Out of curiosity, these two Canonians, did they knowingly bind demons, or did the demons deceive them?
The Old woman was deceived, but for Imanito Mendax ex Jerbiton, I cannot say.
For Imanito, that should be left to SG discretion. GotF is quite explicit that the SG should be able to choose whether or not Imanito should be a fullfledged incarnation of Evil, as in White Wolf Iberia, or just humanly crooked. I had not noticed the familiar though.
The Old Woman I do not know.
2 Likes
The old woman is from the Provencal tribunal, she is the head of the Sorginac. I forgot her name, she is the head of the cult of the black madonna.
1 Like
I like familiars the way they are. I would also like to have an awakened talisman as a familiar or even a mundane spouse as a familiar. I would not mind if the rules were expanded to allow the current rules for familiars to apply to either of them.
I can imagine myself playing different characters with each type of familiar in situations where good stories come from each respectively.
In my game the familiars were run as NPC's by either the person who was storyguide at the time when the familiar came into play or by the person who caught the metaphorical ball and ran with it. The familiars have behaved as actual characters with their own goals which sometimes caused trouble for the magus and sometimes was a boon.
Ars magica is a game with enough content that if I were to play or storyguide in a saga where familiars had been removed I would not be lacking for story material either.
If I were to go with this approach I would do the following: Treat the order of hermes as if it was, in a sense a large mystery cult. I would either treat OoH lore as the appropriate mystery cult lore or create a new "OoH mystery cult lore". Then I would make it so that inititation scripts for initiation into the familiar would be something that was known to exist and circulated around among those who cared to delve into the familiar mystery and as such was widely available to any interested parties. I would probably make the ability to bind talismans and or mundanes as familiars into mystery scripts too.
1 Like
I'm sure it's possible to get away with it. Whether it's easy to get away with it is a different story. The game is clear that the Order is ruthless about this: "This provision is the most strictly enforced of all high crimes. Magi are absolutely forbidden from knowingly making an agreement with an infernal agent. The infernal is seen as the greatest threat to the security of the Order. Even the most seemingly benign agrements will almost certainly result in a Wizard’s March. The only possible defense is ignorance that the creature was a demon." - This defense probably couldn't even be invoked when you've made the demon a litteral familiar you spend every awake hours with.
You point out Sense Holiness and Unholiness as a virtue. I'll point out to that same virtue to say that the weakness in hermetic detection spell means that any mundane with it is likely to become a priority companion for any quaesitori, any demon hunter, and indeed, possession of the virtue probably results in a mundane possessing the virtue getting the shortroad to being promoted to some form of status in covenants fearing demons. Further, you don't need to succeed at DC 15. You merely need DC 9 to say "there's something infernal in the area" to probe further investigation. How many time can a magi enter a room at the same time as a suspicious infernal smell before he develops a reputation for it? Beyond that virtue, Infernal Lore exists and since a demon usually can't act against its nature, an infernal lore check could be enough to either identify the demon, or to have a serious doubt about the nature of the familiar after some time observing the creature. Probably not casually, because I expect at that point the familiar to have been enchanted to hide the most obvious elements of its nature. But it doesn't fundamentally change the fact that if you're binding a demon, you're making a conscious decision to always be one NPC skill check away from a march, and whether that skill is easy to use or not, you should probably be smart enough to avoid putting yourself in a situation where those skill checks happen too often. I don't expect, for example, that this magi would be able to attend a Tribunal meeting for several days to vote on tribunal agenda and litigation without being detected as an infernalist, unless he leaves his familiar behind. There are just too many people arround with special virtues and knowledge of the infernal. If he spends most of his time in a lab, and his covenant mates don't ask too many questions, he can probably get away with it for a long period of time like those magi you quote. Most likely, at some point though, he has to corrupt or control his covenant to better protect his secret. Then again, if he is up to binding a demon as a familiar, that was probably on his agenda anyway.
The familiar is actually not currently a demon - it's a very unpleasant faerie (pg 74 of Faith and Flame). It does have a strong potential for turning into a demon (and the stats for it are given in that form on the basis that that's what it's likely to be should its stats become relevant), but she's not currently at risk of being marched for binding a demon as a familiar. (A bunch of other things, on the other hand...)
1 Like
To echo a lot of people, I would not get rid of familiars. Real-world culture and myth are ripe with animal beings that assist and protect - from ancient Rome to witchery to even His Dark Materials. I LOVE pet classes, so I will always want a familiar.
I could see someone maybe getting initiated into a Cult though of a different style familiar - or maybe something associated with Verditius in which they can acquire a talisman-familiar, as mentioned. But to whole get rid of them I think is removing a great part of the game.
And for me, I think you can give Bjonaer a familiar and it isn't "game-breaking" -- maybe making it require more Vis or something - or the familiar has to be tied to their Heartbeast or when they shapeshift, they fuse together.
In terms of role play, I like the idea of letting another player role play my familiar - or even the SG - but I would need to have conversations with the player. But I have never had any issue playing my familiar separately from my magus -- I just see it as a companion and create a whole psyche for them.
Thanks everyone for the feedback; this had been quite helpful to think this through.
By reading you all I'd come to realize that there is no reason to toss Familiars away just because I don't like them (mostly by realizing that a lot of you are quite fond of them, so I'd have to assume that players will be too, and cutting away stuff that players like sounds like a terrible idea), and that instead of cutting nice, working rules out, I could just follow @Euphemism's suggestions,
So that's it: instead of getting rid of them, I'd just add more options (to awaken and bind a Talisman as a Familiar), assume that the way to do that works somehow like a Mystery Cult, and that the knowledge of it is nowadays known for all magi, so each can pick their choice. Regarding which ability should replace Mystery Cult lore, I was first tempted to use Order of Hermes Lore, but honestly I think hermetic theory was already covering this, so I'm inclined to pick Magic Theory.
So let's say that there are two (at least, because another similar one to bind humans could exist as well) "initiation scripts" that allow magi to bind Familiars or Talismans (or humans). They work somehow like mystery cult initiation scripts, except that they don't provide mystery virtues (well, there is the True Friend one, but working the initiation to get that virtue seems odd). The initiation total, instead of Pre + Mystery Cult Lore + Script Bonus, would be Int + Magic Theory + Script Bonus, and the target could be 18, as for self-initiating a minor virtue unknown to the mystagogue. And the script would have a bonus of 13 (+3 Quest (finding & befriending the familiar / attuning the Talisman), +1 sacrificing material (vis), +3 mystagogue sacrificing time, +6 ordeal (unable to have more Familiars or other kinds of familiars, except when the current one dies / is destroyed)). So any magus with a MT of 3 and an Int of +2 could follow these scripts right after Gauntlet.
Which is just a complicated way to let anyone take the option that they like, after all, but I think its worth trying to make this all work under RAW rules, even if its HR.
That's also why I'm tempted to replace Int with Pre anyway to make this consistent with the rest of the initiation rules. In that way a magus with a Pre of +0 wouldn't be able to get a familiar until his MT goes up to 5, which seems reasonable considering that the magus have to befriend his familiar (and to be honest that must be easier with a magus of Pre +2 that with one with Pre -3).
3 Likes
I am happy to have been helpful to you. Here are some thoughts I have on your reply.
On the face of it this sounds reasonable. However it seems to me that you are making a mistake here. While it is reasonable to assume that if most people on the forums like familiars, then most of your players will too. However you dont have to rely on making assumptions about your players, since you can ask them. So I would suggest that you base your decision on whether to keep familiars in your game or not on certain knowledge about the preferences of your players rather than reasonable conjecture.
I have always assumed that mystery cult lore and by extension initiation rituals are primarily social rituals rather than magical ones. That makes sense to me given that initiations rely on Presence not intelligence, and it seems to me that mystery cult lore involves a lot more social knowledge than it does knowledge of true facts about the world. That would be knowledge of how the cult views the world and how its social rituals function and why (again why from a social perspective).
This conclusion is why I suggested OoH lore as opposed to Magic Theory. Magic theory is IMO primarily what we would, in modern terms, call a scientific skill, in that it covers knowledge of how the natural world behaves. OoH lore on the other hand is a lot more social, it covers knowledge of how magi act in a social context, what their social rituals are.
From a more practical viewpoint, in choosing Magic theory as the relevant skill you are making a decision that Bonisagus' theory is inherently mystical and that magi Bonisagus are simply better at granting themselves virtues.
I am not sure I would allow "the sacrifice of the ability to bind more than one familiar" as an ordeal flaw on a ritual that grants the ability to bind one familiar as opposed to zero. This is IMO kind of like arguing that an initiation script granting a Magical focus could have an ordeal flaw of "can only have one magical focus" or allowing the lack of ability to cast non-ceremonial spontaneous magic counts as an ordeal flaw when initiating "Mercurian magic".
