Familiars and the Price

The new rules in RoP: Magic says that magical creatures do not age. Familiars though age with their mage and die when the mage dies. This seems like a very heavy price that the familiar pays for tying itself to the mage.

Would any mage with the true friend merit and true affection needed for the bond want to condemn an immortal creature to die when they die?

There is also the issue that supposedly familiars can learn with their masters but with the RoP:Magic rules about creatures with might learning (might is subtracted from XP), this too seems to be prevented and blocked?

Am I missing something or was something overlooked with the book and its planning?

(why would any animal give up living in magic aura full time to go live iwth a mage when it would die as a result.)

I think Rop:M did not take familiar rules into account when it was designed. I would personally make familiars follow the core rules, not the RoP:M rules, and would furthermore let magical creatures age according to my taste (as a storyguide), in general.

Like said before, a better life is not a longer life, or else, people wouldn't commit suicide.

Instead of asking yourself what the familiar is losing, you could consider what he is gaining, be it from a rules or character viewpoint.


And it is so romantic.
Reminds me of

  • the Lord of the Rings
  • City of Angels

And I'd give up forever to touch you
'Cause I know that you feel me somehow
You're the closest to heaven that I'll ever be
And I don't want to go home right now

And all I can taste is this moment
And all I can breathe is your life
'Cause sooner or later it's over
I just don't want to miss you tonight
Commment: Is getting romantically involved with your familiar sodomy, if you give it human shape first? Think of all the lonely mages in their labs and all those lonely magical creatures in their regios!

Why isn't there any emoticon to express romantic feelings???

In a nutshell, it shines with story potential.

That's why lovers even today get 'Bunny', 'Kitty' and similar pet names. :laughing:

Who wants to live forever?

Who dares to love forever?
When love must die

But touch my tears with your lips
Touch my world with your fingertips
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today
Who wants to live forever
Who wants to live forever?
Forever is our today

Who waits forever anyway?


I agree with you a whole lot. Actually any attempt to use the advancement rules in RoP Magic leads to very bizzare results, in my opinion. I say build the familliar with RoP magic, but advance it with the core rules for familliars.
There's also an interesting difference between spirit familliars and regular ones; spirit familliars are unable to learn hermetic magic while other familliars are unable to learn any magic at all. An oversight or an intentended treat for spirit mages? Probably the former, but a pretty neat one in my opinion. Makes spirit familliars just a bit cooler.

I imagine that ageless, magical creatures don't often agree to become familiars, but if one does,I don't think it would suddenly start aging because of it. In my opinion, the bits in the core rules about familiars living as long as their magi are describing a benefit for those familiars that would otherwise die before their magi. It is not intended as a penalty for familiars that wouldn't otherwise die.

You can also give magic creatures the Age Quickly Flaw if you don't want them to be immortal, the way many of them are vulnerable to deprivation.

Magical creatures gain less experience each season as they increase their Might Score. For a typical familiar with around Might 10, they can still learn, but not as quickly as an apprentice or another mortal character.

Also, being a magus's familiar protects against Acclimation, more efficiently than consuming vis or living in an aura. A really powerful creature might have too much Might for an aura to protect it, but binding itself to a mortal ensures it doesn't lose its magic.

This puts a massively different spin on things, and neatly resolves our current moral dillema. Thanx :smiley: