Sure - but the issue I have with this is "when does something become a tradition?" Just in my own life - I started working from home earlier this month. And every morning, instead of grabbing a cup of tea from the office kitchen, I now make my own in my own kitchen. How many times do I have to do that before I can reasonably call it a tradition? As near as I can figure out, the answer is "twice". Sure, it's kind of a crappy tradition that doesn't have much history behind it, but grammatically speaking it fits the bill.
To extend that: when does a solo (not very powerful) wizard with Healing and Dowsing, who has hermetic magic theory, become a tradition? The second time he calls himself as such? The first time he points someone else to the Path that he gained his own magic power from? The moment his village acknowledges him as a wizard? And from an in-universe perspective: why would that affect his ability to create a Magic Theory for his own personal magic?
Now, I fully concede that it's a lot more USEFUL if someone develops a Magic Theory for an entire group, so that everyone can benefit from it. But the act itself? Nah. As near as I can tell, it only requires a single drop of magical power, and enough intelligence to put the MT together.
Now, if your argument is "that's what the rules say" - then that loops us back around to there not being any rules for defining a magical tradition, except from a GM's "it's a convenient bucket" standpoint. So, ultimately - there's your answer. As long as the GM says you can do it, then it's perfectly fine for a single grog to try and create their own Magic theory for their own, newly-minted Dowsing/Healing tradition.
I'd be inclined to include at least one of a requirement to be able to reliably pass on the core features of the magic to count as a "tradition", and some feature that can't be gained normally outside the tradition (or another similar one).
For example, if you have a bunch of dowsers, who find other people who already inherently have the dowsing virtue, and teach them to dowse better, I'd be hesitant to call that a tradition. But if they can give the dowsing virtue to people in some way, or if they gain a Magical Defense from their Dowsing virtue, that starts to feel more like a specific tradition and less like a bunch of people giving each other xp.
I suppose you might also make an argument for having a specific agenda defining a tradition as well.
In-universe, there are few ways of reliably passing on core features of a magic system:
Initiation Scripts.
Magic Lore + paths
The Gift
So in this Exceptional Grog scenario - as long as he can point to the Path that he walked, he can claim to be a Hedge Tradition. But if he can't, then he's not a Tradition. I have issue with the second point, as "some features that can't normally be gained" is somewhat arbitrary. For Hermetics, stuff like that is developed via Magic Theory and experimentation....which a potential Hedge Tradition can't do until they're a Hedge Tradition. So, it's really just about what they can learn from their Path or Initiation script...which means that in order to become a Hedge Tradition, you need to have a unique Path or Script? That seems wrong.
EDIT - I agree that an INTERESTING hedge tradition has something unique to them that makes them stand out. But that's true for mystery Cults, as well: ie, some overarching theme that makes them unique, and perhaps a capstone power that's completey theirs and theirs alone. But that's not a requirement in-universe; that's just good storytelling principles.
Ignoring that part, I suppose it's fine from a game mechanic perspective (ie, it must be repeatable, as opposed to something the character was simply born with) - it doesn't make too much sense in-universe. Why would being able to reproduce magic in someone else be necessary to develop a theoretical framework of magic? Sure - from a personal learning perspective, one way of understanding something is by teaching it to someone else - but that's not what's going on here. Especially with the Path option, the Hedge Wizard in question isn't doing anything other than pointing a candidate in the direction of the local magical tree (or whatever.)
So, from a game mechanic standpoint, I think we're in agreement that there aren't any rules that define when someone's personal magical abilities become a tradition. Rather, a "Hedge Tradition" is basically a GM list of things that they should consider when putting together a non-hermetic magical tradition. It includes regular virtues and flaws and abilities, but potentially also includes unique features whose existence (like how you develop magic resistance) really isn't addressed except for GM fiat. Thus, the rules for creating a Hedge Tradition in HMRE are like the Magical Creature creation rules in RoP:M - they're perfectly fine as a toolbox, but perhaps not specifically to be used to set up your own, in-game Hedge Tradition.
With that in mind: can anyone think of a good reason to NOT allow the Exceptional Grog with a single magical virtue to define themselves as a Tradition of 1, and thus start in on developing a Hedge Magic Theory? Especially if they already have full access to the vast library that is Hermetic magical thought and practice. Because, again: as near as I can tell, this is how Hedge Traditions start.
I ask because this feels like a semantical argument - one that exists as a consequence of the book using labels (Iie, a Hedge Wizard is a wizard that is part of a hedge tradition, and a hedge tradition is a group of one or more Hedge Wizards), as opposed to one that exists in-universe.
I mean, we've got 2 competing theories here:
You can only develop a Magic Theory if your magical system has been around for a while and more than 1 person knows it and it is repeatable (and maybe has some unique features that somehow appeared), or
You can develop a Magic Theory for a set of Supernatural abilities that you know.
Of the 2, the 1st one is somewhat arbitrary and unclear. The 2nd one is more simple and, at least in my mind, fits with my understanding of what Magic Theory is: mystical Physics that provides a general framework of understanding of magical phenomena. To make its existence dependent on a group existing for an unknown period of time without any explanation as to why makes it more akin to being a part of a Mystery Cult organizational lore.
HMRE p.16 requires a Hedge Wizard Researcher to be a HMRE p.12 Hedge Wizard from a hedge tradition. Start from these early definitions of External Relations Boons and Hooks from 2006, which make hedge traditions as small as they get:
In its introduction on p.5 HMRE just refers to this preestablished usage. A Tradition requires a group that shares and follows it. In particular, GotF p.37ff Walking the Path doesn't make one a Hedge Wizard.
That's just the introduction to Nomic with one's troupe, and to the life time supply of the SG favorite whiskey, I mentioned before. Besides such doctoring, there is no reason to declare the isolated practices of a grog with one or two Supernatural Abilities a hedge tradition at all.
Looking at some of the grog templates in the core book, I noticed that they have one of the only instances of an intrinsic Berserk virtue in canon. For a game about magic and politics, it makes sense for berserkers to be rare; a magus who can easily be goaded into slaughtering people and has trouble stopping is not only un-fun for the player, but possibly disruptive to his sodales as well. As it stands, Berserk seems to be more of a template for a magically induced status effect... and possibly a memorable feature for a grog.
So, has anyone here used that Berserker template? How well did it go? Any memorable stories out of it?
Berserk is a very iffy Virtue. So iffy that in my troupe we've been often tempted to make it a Personality Flaw.
First of all, getting into and out of "Berserk" status is not trivial at all; you might see several rounds of combat before being able to call upon it, and it can cause a lot of trouble when you don't snap out of it (or if you enter it only because you are frustrated). Having seen it firsthand with a PC grog, I can definitely say it can be a very, very serious problem.
Then, the bonuses it provides are meager. +2 to Attack, and (+2 to Soak but -2 to Defense). Note the parentheses: +2 to Soak and -2 to Defense is in most cases a net negative, since Attack Advantage carries over as a bonus to cause damage (the only exception are unrolled attacks, but they are rather rare). Puissant is much better (and there may be better Virtues still).
To be fair, Berserkr also provides access to Martial Abilities. But so does a free Virtue like Almogavar (from Grogs), and for sheer "effectiveness" I'd rank Warrior (50xp and access to Martial Abilities) definitely higher than Berserkr.
The descriptions you are giving refer to the smallest group that is worth Boons or Hooks to a Covenent. So...yes. I fully agree that a grog with a single supernatural minor virtue and hermetic magic theory and a desire to develop their own Magic Theory does not, in and of itself, rate a boon or hook.
And if we want to be extremely semantic, I fully concede: a Hedge tradition requires a group to follow and practice it. However, Hermetic definitions allow for one person to be a group: that's how "Target: group" targeting works, anyway. (unless you are claiming that target: group can't target one person.) Now, I do agree that's a silly argument - but that's the level of semantics we're in currently. But if you're going to require some magical (as it were) restriction on developing magic theory, then you need to use the magical definition of a group. Hermetic Magic defines a group as at least one person. Therefore, according to hermetic magic, 1 person can develop a magic theory.
Tell me what rules are being changed, and we can continue that discussion. Because if trying to clarify a rule means that we are, by definition adding rules, then we're both doing it.
I am claiming the following: that, absent any clarifications, the smallest group possible (in both real-world use and in Hermetic magic) is 1; so therefore, if one person decides to be a tradition, then they're a tradition, and thus can potentially develop magic theory. Ie - absent any ruling, there is no rule that restricts it. (Well, the smallest possible group is actually the empty set, but that doesn't have anyone in it to do the work, so it's a moot point.)
You are claiming that the above claim is some sort of addition to the rules and that the smallest group possible is 2; so therefore, 1 person by themselves is somehow prohibited from developing Magic theory, but the moment a second person walks a Path (or however they achieve that similar style of magic to become a tradition - which is also something you aren't defining), then ether of them can start developing it. Somehow.
Personally, I find your interpretation inconsistent with the theoretical (ie, set theory), real-world (ie, common use), and in-universe use of the word "group", and implausible as an in-universe restriction of the development of magic theory. My interpretation is also more simple, and thus is supported by Occam's Razor. My solution also solves the problem of "how do you create a Hedge Tradition", which requires only an application of "if the rules and/or the GM don't prohibit it, you can do it", which yours doesn't.
Kevin, we are talking about a tradition, not about a group here. And we are talking about creating a (Hedge Magic) Theory within such a tradition.
