FAQ Updates - January '07

Games Discussion Ars Magica
21

I second that.

To what extend the ArM setting adopts Aristotlean metaphysics is a choice. I use it to a large extend. Partly because ME is neither a fantasy setting nor a non-fictional one - and my experience with roleplaying (especially sci-fi) is that both players and SG need a basic idea on how the physics of the setting work. Secondly I use it because it adds a lot of flavour.

Yes, Aristotle and many of the other classics had disagreements - not less surprising since many centuries divide many of the classic philosophers of antiquity. But what of 'disagreements' in terms of whom ME leans on? To me that is not so important - go for what suits the mechanics and the feel and mood of the way you want to run the setting - to me it is not an absolute that it has to lean on Aristotle.

Now, concerning Aristotle and the notion of respiration. I quoted Aristotle on this subject mainly because the quote was very fitting. But there is more to than that. First of all you might find the same notions on breathing expressed by Plato, Galen, Hippocrates or Avicenna etc so quoting an aptly fitting Aristotle does not necessarily put it at odds with many of the other authorities. Secondly 'Aristotlean' is the term most often put on pre-renaisance medicine as many of his ideas on the field gain supremacy even though other classics might have been closer to modern medical science.

And to round of with the history on medical science on respiration. The notion of the bodily humours survived well into the renaissance - and to some extent further. The notion that respiration, just as sweat, urine and snot, were to relieve the body of excess humour was connected to this notion. Respiratory diseases was just another unbalance and in terms of anatomy the heart was not really conceived as a pump (even if Galen had first hand gladiatorial experience with circulation) but rather either the place where blood was produced or a certain 'fire' - from which excess heat was passed through exhalation.

What genuinely challenged this notion of breathing only happened during the renaissance - mainly due to the new knowledge gained from dissections. This not only led to better insight into anatomy - it also posed a lot of questions to established medicine. Some of the most crucial strides in terms of disproving the bodily humour approach to respiration was done by a British trio in the 1660'ies. Centred in Oxford, and turmoiled by the English Civil War and the Commonwealth, an adherence to the 'new science' (although riddled with alchemical traditions) was appearing. Robert Lower inspired by Christopher Wren (best know for his architecture) succeeded in the first blood transfusion*. Richard Lower did extensive dissectional research to find proof that excess humour was or wasn't exhaled. Since excess humours were believed to travel to the brain and then onward to respiratory canals Lower did a fair bit of experimenting be injecting milk into the base of the skull to see where this would end up... In the end he formulated a thesis on circulation that shattered the notion of the humours; that respiration was not so much about exhaling something as in fact 'impregnating' the blood with a nourishing substance. Thus he laid the groundwork for a modern notion of respiration.

Richard Lowers** work was enforced, and the notion of 'impregnation', by his contemporary Robert Boyle. Boyle is most famous for his advances within physics and chemistry, but one of his discoveries furthered medical science. Inspired by German inventor Otto von Guericke's work with vacuum and helped on by his associate Robert Hooke Boyle succeeded in making a functional air pump. He soon noticed how both a candle and a mouse or bird simultaneous extinguish and die. He had established and proven asphyxiation.


18th century painting of Boyle and his bird.

This is all a very interesting tale I could not help but tell. The main point however, is that the notion of respiration was very different prior to the renaissance, and that arguing so in terms of the middle ages is no philosophical longshot. Whether you use Aristotle or not.

*A French contemporary physician, Jean Denis, who was a member of King Louis XIV's staff was working along the same lines, but since his work centered on an animal-to-human transfusion it would later be condemned by the medical society aswell as by the Pope.

** Richard Lower genuinely having a life long obsession with blood, for the better of all future people, it comes as no suprise that he was actually born and raised in the Cornwall town of Tremeer..!! :laughing:

22

Neat story Furion, thanks.

This is the sort of thing that should be in an Ars Magica Encyclopedia.

The Pea of Hunger is using the Creo rules on ArM pg 77 "...magically created food only nourishes for as long as the duration lasts, and someone who has eaten it becomes extremely hungry when the duration expires."

Creating a single pea and inserting it into a feast shouldn't cause the person who ate it to be hungry when the duration expires, but this rule could be seen to say that they would be. The intention, as I see it, is to speak to a person who only or mostly ate magical food.

