I was wondering, if you create an animal with magic (either ex nihilo with Creo Animal, or changing something else into one - say MuTe on a clay representation of the animal), and then allow it to reproduce ... what happens to the offspring when the spell expires? Are they just "normal" animals that remain in that state indefinitely? Do the revert to the pre-spell state of the parent (vanishing if produced with Creo, turning into clay if produced with MuTe from clay etc.)?
Unless there is a story imperative I would presume such creatures are sterile.
That's boring. That avoids all the fun metaphysical complications. 
The trick here is that it is a 50th level affect to create a magical animal and have it be real. Giving the spell a duration raises that level , to 60 or higher and so must be a ritual by definition. Ritual spells require Vis, so you are spending more Vis to get less animal. Obviously the mage in question is real close to Final Twilight. How do we know he's cast the spell at all?
My suggestion for mammals (and creatures with a similar reproductive process - since the term mammals may be rather anachronistic)
- The semen contains the finished being. That being expires with the spell if the created parent is male.
- If the created parent is female, it disappears at the end of the spell leaving behind the fetus/baby.
If the creation used vis, the animal is normal.
Reading my post, I realize how sick it is.
It also avoids all sorts of game-mechanics complications, when the same rules are applied to other, similar things.
This is the sort of ruling that can come back to bite the SG in the ass, depending on the type of players they have, and the SG is either forced say "No" arbitrarily, or allow their previous ruling to blow up in their face. 8)
IMAO
If it's been created without vis it cannot breed, not being 'real' in the sense of having an Essential Nature.
If it's been created with vis: it should be able to breed true well enough, assuming that it has a appropriate mate.
For my two small metal plates, magically created things can be causes of later effects and so they can breed provided the duration of their existence is long enough to match the duration of the pregnancy until the offspring quickens, at which point it is independent. Of course, Magi cannot create souls, which causes other, fun issues if they decide to breed the perfect serfs. Likewise magically created food can sustain you provided it has a remaining duration of more than several hours when you eat it. Surviving on magical food, however, does cause massive warping to the tune of 1 Warping Point a month. When the spells end, you don't become hungry, but in eating the food, you do become magical.
Wait - are you implying grogs have souls? I'm 100% sure that's never mentioned in the rules! 8)
Only newts have them. Everybody knows this
I know your comment is tongue in cheek. But grogs do have souls, and in many cases they are better people than most magi.
Ah - so when you turn your grog into a newt, that's a good thing! An improvement! Got it.
What if they get better?
Dunno about souls, but our grogs certainly tend to give out enough vitaility to feed a tribe of fey for a generation. The bimbling incompetent comedy value they provide is a real winner!
Frankly if I was a faerie, I wouldn't bother with magi, they are too dull compared to the comedy value of a disposable goon character.
Check if it weighs more or less than a duck?
Greater Laboratory Focus: a large pair of scales
(okay... it's been too long...
My two cents:
An animal created as a momentary ritual, with vis, is normal in all ways. It can sire young (whether by breeding, giving birth, or laying eggS), and the birthlings will be 'normal' in all respects. Its body/skin can be used for normal effects (feathers used for quill pens, cows can give milk, etc, and also normal).
If it's not a ritual (say a duration of Moon), then I'd rely on a couple precedents for ideas:
"If a mundane horse eats mundane food, it leaves mundane dung." The dung can be used for fertilizer normally.
Consider another aspect of Creo magic though: A tree's blooms cannot have seeds, as that would be true Creation. You'd need vis for that.
So I'd rule that something magically created cannot independently create unless it's made 'real' with vis. A chicken of moon duration can't hatch real chickens, a horse can't mate and produce offspring. I'd wonder though: Can you milk a moon cow (hah!) and survive on the milk? Can you still make delicious scrambled eggs from a moon chicken?
That's just my two cents. Actually, since I have more questions than answers, it's a penny and an IOU .
Jim
Pretty sure if you live on temporary milk from a temporary cow you are gonna die when the cow disapears. IIRC there is a passage that says explicity you cannot subsist on magical food without Vis. Then again that could be from older editions or entirely in my own head.
So does a creature created with vis have viable "seed"? Or is that also breaking true creation?
And if not, then that animal is not normal in all ways.
Hi,
Older editions were not explicit about stuff like this. AM5 is... and milk from a magical cow is milk.
Rain from a magically created cloud is real rain.
Shit from a magically created horse is... well, you get the idea.
The milk from a temporary cow is not temporary, nor are the puddles of rain from a temporary cloud, nor the piles of....
The milk is not magically created, even though it comes from a cow that is magically created.
This is a separate issue from the issue of the possible issue from a magically created cow. After all, when using CrHe to bring a plant into full bloom, the fruit are completely edible and nutritious, but lack seeds, which are separate substances. In a similar fashion, I could imagine that a cow lacks seed too. (This might only apply to bulls, depending on which philosophers we decide are right.)
Ruling this way solves a lot more problems than it causes (like what happens to all the grass that the magically created animal ate during the past month before it disappeared), and I think AM5 nailed this one nicely.
Anyway,
Ken
1 Like