A hedge tradition in the sense of HMRE p.5 is defined first by common practices of magic, second by communication about these practices, and from that communication some traditions develop a (Hedge Magic) Theorythird. To create a (Hedge Magic) Theory you need communication within the tradition: even today, a lone scientist incommunicado cannot develop a worthwhile theory. If his scientific community (see in particular Thomas S. Kuhn'sThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions) is small, it must make up for this by intensity.
There are many works of literature representing the fate of an isolated individual's creative intellectual efforts: Balzac'sLe Chef-d'œuvre inconnu and Zweig'sSchachnovelle are world famous.
ArM's rules for discoveries in general stress the work of the individual, and set the necessary communication aside in rules like Covenant's p.96 Correspondences. But its authors in general know how research and the making of theories is being done - and in the particular case of creating a (Hedge Magic) Theory require a HMRE p.16 Hedge Wizard Researcher to be member of a hedge tradition. Neither scientific communities nor ArM5 hedge traditions can work, if they consist only of a single member.
One Shot - you seem to be in some sort of target lock mode, whereby you don't realize that your own evidence doesn't support your own position; or at the least, you're not addressing how parts of it do, but other parts don't. In particular, here's the actual text of the definition you're linking to:
None of these definitions actually fully match up with what you seem to be claiming. I am using the "An inherited, established or customary pattern of though, action or behavior" and "characteristic manner, method, or style" definitions. You seem to be using the "Inherited" part of the first definition, while ignoring the "or" that soon follows. You aren't even using that 2nd definition, unless you believe that magical traditions aren't allowed to use books. (Again - I fully concede that a Hedge tradition CAN pass knowledge down from generation to generation - simply that it's not necessary by the RAW in order to establish a character in one.)
There are other issues with your argument, but I'm not going to bother - you're arguing what you want to be true, rather than what the RAW cites as necessary. (Which is nothing, as Hedge Traditions, as described in the RAW, are GM-created bags of plot elements and game mechanics. You telling us your preference for what they ought to be hasn't changed that.)
I think the audience (such as they are) has a pretty good understanding of our positions at this point, and what evidence supports our claims.
The Merriam-Webster definition of 'tradition', not 'hedge tradition', is relevant for this, because it makes clear that a tradition in any case requires communication - and hence a community - to work or become established.
How about this? Hermetic Magic did not exist as any sort of a tradition to be passed on until Bonisagus invented his Magic Theory and along with it established the Arts that could later be passed along. He developed his Magic Theory heavily based on what he learned from distinctly difference non-Hermetic sources. So it would seem it is possible in canon to develop a theory of magic for a tradition prior to that magic being passed on through a fully developed tradition.
Nonsense, give a sufficient number of grogs a sufficient amount of longevity potions and eventually they'll turn out the works of [strike]William Shakespeare[/strike] Bonisagus. RAW.
Actually...yes. That's the concept I originally had in mind - except replace "longevity potions" with "Creo Mentem specialist handing out mental virtues to a group of University graduates who were interested in learning magic." Add in a Path to Folk Magic, and you've got a Hermetic Project: bring magic to the masses!
There are numerous plot points that need to be set up, of course: researching the relevent paths, recuriting the university graduates, building up the CrMe spells, (probalby dealing with the Cult of Heroes if they find out what you're doing), getting the Grog Research Cooperative up and running, figuring out the relevent balance between learing Folk Magic and Theoretical research, etc. And then dealing with the consequences of your success. (dozens or even potentially hundreds of wizards with hermetic-level abilities in their hyper-specialized bailiwicks, running around not being part of the Order, all of whom understand Hermetic magic as well as any Bonisagus.)
Note that even by itself, Folk Magic is actulaly an OK supplement to Chiurgy, Herbalism, and/or Medicinae. (Diagnosis and Recovery auras, basically; I think +3 is a reasonable bonus you can get out of it. Add in warding if you want to keep away low-end demons of disease.) So, even if it fails, it still works decently if you want to spit out (slightly) magically enhanced doctors. Any additional insights that Hermetic Magic theory can add on are just extras.
Bonisagus is a paragon and heroic founder: he indeed developed his own tradition and his Magic Theory in parallel, bringing about the enormous paradigm shift defining ArM5's Mythic Europe.
Bonisagus certainly didn't work alone and in isolation: instead he did all he could to first learn about the tattered magic of his time, and its traditions. Communicating with other magi was life-threatening in his time, but he tried very hard at it, too.
In his youth, he relied on texts about magic from his uncle's library. Then he studied with the conjurer Iozheza, who already hunted for the secrets of other magi, took Bonisagus to Egypt, and met his end in an ancient ritual performed by Osiris cultists there.
