How to play a Bjornaer

So do demons, faeries, angels and lots of other stuff. So let's toss away whatever is written in the Realms of Power books!

It's kind of odd how well you understand the original quote but not the point I was trying to make.

Sorry, what!? Where did I said anything about allowing Greater or Lesser Immunities once?

I thought we were talking about Puissant Art, which also quite literally says that can be taken just twice, pretty much as strongly as Magical Focus is stated to be allowed to take just once.

Immunities don't say anything like that. You can have hundreds of them!

Quite an odd example: I fail to see why would anyone get 4 Puissant Arts at once. Why not 8? Or 312? If we are going to play that kind of game, why not stacking them, and getting a +12 to an Art? Would that make any sense?

Huh? I'm just pointing out that they had already considered that initiations would happen. Also, the core book is the only place for gaining Virtues via Twilight. So they were clearly aware of multiple possible ways of gaining Virtues later when writing the core book.

Now you're flip-flopping. They don't say you're allowed to take them more than once. So you are only allowed to take one (of each, as Lesser and Greater are different Virtues) at creation. If you can have hundreds of these, then why not ten versions of Imbued with the Spirit of (Form)? Meanwhile, Puissant Art allows more than Lesser Immunity at creation; it's less restrictive.

For example, you have four enriched Object of Virtue in your Talisman. Puissant Art is always available to a Hermetic magus enriching an Object of Virtue if the Art is available for a bonus with that material. So let's say your Talisman gives Puissant Animal, Puissant Corpus, Puissant Rego, and Puissant Vim. You touch your Talisman, and you are granted all four simultaneously. Which two do you get.

Hi,

I am being selective. I don't think 'arbitrarily' in the colloquial sense, though I am arbitrating based upon what I think makes sense.

I cannot be at all certain it's RAI.

EDIT: When I wrote the previous sentence, I was thinking of a different 'it' than what you were referring to. To be clear, in my previous post, I said that I believe it is RAI that initiations (and twilight) can cause a magus to exceed one Major Hermetic Virtue or five Minor Flaws. The rest is not about RAI.

But I can be nearly certain that the rules we have for initiation did not exist when AM5 was first released, because of the abortive attempt at this in GotF. I can therefore be equally certain that when organizing the rules about virtues and flaws, no one was thinking about how these rules will play with initiation. They know Initiation will happen, just not how.

At this point in the game, I think the only way to get new virtues is through Twilight, in which the player gets the virtue the GM or group thinks is appropriate, not necessarily the one he wants, which makes things very easy. Groups that want to do weird things can do so, but most will add a virtue that does not require any special rules beyond "there's more than ten," and in a sense not even that special rule since the rules already allow it.

But again, I'm being subjective. I'm saying that these rules are all in one place and barely hint about what to do after character creation because I believe the authors did not organize these rules knowing the future. Because I don't believe the authors had any conscious intentions in this regard, or are unconsciously infallible, I do not think there is any knowledge to be gleaned from pondering why all of these rules are listed together, the way one might ask the deeper significance of why one law in Deuteronomy is adjacent to another, especially if it might better belong somewhere else.

I'm also saying that allowing multiple copies of a virtue after character creation but not during character creation seems absolutely silly to me. What purpose does it serve? None that I can see.

In short, I'm saying that your interpretation is just as valid as mine. You like it because you want to treat all the text in that box as applying only to character creation. I don't like it, because I think it's silly, and not in a good way.

  • Not allowing virtues and flaws to be taken multiple times unless explicitly designed that way makes equal sense during character creation and after for the same reasons.

  • Having either exactly one Social Status or a set of obviously compatible Social Statuses makes equal sense during character creation and after for the same reasons.

  • Limiting a character to only one Story Flaw except with explicit group agreement makes sense during and after character creation for the same reasons, one of which is explicitly listed.

  • Limiting a character's Personality Flaws again makes sense for the reasons listed, and these reasons apply throughout a character's life.

All the other stuff is per character type, and if I wanted, I could argue need not be considered the same way, but do not want to take that approach.

Instead, I'll simply note:

  • Limiting a magus' virtues and flaws to 10 is completely arbitrary, but setting some kind of limit makes sense during character creation but not afterward.

And now onto specific issues you raise:

In my previous post, I said that I believe it is RAI that initiations (and twilight) can cause a magus to exceed one Major Hermetic Virtue or five Minor Flaws.

We can talk about this if you want, but I consider it irrelevant to the question of whether a character can take a virtue multiple times, RAW.

Indeed! That's exactly what I did. Your reasoning legitimizes every case in that bunch of cases.

If I adopt your rule that a magus can take a virtue more than once after character creation, then a magus can reasonably do this with any of the virtues I suggested, because that's what your interpretation does.