2 Likes
I'm late in the thread, but I think that the "game" reason why early ars magica introduced them is that, well, a familiar is archetypal for many wizards, and it's a great way to make a wizard's magic and personality more resonant. An evil mage specializing in deceit might have a snake. The over-reaching Flambeau? Obviously a fire-breathing dragon (see Calebais). The clever Intellego-specialized Quaesitor might have a raven with the power of prophecy. And so on.
I'd point out that in the Harnmaster game "familiars" are ultimately just (one) type of wizard's "focus" (an enchanted talisman concentrating and amplifying their power) specific for wizards that specialize in the magic of life. This goes into the same direction Euphemism pointed out: have each magus have one "thing" that is the external manifestation and focus of his power, with unified mechanics regarding intelligence, ability to focus one's magic etc.
A nature-based maga might certainly have a noble beast, like Merinita's stag. A Flambeau specializing in parma, aegis, and defense in general might have ... an impregnable castle? A Bonisagus specializing in Mentem might have a weighty tome, or a library. Or a tome that holds an entire library within itself. Or maybe his "thing" might be an intangible theory, like the Hermetic Theory of that Bonisagus.
A bloodline.
A sentient blade.
A magical forest.
Etc.
1 Like
Actually the idea was that the binding of a Familiar (or a Talisman, with this extension) is quite a widespread practice based on magical procedures that it could well be integrated into Magic Theory by 1220. Also the intention was to throw in some numbers without really breaking anything (that's also why I included that +6 "ordeal" bonus) so any magus at any point could get a familiar.
I mean, the idea was to avoid a new player to come and make a just gauntlet-ed magus and try to get a familiar as his first goal with me replying "oh well, you'll have to learn a lot of OoH Lore to do that. Also you are going to pay hard for that -2 Pre you got".
On the other hand it really makes players consider characteristics min-maxing and makes players get OoH Lore, which are things I like.
Also the result of this "initiation" doesn't actually grant any virtue (...except True Friend, but honestly, that virtue alone seems short to describe the benefits of a Familiar). Though I guess it would all be even more streamlined if I also created some widespread mystery virtues that allows the bindings.
The problem then is that they probably would be Major Virtues and the scripts level would need to be too high to allow a high percentage of non-dedicated magi to have any kind of Familiar.
Seems like the kind of stuff I'd really get to: allowing these stuffs, and expanding the concept of Familiar to allow bonding with them the way RAW allows bonds to a Familiar.
In this sense, Bjornaer Heartbeasts could also be addressed in the same fashion: your HeartBeast is your "thing", and while you lose the ability to choose another, you already have all sorts of developments charted out by the wisdom of your elders.
And maybe ... for Holy Magi, the Divine is their "thing": they bond with it rather than with an enchanted castle or a magic stag.
2 Likes
I would argue that it grants a custom virtue that doesnt exist in canon, or rather is only implied to exist in canon.
Specifically it grants the virtue "can bind familiar". I know that in the canonical ars magica setting no such virtue exists. But I would argue that the virtue actually does exist in canon, it has simply been fully integrated into hermetic magic and no hedge tradition has something equivalent.
It is sort the same as what would happen to e.g. Second sight if it were integrated. Integration of Second sight would make it so intellego spells dont need to penetrate magic resistance. In all likelyhood if Second sight were to become integrated into hermetic magic it would cease to exist as a virtue after some time, becoming simply "how things are".
By taking out the familiar you are in essence de-integrating the virtue that allows for binding a familiar, thus restoring its position as a virtue in the game.
I get why you would want to do this. However creating an obviously invalid ordeal to grant a bonus is IMO not the best approach. The better approach IMO would be to grant a bonus, e.g. +6, for "almost integrated with hermetic magic". This would be a custom bonus but IMO it creates less confusion.
I get why you want this, I would want the same. However I think the better solution is to make mystagogues widely available. It has the added benefit that it encourages players to seek out more advanced magi to learn from, and introduces (hopefully) interesting characters.
2 Likes
For what's worth, Folk Witches can have familiars -- that help them in their "kitchens".
1 Like
Agreed.
... and Sahir have Khuddam (tC&tC, p. 41) though their assistance in the lab is only indirect.
1 Like