunnels don't have a visible species, and using creo to create species doesn't mean they're from the intangible tunnel. Creo shouldn't be able to give the intangible tunnel the species. This spell definitely makes the tunnels 'visible', but I believe knowledge that they are there isn't enough to use them to cast spells through them.

EDIT halfway through:

This could just me being off base on interpretations though.

36

That's a nice question. Filling a room with "paint all of the arcane tunnels in this room with the fur of a golden gopher" effect doesn't have the same simplicity of "destroy all of the spirits in this room". There is some point of complexity where the spell is apparently thinking for itself, at that point the answer becomes - no you can't do this. Filling a room with creo imaginem-ness that only "sticks" to arcane tunnels is right on the edge.

It would be easy for me to say yes if the spell had intellego and vim requisites, or if it's just painting the tunnels that the caster is already aware of, but without something like that I'm thinking no you can't do it. It's tough for me to to form a convincing description of the action of the spell where the spell isn't deciding what is and isn't an arcane tunnel.

(In the process of writing this post, my opinion changed from "yes why would that be a problem?", through "I guess that's kind of questionable", to "no, you can't do that".)

Edit: With regard to Racoonmask's issue of, to paraphrase,-you're not sensing the tunnel, you're sensing the spell that give's the tunnel an image, I say this strikes me as adding unnecessary and unwanted complication. My guess is that an interpretation like this will make players frustrated and I don't see how being very restrictive about what constitutes "magically recognizing" adds to the experience. If someone is covered head to toe in bodypaint, can't a magus cast the spell Words of the Unbroken Silence on them even if they can't directly see the target's body, much less their mind?

37

For the most part, I actually agree with you. The limit of Arcane Connection (paraphrase because I've closed down my pdf for the core book) is that you have to be able to perceive something to target them. Covering someone in paint is a way to perceive them. The only reason I bring up the issue for Intangible Tunnel is the description stating you have to be able to 'magically recognize' the tunnel to use it. Painting it red with CrIm is enough to see it, to dispell it, and to possibly cast magic at it. but to utilize it as a conduit for the spells, do you need to be able some sort of magical perception of it.
Also to clarify, this is more a thought about it, if my SG said that perceiving it via CrIm is enough, I would be happy, because it makes it easier. If they said that you need magical awareness of its workings to use it, I'd say that's fine.. really, I don't have a strong opinion, I just noticed a point where my group would probably argue over it. :slight_smile:

38

Hi,

If the casting magus can see the spirit, even though I objected to the other spell I don't object to this one. The magus can see the spirit, which means he can target it and which means the spirit has a location and which means that the spirit is not intrinsically undetectable. So CrIm targeting the spirit seems ok. CrIg targeting the spirit is also ok, but the fire won't do anything.

(This is very different from MuIg to modify a fire to burn something intrinsically unburnable, or to modify a fire into a fire that knows what the local bishop is thinking and whose crackling flames speak those thoughts.)

Anyway,

Ken

39

I’d be ok with needing the requisites, it seems incongruous to the Target and also to other CrIm spells though.

I’m not convinced that the requisites are needed yet though, as I think Target: Room spells already seem to have the ability to differentiate without In requisites due to the way Room works.

  • we know for certain that a T:Room spell could PeVi a demon who is otherwise undetectable.

How is that PeVi spell able to hurt the demons and not the fae in the room? Or the Magi in the room?
How does the spell tell a lamp from a demon?

One way could be to suggest that the wording from T:Room is involved (paraphrasing) as “the room and all its contents”. If so, then everything in the room must be momentarily affected, and creatures with MR will know a spell was cast as it tries to penetrate their MR.
previously I would have said that the fae and magi in the room wouldn’t know the PeVi demon spell was cast, but with this view they must have

This changes usage for Room spells (well my understanding anyway). Probably also changes T: Boundary and T: Structure spells too.

40

I said I was torn on this. Here's me trying to interpret what my gut is saying :

It is easier to imagine filing a room with a force that destroys infernal might it drains infernal might from everything in the room; lamps, faeries, everything, a force that only creates an image on a specific sort of magical effect seems more specific, it doesn't create the image on everything.

Detecting the spells in the room and only marking them (even if our spell targets any magic not just arcane tunnels) seems to be an intellego vim action -a creo imaginem effect could even be cosmetic to an InVi spell that does this. That's the big thing the spell is doing - detecting tunnels not creating images.

The spell discussed earlier in this thread that alters the output of a fire so as to illuminate spirits is working with a fire which is already producing light and it has a vim requisite. It is a somewhat different situation.

41

Hi,

Let's consider a CrIm spell that paints a single Tunnel, target Ind. If the spell can discern something that is a tunnel from something that is not (and we set aside whether the magus can see the Tunnel for targeting, since that won't matter when we consider Room), it requires InVi requisites. Nothing about CrIm lets you selectively paint certain kinds of target. Kind of the way a kinder, gentler House Flambeau would need some sort of InMe effect to create a fire that only burns enemies.

We extend this to the case of Room, and nothing changes.

Of course, there's an issue about what happens if the Tunnel moves; the Tunnel has not been altered to emit species, so that the created image isn't going to move with the Tunnel. Right? But that's a tangent.