23

This is one of the main reason why (even if I'm personally in favour of interpretation A, Magically created food is nutritious for as long as it lasts, and if a character fully digests the food before its duration expires, then he suffers no ill effects when the spell ends, even if is lless supported by letter of RAW, but I would settle with interpretation C-1, as a reasonable compromise, Magically-created food is fine as long as the spell lasts, then treat the magical food as never having existed) I would interpret that RAW quote as meaning "when the duration of the magical food expires, it is as it had not been eaten in the first place; it is nourishing as long as it exists, but no longer". If someone consumes a little bit of magical food amist a sufficient diet of normal food, it is no big deal. If someone subsists on magical food for a whole month, after it expires, it is as he had starved the whole time. This would allow to apply the hunger as directed by the RAW, and avoid the obnoxious Pea of Hunger problem. No supernaturally induced extreme hunger, just mundane starvation from sudden deprivation.

I suggest that maybe a remark should be added to option C-1, to indicate that using this option would avoid the problem of magically created food used as a devious form of poison.

24

A reminder that any magically created Food , Water or Air of the non-Ritual type will not penetrate Parma ,
might be in order.
Magi may create it with a higher than Zero penetration if they do not want to lower Parma to eat , drink or breathe.

25

Worth noting that the most common of all sorts of vis is Herbam vis - and that allows for a lot of grain... And I've yet to find any great use for that sort of vis for anything else (our covenant allways has a lot to spare)...

26

Commonality of types of Vis , is there a quote in the Raw for this?
My impression was that it was particular to an individual Saga.

27

There was in previous editions. Not in ArM5 that I can recall.

Cheers,

Xavi

28

I second this suggestion, too.

As far as I remember, ArM 5 has consistently skirted from giving any hard data about (and nailing down) the absolute or relative commonality of any type of vis. It is only stated that the Mercere vis exchange system regards technique vis as more precious than form vis, but this seems to come more from increased demand than any difference in abundance. A wise development choice, if you ask my opinion.

29

this is just a quick note to say I'll be updating the proposed FAQ answer for magically-created food, but I don't have time to do it today.

30

I would think Vim vis is the most common by far, since you can pull that out of an aura.

31

I think it is a genius thing that the RAW makes no notion to what is most rare of the different sorts of vis. The Techniques will clearly in a zero sum situation be of higher value since the are more broad spectred than the Forms. Vis availability is such a fluid yet easy way for the SG and troupes to shape their setting.

As a sidenote to Vim being most proliferent - you can certainly argue so, but it is no hindrance either to set it as low or lower than other sorts of vis. You might simple rule that Vim vis very rarily crystalised naturally into raw vis and thus the majority of it is in fact the pawns gained from exactly that: pulled and distilated from an aura.

32

OK, so it's February now. Time for me to wrap this up.

The main area of revision is, of course, the magical food question. Here's my second attempt based on feedback.

Is temporary, magically-created food nourishing?

<introduction to the subject not changed; omitted for brevity>

Opinions in the community seems to be divided approximately equally between three choices:

Magically created food is nutritious for as long as it lasts, and if a character fully digests the food before its duration expires, then he suffers no ill effects when the spell ends.

The rules don't explicitly say this is possible, and in several places they seem to imply that it's not. This option should be considered more of a house rule than an interpretation of the rules-as-written.

The principle is that magically-created things can have effects on the mundane world that outlast the spell's duration. A magically conjured horse leaves hoofprints on the ground, a magically created fire can burn down a house, so logically, magically created food should have its normal effects on a body after being fully digested. After all, once digested, the food is gone anyway, so its disappearance may not matter.

There is a precedent in ArM5 for a magically-created substance being able to sustain life without need for a ritual: the spell Chamber of Spring Breezes (page 125) explicitly states that it creates breathable air. It could be considered inconsistent that non-ritual magic can create breathable air, but not nourishing food.

Someone very knowledgeable about medieval medicine might be able to say whether, in the Medieval Paradigm (with a big "P"), food merely nourishes the body or whether it is actually converted into bodily humors or something; the FAQ maintainer is not qualified to discourse on that subject so he'll offer no conclusion one way or another.