He searched in Ephesus for the lost Cult of Diana, then moved to Rome.
So his early studies netted him the magic and the theoretical writings of many - if not most - of the tattered arcane traditions accessible at his time.
But to fully develop his own encompassing tradition, Bonisagus needed to make his contacts with other magi less dangerous and thus feasible.
So Trianoma and Viea formed the first community around his Magic Theory, challenging and testing it, and making it leave its infancy.
The rest is well known: Trianoma contacted more magi, many of whom became Founders of the Order of Hermes and further contributed to its Arts and Magic Theory.
Indeed! Bonisagus had the Gift - and apparently a knack to comprehend many traditions of magic. He could study them all, lore and magic, check and compare them. Coming up with his stats, especially his universal knack for magic, would still require a lot of creativity. How did e. g. Iozheza 'Open his Gift'? Did he at all? Or were the remnant magic traditions of the 8th century far more belligerent, but less exclusive?
While Bonisagus could finally convince Trianoma and impress Viea, Balzac's Frenhofer went mad and died after the visit of Poussin and Porbus in his workshop ascertained his failure.
Hmm... I guess as far as Berserk goes, it's better to achieve it second-hand from a source like the tusks of the Black Boar of the Bog. I guess that's the easy answer to how a grog can become exceptional; have them gather magical power the "old fashioned" way.
Hello OneShot! While you are here, what do you consider the upper limits of an "exceptional grog" to be? I didn't think to ask you before... somewhat rude of me.
From my experience I would agree, that a saga's exceptional grogs develop in it. They can do so in quite surprising ways.
Our saga has Guy, an urbane Parisian student of Civil and Canon Law, hired through Marcus of Paris (TLatL p.86) as the covenant's legist. Guy's love to a traveling bard was not returned, so the Gentle Gifted mentalist magus in the saga could recruit him as an agent (HoH:S p.140ff): the magus wished to foil a bishop's plot by having Guy take major vows and become the chaplain and confessor in the covenant. That worked for now.
So Guy, now of course a Custos, is in charge of the covenant's day-to-day counter-intelligence, and of advice to keep the covenant from violating its legal obligations towards the bishop and the local count. Actually he also keeps adamantly silent about the confessions of his congregation: the magus who is his principal insists upon it.
Thanks a lot OneShot for attempting to bring this thread back on track!
As for thebluespectre: thank you too, and let me make explicit one thing that I believe was "implicit" in the original post. You can always make a grog "exceptional" through a plot device, e.g. by allowing him to find the holy Grail, having some Faerie God grant him his blessing etc. Being so highly saga dependent, however, I'd like to avoid this stuff if possible: I'm looking for "exceptionality" that can be "built in" the grog from standard character creation rules, even though it may take some in-saga time to produce its effects (e.g. a Virtue that allows you to create a rich panoply of magical items, or one that provides immense boosts to Adventure experience).
And thanks to everyone else too who's been contributing. One thing that I've seen so far is that there is some (pretty good) high-level advice. However, there's relatively little in terms of:
Nitty gritty details. "This Virtue is good" is one thing. "These are the Virtues that can help you, and this is strictly better than that under this particular choice of parameters" is another. More effort, but more reward!
Actual exceptional grogs, stats and all. Maybe not all stats, but all relevants stats: Virtues, Flaws, Characteristics and Ability scores... and, depending on the context, stuff like Age, Personality Scores, Reputation etc.
So, to give a feeling of what I mean for 1) above, I'll look at what I call "combat grog" Virtues. What Virtues would you take to make an exceptional grog "single warrior" (disregarding group combact)?
a) I think that a must-have Virtue is Cautious with . Botches in Ars Magica combat happen exceedingly often (at least every 10 minutes = 100 rounds on average). While a botch may be in principle survivable, number crunching shows that even a relatively capable opponent will often prove fatal when you botch a defense roll against him. Is anyone aware of other "botch reduction" Virtues applicable to combat grogs? All other such Virtues I can think of apply only to companions or magi (Ways of the , Mythic etc.) - which kind of make sense since companions and magi are less expendable.
b) Another Virtue that seems almost a must-have is an Affinity with . Slightly less effective than Puissant at lower levels of ability, beyond the 183xp mark that-'s a score of 8(3) - it seems to me it beats everything out there.
c) As for the "third" Virtue ... this is is far less certain. Puissant is good, but I think that Independent Study or Learn from Mistakes might be better in the medium to long term. I'd like some comparison between them and any other xp-granting Virtue. Tough, Enduring Constituition, and Large appear weakish, and so does Great Characteristic. An appropriate Faerie Blood Virtue might be nice (because extra age->extra experience, and it then opens the path to a Free Faerie Sympathy/Antipathy), but I'm not quite sure what to select. Any other suggestions?