It didn't happen because you cannot be granted this virtue four times.

And a Criamon interested in the Path of Strife will have to kill the Primus if he already has the Blatant Gift? Ooh, worse, a character who starts off as a Pious Criamon is also going to have problems, or are you going to let him take Criamon Piety twice? And what about a Disfigured Criamon who wants to tread the Path of Seeming? Or a Criamon with an Impious personality flaw (can he really be pious and impious at the same time even if he is a Criamon?)

Using Criamon as a general example is fraught with peril, because they are deliberately weird. Nevertheless, all of my examples as well as yours can be handled well using the normal rules:

  • There might be an alternate script.

  • An existing script can be modified using the rules for varying scripts.

  • The character might not be eligible. It makes sense, for example, that a character with too strong of a personality might not yet have the emotional availability to make the necessary full commitment to the House. Sort of the way William of Wonka weeds out potential apprentices with Major Personality Flaws (and had a variant script involving the Sacrifice of an everlasting gobstopper.) If this is the case, a good GM ought to talk to the player about this. A player might still be on board with this, and with the help of senior magi in the House, have stories in which he might tame that wild personality flaw that is an obstacle on his Path.

In a similar way, a character who is already permanently blind will have a hard time completing the final Huntress script.

So yes, there is a general issue of characters possibly not qualifying for an initiation script.

That issue is not a problem.

Anyway,

Ken

Side question : You are speaking of "Objects of Virtue", where can I found what it is and what rules it follows ? I only know of Beast of Virtue.

What I meant is we have a bunch of rules together in the same box, and saying some of them can be ignored while others cannot be ignored without citing anything specific that selects some rather than others. What I meant by "arbitrarily," is that this is being done without cited guidance from the books.

Except the core book itself disagrees with you.

The game mechanics for progressing in a mystery are extremely simple: the character takes on a General Flaw, usually Minor, and in return gets one or more Virtues. The Flaw represents the sacrifice he has made for access to the deeper power... (p.92)

There is also this bit about picking up Supernatural Abilities, but it's not explicit that it's via Virtue. That is implicit from the prior quote.

Mystery Cults can often avoid the penalty due to prior mystical abilities through their initiation rituals. (p.166)

Yes, the method changed, as shown with GotF's part you mention, though I'm not sure it was abortive. I think it was a super-simplification to allow for what they knew was on the horizon. They already had the rough approach from The Mysteries, but they hadn't yet written TMRE. They wanted to include initiations without going into the full details yet. That's why they wrote

Full details about the mysteries of those Houses and other organizations will be published in future supplements. (p.91)

Sure. I'm just looking for some reference that lifts any one of these restrictions. Until we see that, lifting several and not a last one is being arbitrarily selective.

It actually doesn't do what you say. For example, taking Life Boost a hundred times doesn't give you anything different than taking it once. For the same reason, if you're Tough, you're Tough, and we can repeat it a hundred times and you're still Tough. Just like with Gift of the Bear's Fortitude, there is nothing saying identical isn't repetition rather than stacking. So, no, my reasoning doesn't legitimize all those. Meanwhile, Skinchanger (Bear) and Skinchanger (Wolf) do not do the same thing.

Yes, you can, and simultaneously. That is canon. I explained it above.

Yes, Objects of Virtue and enriching them are in RoP:M.

Found it, thank you !
Do you have any idea of a Ritual to create Objects of Virtues ? (Like creating a magical beast)

Nope, though you certainly might be able to devise one. If you have access to a Mythic Alchemist who is good enough, you might be able to convince them to make one. It would take some vis (in addition to what's in the Object of Virtue) to transform it from being just an object holding vis into an Object of Virtue.

What do you mean by "Mythic Alchemist" ? My maga is learning the way of Hermetical/Philosophical Alchemy, but I dont see how do the Object myself.

Mythic Alchemy (HMRE and somewhere else) is a Major Virtue that extends what's in A&A, boosting it and adding some guidelines. These additional guidelines are need for this sort of thing, as regular A&A alchemy via Philosophiae is insufficient.

Hi,

Ok, the 'first stab' that I thought was in GotF is in the core rules. (Which is why I said 'I think.')

Even so, this in no way affects my overall point, that changing the number of virtues and flaws you have after character creation is different. Maybe even strengthens my point, since even in the core rules we have at least one way to gain vfs and even exceed the limit, but absolutely no way to break the rule I consider different.

Another way to look at it, the book explicitly presents ways to exceed the limit on number of vfs. Therefore, these ways are allowed, RAW. It does not explicitly say that you can take the same virtue twice. Therefore, this remains prohibited, RAW.