Conversely, DEO does not need anything other than PeVi. If I cast it at a rock or my (mundane) dog, nothing happens, just as PeCo does not need In to 'know' not to harm animals. If I make a Room version, nothing changes.

Anyway,

Ken

42

Agreed, it’s not an open and shut case. I wasn’t confident that it made sense.

The InVi spells to find other spells or ghosts typically does not use a Room target though which is why they need a way to focus at a target (which Room is a work around for) and then pass than information to a sense (which the CrIm is a work around for).

I do feel that Room should grant some leverage to not care if a tunnel is present and target them; and affect them all, just like it would a few invisible ghosts, demons, or fae.

To change the scenario slightly a spell to target invisible ghosts who might be in a room would work, and could then do something to them.

As another aside - that CrIm/InVi spell might actually more like a InVi/CrIm spell anyway. Which gets back to using the guidelines for detecting through a sense rather than a Room.

43

Been doing more thinking on this . I may be off base here, but it sounds like there are two generally accepted way for a spell to target a thing: Perceiving it as the magus, or perceiving it with intellego (extension, as the magus). Perhaps it could be the other way around? The spell to target in hermetic magic, the spell must be able to perceive the target (with intellego) or the spell needs to perceive the target with the magus as its proxy for intellego.

Hmm. After this discussion (which I enjoy) I went back and read through the Lesser Limits of Hermetic Magic again; The limit of Arcane Connections states that you cannot affect an unsensed target without an Arcane Connection. Intellego gets around this somewhat. It also, coincidentally states that you cannot Perdo Corpus people on the other side of a wall unless you first perceive their existence. The above accepted Perdo Vim target Room for infernals is, assumed, getting around that by targeting the room. Basically, you can't kill Schroedinger's Cat with Perdo Animal, because you aren't sure if its there, and you might use the kill-living spell when you needed the destroy-corpse spell.

But ... We're now talking about Creo magic. Creo magic isn't targetting the 'effective' target. Just like casting Pilum of Fire, the target is the fire, the man getting burned a fortunate side-effect. If you cast Creo imaginem to paint your own Intangible Tunnel (which you perceive as the magus) then it creates a visible species in its location. by the strictest reading of the Limit of AC, this is fine. If you cast CrIm to paint someone else's tunnel, that you can't perceive, then you'll probably fail. Generally agreed? (I'll assume you agree with me, because you aren't going to respond before I actually finish this post, and it makes a better narrative.)

But what about the room spells? Room CrIg still fills a room with fire. Room PeVi still nukes all the demons in a room. Would a room-target CrIm be able to paint all the intangible tunnels in a room? I'm currently leaning towards no, actually. In fact, I think if you had second sight, could see all the Intangible tunnels yourself, you still couldn't paint them visible with a room-target CrIm - because I think you need a group target. Those intangible tunnels you're making visible are each a separate item. This second point is more of an opinion in my mind, and I don't think saying the room-sized spell is doomed to fail in all games. I might even allow it with added complexity levels to have the different parts. I digress.

Back on track: This is instead my thoughts on creo magic. You cannot tell magic to do something you don't understand. An apprentice, raised in seclusion by a Criamon, taught great levels of creo magic, animal magic, and provided with books and tutors, if told by his master to use Creo Animal to conjure a platypus, will fail.
"As a skilled practitioner of Creo and Animal, I can conjure anything, master! Tell me, what is a platypus that I may conjure it?"
"It is an animal. You may begin conjuring now."
Thus ends my philosophical argument of Criamon's Platypus.
Translating this to our current discussion, let's assume instead of intangible tunnels, we're playing with demons again. A room-wide Perdo Vim can damage all the demons in a room. Can a room-wide Creo Imaginem paint all the demons mauve? Dear magic, please make all the demons in this room illuminate with hideous color, thanks magic. Like a computer, magic isn't thinking for itself, its carrying out its instructions. You say paint the demons, it pulls out a list of demons in the room from your head, finds none, 404.

44

Here's a sketch of the structure of the problem, what a T: Room spell can affect and distinguish. I hope it helps.

This suggests, that the main differentiation is its basic spell parameters: Technique, Form, Guideline.

  • Cast a T: Room DEO? Then you would affect everything and everybody in the room, but as DEOs by their general PeVi guideline, their explanation in ArM5 p.160 (plus LoH p.12f Research and such) affect only demons, this takes then only effect on demons, and might not even challenge the Parma of a magus also present in the room.
  • Cast a T: Room CrIm spell magically painting everything in the room in specific Tartan colors? Then everything and everybody in the room gets painted, but for resisting beings and those entities like ghosts, demons and exits of Arcane Tunnels which have no shape to paint on.

This is just a rough approach. From it, the storyguide needs to determine what in the room each T: Room spell by its general parameters can and cannot affect. But magi inventing or sponting T: Room spells and effects to be more specific in what they wish to affect would have to resort to ArM5 p.114 Requisites to make the distinctions, thereby typically adding magnitudes for Intellego. Often using a T: Group instead would be more helpful: but

, so the caster must be able to identify the group when casting.

Cheers

45

Hi,

At this point, with this reasoning, every little bit of air in the room is now tartan, making it impossible to see anything.

And that identification and 'type' are straightforward: All the guys whose ACs are in my hand right now.

Anyway,

Ken