This interpretation (as stated above, it's more of a house rule) would have significant effects on play. Magi would not really need to grow or buy food at their covenants if a Moon-Duration, non-ritual spell can create food that is nourishing for all practical purposes. This has implications for both the economics of covenants, and for the fantasy flavor of the setting. On one hand, such a ruling could open the door to abuse if magi decide to make a living selling magically-created wine or foodstuffs. On the other, it makes a lot more sense for magi to take up residence in the midst of a tangled forest or in a lonely tower on top of a mountain if they don't have to worry about where their groceries come from.

Magically created food is not nourishing at all (unless created by a ritual).

This essentially is interpreting the CrHe guidelines on page 136 to be correct ("...food created is only nutritious if the creation is a ritual...") and to overrule the sentence on page 77 that says "...[magical] food only nourishes for as long as its duration lasts, and someone who has eaten it becomes extremely hungry when the duration expires."

One advantage of this approach is that the Troupe doesn't have to worry about difficult questions coming up in play. If characters try to live solely on magical food, it's pretty clear what would happen (malnourishment, weakness, eventual death).

This interpretation is consistent with the legacy of past Ars Magica editions, where magically-created things of all kinds (water as well as food) were ephemeral and in vague ways partly unreal.

The drawback, mainly, is that under this rule magi can't use magically-created food to skip more than a few meals in a row. This could be seen as a hindrance to adventuring magi, especially those who undertake long journeys into desolate areas. Some troupes may not want to bother with magi being tied down to details such as where their next meal is coming from.

Magically-created food is fine as long as the spell lasts and causes a problem when the spell ends.

The section on page 77 is a lot longer and more detailed than the rule on page 136, and this interpretation can be seen as giving more weight to the page 77 rules.

This interpretation immediately leads to another question: what sort of problem does the character suffer when the magical food expires?

The answer may depend on how much normal food, compared to magical food, the character ate in a given period. The rules on page 77 say that the character becomes "extremely hungry;" it's not clear whether this implicitly assumes the character had eaten only magical food for a considerable length of time, or whether it's meant to imply extreme hunger is some kind of side effect of eating any magical food. (An extreme interpretation is that extreme hunger must result from eating one magical pea amid an otherwise mundane diet; though people who read the rules that way generally seem to prefer a house-rule "fix" rather than actually playing them that way.)

Some players treat the magical food as never having existed, once its duration expires. The character is treated exactly as if he had not eaten it. If this had been one meal, several days ago (and the food had a Duration of Moon) then the character may not even notice; if he had subsisted entirely on magical food for weeks, then he would be severely weakened by hunger or might even die of starvation.

Others take a less scientific approach and say that if the character ate (a sufficient amount of) magical food, he becomes supernaturally hungry when the spell ends. Presumably he needs to eat approximately as much real food as he had consumed in magical food, all at once. This has more of a fantastic feel, and some players prefer it for that reason.

It has been pointed out that feeding a character on magical food could be a subtle form of attack (causing malnutrition or starvation when the spell ends). Opinions are divided, though, whether that's an abuse of the rules or a great story seed for some devious NPC plot. In either case, feeding magical food to magi would probably not work, as their Magic Resistance would keep out the magically-created food.

33

It probably is at that... My thinking it to be the most common probably relates to the fact that myself, and those I play with seem to find it far easier to find reasonable sources of renewing herbam vis than any others (It grows in plants, you know...)

34

SirGarlon, your post seems to touch all the major bases, and add some thoughtful examples as well. Good job.

35

I agree with Angafea - you did a really good job. And boy I'm glad that I wouldn't have to do something similar - not only because of the volume, but because I would have a hard time not over-arguing my own side :slight_smile:

That being the case here's two things would challenge my neutrality if I were in your shoes:

To me the issue of non-ritual air sustaining life, while not allowing food or water to do the same, is perfectly consistent. I've presented the arguments for this elsewhere, but in short that air does not sustain your life as in providing anything; it does so by being a medium for you to get rid of heat or excess humours. The concept of oxygen, or that the body takes anything from the breathed air, wasn't established until the 17th century and at that time is was a novel thought in conflict with established medicine. That being said, I understand why you bring this passage - in terms of streamlining the rules it is inconsistent.