Yeah, I tend to forget those rules because I don't like them. Still, my point remains: RAW explicitly provides ways to get more virtues after character creation. RAW never explicitly says that you can generally take a virtue or flaw twice.

So I don't know about RAI, but RAW seems to agree with me.

And I hope you're not going to argue that the rules don't explicitly say that you can't take a virtue twice after character creation, so therefore you can.

Whether the initiation rules were a placeholder, or whether there was some disagreement and discussion about how to handle them, I don't know, so 'abortive' might not be the right word, except insofar that rules for this were presented in GotF and then effectively left by the wayside once Mysteries came out, though the GotF rules still work and can be used.

It's being selective, except not arbitrary but thought through. Furthermore, RAW already established exceptions for increasing the number of virtues, but did not establish any explicit exception for the other stuff.

Sure, because LB lets you spend fatigue to get +5/pt.

Why? Tough increases Soak by +3, so if I have it twice, I can add +3 twice, for +6.

I know you want it to work that way.

But why can't it mean that I'm twice as tough?

And CrMe and CrCo spells that improve characteristics clearly and explicitly stack.

Just like with those spells, there is nothing saying identical isn't stacking rather than repetition.

So you are cherry picking spells. So am I! But that's my point: The way I describe minimizes arguments based on cherry picking.

But even if I go with your cherry-picked spells, I'll still say that comparing spells and virtues is not analogous, because they are not the same thing. Spells are limited by their guidelines; virtues and flaws have no such restriction. Spells usually say how they do something; virtues and flaws do not always.

And again, my point is about playability. Not only do I think my version of not allowing virtues to be taken a second time to be closer to be RAW, but more importantly, I think it is a vastly superior way to rule.

I don't want to have a conversation during a game about how and if virtues stack when there are no rules for it.

I'd rather have that conversation during character creation, if at all.

I can see no reason to allow stacking after character creation but not allow it during character creation. (If I had to allow it in one place but not the other, I'd rather allow it during character creation, so the discussions can happen early when a player can easily change things around if rulings don't go as expected.)

FWIW, I don't see a real problem with allowing Tough to stack with itself.

And I also don't see a problem with, at the beginning of a saga but even during it, getting a quick ruling on whether a virtue can be taken twice, provided it is understood that the default is that they cannot, and a demurral should not be argued.

Because I think a chimera with lots of Magic Blood who does not need an LR is kind of cool. And why not be very tough? Or have (Strong) Faerie Blood from two conflicting factions? Or even have two Heartbeasts, and probably a Dark Secret?

But I don't think those are the rules.

I can argue that neither does Tough. The first one increases your Soak by +3, and the second by another +3.

You mentioned it, but I did not see the explanation.

Anyway,

Ken

1 Like

Yes, but if you look more carefully, does RAW ever say you can get past 10 points (10 + free Virtues, which includes from the House) of Virtues without being a Mythic Companion? No one has yet said that. They keep assuming it for the limit of 10 and other limits, but not for this one limit. Show me where RAW says starting with a full 10 doesn't stop you from gaining more. Show me where RAW says you can have more than one Major Hermetic Virtue so that starting with one doesn't stop you from gaining one later.

Really? If it's explicit, you should be able to find it. And do note, while you look for it, that a spell that has ended is no longer stacking with anything.

You misunderstand the math. You're making an assumption that is not necessitated, and you don't seem to realize it. What does Tough's statement mean? Does it mean your score is +3 higher than without Tough? Or does it mean your score is +3 higher than without that instance of Tough. As that's not defined, assuming one to say what you are about my statements is just a logical error.

Hi,

I don't know if it explicitly says so, but there are explicit examples. For example, any Criamon path taken to its end.

grin I was waiting for this one. Indeed I can't, unless there is a magus writeup somewhere that has it. If not, a strict RAW reading would indeed preclude this.

For myself, I see no good reason why a magus should not start out with two majors, and I'd happily allow it during and after character creation. RAW, however, unless there's a counterexample, this restriction technically remains in place.

Ok, so you're saying that using CrCo to increase a stat up to +1 stacks if you're doing it as a ritual, but not if you're doing it with a duration? Me, I'm saying that the guideline explicitly sets a limit, and it's not 'beyond the original characteristic,' so that other than the spell duration and possible warping for long-term effects, the spells do exactly the same thing.

You're making an assumption too. My assumption is that the virtue does what it says, adding 3 to Soak. So if I have it twice, I follow the rule twice, so x+3+3 = x+6. That math looks straightforward to me. Soak = Tough(Tough(Soak)). You're saying that I can have the virtue twice, but then assume that the Soak referred to in the virtue is always the original Soak, even though the virtue says no such thing.

Fortunately, ruling that one cannot take the same virtue twice does a great job preventing conversations like this at the table.

