Maybe it's a mobile covenant (if you assume that mobile boundaries etc. etc.)? You do get a Hook for that, plus a Hook for any type of problem caused by lack of Aegis that you want stories about. I agree that if you want to play through all the problems caused by a lack of Aegis, that's a lot of Hooks.
Or maybe it's a covenant of really, really hedge ex-miscellanea, plus a redcap, a Bonisagus with incompatible Rego and Vim, and a Merinita who thinks that the pests are just fun?
I love arguments like that.
I'm fine with simple (actually, there's a lower limit - please don't turn Ars Magica into Ludo. Or the 5th edition of That Other Game, not that the difference is all that great. However, I'd like the Aegis to work as intended, written in clear language. If that takes a 16 page booklet, not a problem. If it takes 4 lines, that's fine too.
I did say someone could come up with a reason, even with the lose of magical protection and being much more vulnerable. Without something like Mobile Covenant having to reason (and possibly HR) your way around the errata version of Aegis to use some Hooks is a reason to look at the part of the errata that causes the conflicts though.
In this case, the expelling effect of it which makes published hooks and story seeds difficult to use.
EDIT: This whole thing is an ugly can of worms that I do not know if a solution that will make everyone happy is even possible. We are talking about something that touches, directly or indirectly, twenty years of published material. What happens if we actually do manage to find a solution that everyone feels happy with, but in a few months someone finds a major issue with it that we did not consider?
Ok then, I had misunderstood you.
Well, how is Aegis intended to work? We read it "protects a covenant in the way a Parma Magica protects a magus", which is in line with what we read elsewhere about Notatus' work. Do you agree with that?
I believe we might be forced to go back to this...
While I would like a simple consistent rule, I do not think it can actually be done without unintended effects elsewhere in the published material. Such a major rewrite would best be saved for a possible 6th edition in which the affects of it could be taken into account while designing new material rather than trying to crowbar it into all the already published 5th material and possibly breaking things.
Time for another round of errata 
?
I am joking of course, but I think the point is that right now the Aegis is full of major issues.
Which are less evident, because it's written not very clearly, so everyone sees/interprets/houserules what he wants.
If we want to go the way "the less said, the better", than we might just remove all text, and write simply "the Aegis protects a covenant in the way a Parma protects a magus, but it also keeps supernatural creatures out. The troupe should decide the exact effects, but as a rule of thumb use the AotH's Level to gauge whether it's sufficiently powerful to protect a covenant from a supernatural threat". This would have all in agreement, but I would not like it very much.
Or we can define an Aegis precisely. There are certainly definitions out there that leave no ambiguity, and some are simpler than the current version. And they don't really break existing material. These will necessarily feel a change to some people, because everyone seems to be playing the Aegis differently. But I'd very much rather have a clear definition, even if different from what I have in mind, than a fuzzy "do what you like". Though even that would be better than the current "in case 1 do x, in case 2 do y, in case 1 (yes, the one above) do z, or maybe y, and for all other cases ... we're not telling you"
I believe you mistake my intent. It is not that there should be no errata for Aegis. It is that trying a major rewrite of it, rather than targeted clarification, is the "unworkable can of worms that breaks things".
Oh, I had indeed misunderstood you. It's that I view it the other way round.
In that case, let me make a proposal for @David_Chart : why doesn't he write down the Aegis not as it should be, or might be. But as it is, as written now, clarifying crucial cases like Longevity Rituals in the least intrusive, most "straightforward" way - even if it's clearly not the way it "should" be. A Karaite's reading if you wish.
I think that a) would already be a step forward, and one where no consensus is needed b) it should be possible to move forwards from there. Because it seems to me that attempting to leapfrog from the current version to a "good" version faces the inevitable problem that everyone reads the current version as he would like it to be, which he finds superior to the version proposed. The result, is that we are not making any step forward, even towards simple clarification.
David writing it out as it is right now, with clarification on crucial cases in the least intrusive way would be in the least a good first step. It might possibly end up being the errata used, but if it clarifies the outstanding issues then it would at least make things easier.
1 Like
My understanding of how it should e is that an aegis would resist someone turning themselves into a dragon (without being on the list of course) but would not resist someone who had turned themselves into a mightless dragon from entering the aegis. Essentially it prevents spells from being cast on things in the aegis, not prevent things with spells cast on them from entering the aegis.
I don't think there is a need to distinguish between a personal effect and a non-personal effect in terms of what Aegis suppresses. Either you've participated in the ritual, or you've been given a token, or you've not and the aegis suppresses it. I also don't think carving out an exception for enchantments that were not designed to require a range, duration and target or penetration (Parma Magica, longevity rituals, familiar cords, talisman attunement) requires an exception for all R: Per effect either. Parma Magica can be seen as explicitly compatible with the Aegis as these are both forms of magical resistance applicable to all, the later of which can be based on adapting the former's theory. And suppressing it would have the undesirable side effect of making visiting magi not only vulnerable, but affected by the host's gift. As for Longevity Rituals, Talisman attunements and familiar cords, they don't have the option of coming with a RDT. They are arguably linked to the essential nature of the magi, much like the Heartbeast, and could be excluded on that basis, or on the basis of being a fundamental component of hermetic life Notatus didn't want to interfere with. Note that familiar cords and talisman attunements are different from familiar and talisman enchantments, whether constant or triggered.
4 Likes
Quite. These are the crucial exceptions - and go a long way in making the Aegis workable again.
1 Like
Just to point out to the other side of the coin: I think that is, in fact, quite desirable, because it provides excellent reason for the hosts to issue an invitation to the guests. Not doing so makes the hosts feel praeternaturally rude!
(to be clear: I think that the Aegis should "oppose" a foreign parma just like any other R:Per magic - and in fact that it should oppose all foreign magic equally)
With the proposed “strong aegis” as written I would probably bow out of any game that didn’t house rule exceptions for things like the Parma Magica, LRs (and similar long-term and costly aging modifier effects from other traditions/sources), Familiar bonds, and Talisman Attunement. Particular effects invested into talismans and familiar bonds can be blocked or need to penetrate, no problem, but granting a token under these rules seems to require a measure of trust by both parties that means Tribunals will never happen within an aegis and I don't think that is a desirable outcome for play.
I would probably also want to continue to allow beings that were inside the Aegis at the time of casting to stay and not be forced out (related to the issue already pointed out with respect to certain hooks such as Haunted, Infested, Major Monster, etc.). Though I probably would not flat out decide to leave a game where the Aegis did that.
1 Like
I would say no to both. I don't see why R:Pers spells would be exempt from having to bypass the Aegis.
1 Like
With exceptions like ArM5 p.114 Magical Senses and HoH:MC p.27f Sensory Magic, R: Per spells may stay on the maga proper and under her eventual Parma Magica.
So it is easier to find/invent "technical" reasons to exempt the big four (Parma Magica, longevity rituals, familiar cords, talisman attunement), if you can also exempt these R: Per effects on the maga.
Many magi may also value their secrets highly enough to insist on an Aegis which protects their privacy: "No host must ever snoop - let alone dispel - what I hold underneath my Parma!"
This can easily become an issue of rank and precedence - like which knight and noble may keep his sword when and where. Think: "Journeymen, take down your Aegis! Murion is coming!" Enough for a civil war at the Rhine?
I doubt, that there exist Hermetic R:Per "I am completely undetectable" spells in the sense, that InVi magic could not detect them. So I didn't address this. Indetectable demons - like those hiding in energumens (RoP:TI p.32) - I'd like to keep.
1 Like
So of these, I would exempt the first three but the talismans only partly: as magic items, I would penalise is any other magic item for any spell effect, but the atunement bonus to spells, I would leave untouched.
I realise that it's kind of arbitrary, so I would have to hand-wave as mutter-mercurian-hermetic-integration-mutter.
2 Likes
The critical thing about the talisman attunement is, that - once dispelled - it makes you lose the properties of the item as a talisman. No more "considered to be part of you as long as you are touching it", no more "you have always an arcane connection to your talisman", no more Form resistance to your talisman, and in particular you also lose most capability to enchant it further.
This is big - and many magi will not risk it on the chance that their host revokes the invitation after an altercation.
Aegis of the Hearth Clarified
This is not supposed to be a change from the current rules-as-intended. So one desired form of feedback is comments on what you think is a change. It is supposed to be clearer, so another form of desired feedback is telling me where it is not. On the other hand, this is also not supposed to be the final form of words, so I am not interested in hearing about better ways of phrasing things just yet. Content first, elegant and concise phrasing later.
Any supernatural effect created outside the Aegis by an entity that is not native to the Aegis (see later) and directed towards the Aegis must Penetrate a Magic Resistance equal to the level of the Aegis, or fizzle out. The Aegis can block effects, such as some Intellego spells, that are not blocked by Parma Magica. This applies to effects of any Realm, and to those created by any supernatural tradition.
An active supernatural effect created by an entity that is not native to the Aegis must also Penetrate a Magic Resistance equal to the Aegis's level on crossing the boundary, or it is cancelled. If the entity carrying the supernatural effect (the target of a spell, for example) has Magic Resistance, the Aegis must Penetrate that resistance to have that effect. This also affects Hermetic effects such as Parma Magica, Longevity Rituals, Familiar Bonds, and Talisman bonds. However, the Aegis must Penetrate the magus's Magic Resistance to cancel these effects.
Creatures with Might are unable to enter the Aegis, unless their Might is greater than the level of the Aegis. This effect needs to Penetrate their Magic Resistance. A creature that is already inside the Aegis when the Aegis is created may remain within, although it is affected as below. If it leaves, it may only re-enter if its Might is greater than the level of the Aegis, or greater than or equal to the Penetration of the Aegis.
Supernatural effects created within the Aegis by non-natives are also limited. Sources that generate a casting total or similar must subtract half the level of the Aegis from this total. Sources that do not create a casting total, such as most supernatural creatures and enchanted items, must subtract half the level of the Aegis from their Penetration. Supernatural effects that have neither casting totals nor Penetration are completely unaffected.
Existing effects that have been able to enter the Aegis are not further affected.
Demons and similar spirits may enter the Aegis while possessing someone, without needing to beat the Aegis's Penetration, but they may then not use their supernatural abilities unless they or their vessel have been invited in.
There are special rules for using the Bjornaer Heartbeast.
Nightwalkers are unaffected by the Aegis.
Sources native to the Aegis are defined as follows:
Anyone who participates in the Aegis ritual. Any living, conscious individual can participate in the ritual, as long as they are present at the covenant.
Anyone who is invited into the Aegis by a magus (including apprentices whose Arts have been opened, here and below) who participated in the ritual. This invitation involves handing over a token, which must be retained in order to remain a native. The invitation may be revoked by any magus who participated in the ritual, and the token need not be reclaimed in order to revoke an invitation. Both invitations and revocations must be directed to specific, known individuals, and a magus cannot expel someone he does not know has been invited in. Both invitation and expulsion may be issued by the same magus, or by different ones.
Enchanted items that were created within the the Aegis by someone who was a native to the Aegis at the time.
Enchanted items that were within the Aegis when it was created.
If by canceled you mean destroyed/dispelled (rather than suppressed while in the Aegis) when talking about PM, LR, familiar bonds, and talisman bond then this pretty clearly answers all questions I asked earlier in the thread about the Aegis. I dislike some parts of it but will leave that for a later discussion.
Dispelling the familiar bonds and talisman bond feels like a change. The talisman is an enchanted item and other enchanted items are not disenchanted. The familiar bonds work like an enchanted item and can contain enchanted effects. They are also both created by a season lab activity enchanting them.
1 Like