Personally I think this is as much an argument for the opposite. Disregarding whatever happens when the body draws nourishment from food - if the food disappear or at least is changed into bodily humours or energy et cetera, then it is at that moment that it A) doesnt exist anymore and thus cannot nourish; or B) it is at that exact moment that the Limit of Energy steps in - magic cannot create energy and thus the magic food cannot nourish. And since only ritual Creo food is non-magical all else will fail to nourish.
Other than that your fine arguments are in fact in some ways moving my own preferences a bit from the 2nd option toward the 3rd...

I know it has been mentioned before, but reading your explanation and the sheer volume of it reminds me how this ought to be errata'ed by Atlas. I dont think this is a new change or some such but a question of the RAW being self-contradicting and needlessly vague. Thus it falls within the realm of errata. On the other hand I'd probably stick to my own stubborn take on it anyway.

I guess I have to admit to having a OCD on Ars Food :open_mouth:

36

Well, I'm just about to upload the new entry. I made one more change in response to Furion's comments. I think he brings up a good point about how air may be used completely differently from food under the medieval paradigm, but I don't have enough background (or interest) in medieval medicine to endorse or rebut that position. So here's what I've decided to say:

37

The section in Creo , page 77

A magical process (the horse) can convert real (nourishing) food over time.

If a mundane horse was fed on magically created food for a year ,
what happens when the spell expires?

During the time that the horse eats only magical food , it excretes as per normal.
Is all the waste matter from the horse , solely based on the magical food ,
going to disappear when the food duration ends?
Or is some of the body being converted and replaced by the matter from the magical food?

In the first example (the RAW) , the horse , over a year , has its magical body become mundane by eating mundane food.
Why does the ingestion of magical food not convert to the body of the person/creature eating it?
So after a year solely on magical food , when the spell ends , so does the body , as it no longer contains any mundane matter.

38

Sorry for having brought extra grief to your doorstep on this. I think the present entry looks fine. I know that having to charter between different opinons on things like this can be a challenge, but I think this result is fine - presenting equal arguments to the possible positions. I guess it is to you, as much as it appears to me, that the FAQ isn't about either making a consensus or decidinig whats 'most' right, but to present the issues so that people, who'll all have different preferences, can get a set of approached so select or get inspiration from. With that in mind I think the present entry does a very great service to all!

As a sidenote it is not as if I am dead certain on medieval medicine -I know far too little on that generel field to claim so- and I think even the notion of 'the' medieval concept of respiration is in itself self-deceit. The main point is that this concept of respiration is something you can find with some of the ancient philosophers, with medieval scholastics refering to them, and for certain something that the new scientist of the late renaissance were struggling against. And as such, and because it is very logical and eloquent in a mythical medieval way, it is nice rationale for those who'd like to differentiate between creo air and creo food or water.

Hmm. Ravencroft, I think the story of the dead magical horse has been mentioned a couple of times in the main thread on magical food. The problem is that it is another clear case of being absolutely unclear! :smiley: In the sense that the example has been used by both camps in the discussion. Your argument is very logical. Problem is that others have argued equally logical on the very same example but to the complete opposite conclusion.

Luckily this thread isn't about arguing the subject further -if we would we could reincarnate the former one- but only to discuss how best to make a neutral description of the issue.

All this, and the amount of time Andrew had to put into balancing the FAQ text to me only goes to show that his issue really could need an errata. At least I don't expect that the confusion was intentional from Atlas' but rather just a self-contradiction in the RAW that made us all interpret ourselves to migraines on it :laughing:

39

Unfortunately I think the issue is more involved than simple errata could solve. We'd be talking about adding or revising several paragraphs to make the question perfectly clear, and errata are more like one-line fixes.

At some time there may be a supplement similar to the ArM3 and ArM4 Wizard's Grimoire(s), which is where complicated questions like this can be settled. Until then, there's the FAQ for unofficial answers.

My own opinion is that page 136 is an editorial mistake and page 77 are the rules we are meant to use; but don't take my word for it, use what you think works best for your saga.

40

That would make page 121 an editorial mistake as well.