Here, it's something to do during lockdown.

Oh, then don't do that! I can also enchant an item four times to kill me four different ways when I touch it. How do I die? Or if I enchant the item twice to turn me into a wolf and into a bear when I touch it. Do I become a wolf or a bear? Or if I enchant it to teleport me to both Madrid and Cairo? Or...

Anyway,

Ken

Hi,

Just to be clear, I'm not saying or suggesting that a conversation with you is not worthwhile. On the contrary! I hold you and your opinions in high regard. Even when I think you are very wrong, I also think you are at least wrong in an interesting way.

But this is not the kind of conversation that does a game well.

That's part of what I meant by 'playability' even before we really got into it.

Anyway,

Ken

I dont quite see the problem here and I lost the start of the argument.
I was looking for clues to play a bjornaer. I mean, actually play a bjornaer, not a debate about logic based on a sentance or a ambiguous wording in the books or in each others answers.
I you want an external view : you are actually politely arguing about mechanically unresolvable issue if you want them to be based on precise scriptures. Now, you can still "Debatio" about theological interpretation of the books, make your exegesis fight, but all your questions are in reality only to be resolved by a troupe around a table.

I'm not use to this forum and maybe there is a way to close a subject, but may I ask you kindly to maybe move your argument to a better place and a better suited subject, or going back to the actual playing of a Bjornaer ? I know for a fact that my fellow player wich play a bjornaer will not want to min-max and abuse any interpretation of the rules : if she wants +3 soak she will develop a MuCo bear-crown or a MuCo spell, but she will not try to abuse virtue or Initiation.

2 Likes

OK. Cool. I can accept canon examples as showing the rule doesn't persist. But you're not going to like this. There are canon examples of core-book Virtues taken more than once even when the Virtue doesn't say they it can be taken more than once. That means there are canon examples that break the rule "A Virtue or Flaw may be taken more than once only if the description explicitly allows it" just like there are canon examples breaking 10 points. So if we're accepting canon examples this way, then we must agree that V&F may be taken more than once even when not explicitly stated they can.

This is why I was talking about arbitrary selectivity. Everyone seems fine with this rule getting tossed but not with the other one stated in the same box.

You're saying the spells "explicitly stack." I'm reminding you that the Momentary Ritual has ended, so there is no spell present to stack with.

This is not is saying it "explicitly stacks," not even close.

No, I'm not making that assumption. I'm saying the problem doesn't exist until you make the choice you're making. I'm pointing out there is another choice that you've overlooked, and that if you make that choice, this problem will never exist. Therefore what I've been saying does not lead to this problem. What I'm saying only leads to this problem when you add that assumption to it, an assumption I've avoided.

Let me show you the other straightforward math: If I have Tough, I get +3 to Soak.

What does that conditional statement lead to? I'll provide an example. Without Tough, my Soak is +5. I take Tough once. The condition is satisfied. Now my Soak is +8. I take Tough 100 times. The condition is satisfied. Now my Soak is +8. The math is just as straightforward for both versions. Here are the two versions as conditional statements:

If I have Tough, I get +3 to Soak for each instance of Tough. (Yours.)
If I have Tough, I get +3 to Soak. (The other.)

Look in the book at Tough. Which one is it? You cannot tell.

It got lost above, but it's extremely relevant to your bear Bjornaer; I said it somewhere, but I'm not sure I can find it. Can that bear take Greater Immunity or Lesser Immunity multiple times when refining his Inner Heartbeast? That was the main reason I was thinking of it here.

Hi,

I'll defer to the OP and let the discussion lapse in this thread.

Anyway,

Ken

Yeah, rereading I remember the start. I just lost the flow of the argument !

As I said, I think when we come to this we will arbitrate at our table. I doubt our bjornaer will try to abuse virtues this way but why not ? If she put all her ressources into gaining more virtues and stack them, well, I guess our SG will let her do it. After all, all magus are powerful ! Maybe he will ask for each instance of a virtue a story explanation (going thru Hell to get immunity to fire, these kind of thing)...It will be fun either way.

In any case, I thank you all for all your answers. Even it can become over-the-top sometimes ( :D), it is really great to have many fast and precise answers to any questions :slight_smile: !

2 Likes

That's a pretty cool idea. I'm definitively stealing it. Also coming from Hell with a gift probably means that you'll have to pay for it hard.

Our SG made us a quite funny Covenant : we have 4 uncontrolled portal in the depths of the old rediscovered winter covenant. One for each Realm.
Going to Hell will be quite easy. Going back tho... maybe less. We are trying to think of a swimsuit for infernal lava : maybe the bjornaer -quite the barbarian-girl of the troupe- will accept to test it firsthand :smiley: