Bear in mind that the Gentle Gift can be initiated just as the Blatant Gift can be obtained from Ordeals. Receiving it from teaching is not better or worst than receiving another hermetic or supernatural virtue from teaching.
I think it would be best to explicitly nail down that on purpose not everything is explicitly nailed down.
The Gentle Gift would be the perfect example: it should be pointed out to the inexperienced reader that the setting as described seems to imply it can't be taught, but that troupes should decide what can and cannot to suit their saga needs.
With this clarification, I'd also point out that some Virtues that are "related to Hermetic stuff" might be teachable in the same fashion, even though not strictly Hermetic Virtues, e.g. those related to Parma Magica, Finesse, and Penetration.
Well, I certainly wouldn't quibble with unambiguous ambiguity! 
Such certainty!
1 Like
I don't know, I might quibble with unambiguous ambiguity. I'm sure I'm uncertain where I stand on the subject.
4 Likes
I've already raised the possibility of dividing the current crop of Hermetic virtues into 1) "social virtues for members of the Order of Hermes", 2) "magical virtues for practitioners of Hermetic magic", and 3) "supernatural virtues for Gifted magic-users of any (or no) tradition", and while that's almost certainly too large a change to make in errata, dividing the classifications would permit a succinct statement of my preferred solution to this question: type 3 Virtues cannot be taught, though they can be initiated (this includes the Gentle Gift), and type 2 can be.
I'm not quite sure on type 1; logically they should be perfectly possibly to acquire in apprenticeship but also I'm not sure what Teaching would have to do with the process; most of them could stand to be story outcomes in an apprenticeship that's played out, I suspect.
I personally think making Gentle Gift a Supernatural Virtue is a really bad idea because of how it then interacts with Opening the Arts.
I do agree that some Hermetic Virtues/Flaws should just be general and not available to everyone, like Strong Parens. Meanwhile, I don't think there should be "Hermetic" Virtues/Flaws, but rather something like Tradition Virtues/Flaws. Traditions would have access to different subsets of those. This would fix a whole bunch of later messes, but it's way too much of a rewrite.
1 Like
Teaching Gentle Gift, say 2 years into an apprenticeship, at a point where an apprentice have not had other hermetic virtues taught, initiated, nor spontaneously found they had a knack for something hermetic is doable, though a sacrifice for a parens.
The fact that further hermetic virtues taught will be very, very difficult could also help keep the number of parens willing to teach Gentle Gifted or have another teach the virtue to their apprentice down. Many magi would find it better that their apprentice was taught Flawless Formulaic Magic, a Major Focus etc.
Thus I don't think it is too far out there to say Gentle Gifted (in general) should be teachable, there might be an increase in magi being Gentle Gifted, but will it increase from maybe about 10% of the order to 50-60-70% I highly doubt it - not enough magi place an emphasis on the Gentle Gift to make it to those numbers.
It feels more narratively fitting to require Gentle Gift (if not innate and present from the first and Hermetic Theory doesn't seem to have anything to say about why some potential apprentices have it and some don't) to be available via initiation into a Mystery than by training, however mystical.
It's valuable: there should be a price to pay.
If it becomes very common (even fifty percent of the Order common) then the isolated mage with no choice but to stick to the lab becomes less the default picture of the Order. Which could change the way the Order functions in Mythic Europe.
Honestly even with training I doubt it would get to the level of even 10% of the order. It might rise from being 60% to 70% of Jerbitons.
3 Likes
This teaching process depends a lot on finding an apprentice that has no existing hermetic virtues, and even with no hermetic virtues, it's not easy. You need a Good Teacher with Com / Teaching total of 6 (apprentice specialty on teaching) to teach a major hermetic virtue with also inflicting a flaw. This raises to a total of 9 with the first hermetic minor virtue. Beyond that, anyone but an ancient min-maxed teacher would be unable to do that teaching without also inflicting a flaw. Keep in mind a few things:
- An apprentice that only has one hermetic virtue, even if his virtue/flaw total don't balance out, won't necessarily make a very powerful magi;
- An apprentice that is given a major flaw in order to enable the major hermetic virtue is a character that could have been designed with the related virtues and flaws, unless he also possesses another major hermetic virtue.
- Both of those apprentices forfeited a season of teaching at 21+ xp that could have raised an art to 6 or higher to get the additional virtue. Arguably the art may have been more useful on a young character;
- An apprentice that already has a major hermetic virtue probably can't be taught the Gentle Gift without inflicting a major flaw, as a teaching total of 30 requires an extremely focused character to achieve (Base +3, Good Teacher +5, Single Student +6, Com/Teaching total of 15!, apprentice specialty +1) unless relying on apt student which would still require a Com/Teaching total of 10 on a good teacher with the apprentice specialty. The apt student scenario is more plausible with only inflicting a minor flaw;
- On the other hand, that apprentice could be initiated through existing mystery cults no problem at the cost of a season, for example The Avenue of Surrender and the Station of Service to Harmony in house criamon, or through a non-house mystery cult (typically while adult I guess).
- In almost all cases except perhaps an apprentice with no other hermetic virtues and either of good teacher / apt student, going through a mystery cult initiation is usually an easier path to transmiting power since you don't have to deal with penalties for existing virtues, and you can stack script bonuses other than an ordeal.
- It seems to me that while focused teachers that have the gentle gift probably exist in House Jerbiton in particular, that might be open to fosterage offers, the mystery cult option is the most plausible route for a magi intent on spreading the gentle gift among his sodales than becoming a highly focused teacher who gambles on finding apt student apprentices, or apprentices without hermetic virtues. He may even get away with transmiting the gentle gift without spending a season of teaching, provided someone else is willing to the teach mystery cult lore or a book can be loaned.
I really detest the idea of teaching Gentle Gift. To me it is one of many symptoms of a deep rooted problem with this game. There are rules for everything, and it leads players to assume that their magus also can do everything. Advancement becomes available à la carte, and the story turns into a shopping spree.
For that reason I would err on the side of not allowing teaching.
Gentle Gift is, to me, an inherent property of the individual's manifestation of the Gift. It is a part of who the magus is, and not what he does, and therefore cannot be taught. The way to develop that virtue, if any, is by mystery initiation, which should be a much more powerful manipulation of energies than what teaching can do. The advantage of going the mystery route is that having the virtue is not enough. You also need a script, which run in cults that have their own agendas, and make demands on their members. In other words, initiations do not come à la carte, but only as part of a parcel called cult membership, and therefrom stories develop.
Yes, I know that I speak against RAW on this matter. I do, however, read the canon rules on teaching as optional. They are there to explain how apprentices can develop the same virtues as their masters, and should really only be used for that purpose. And yes, there is the point of teaching results of breakthroughs, but that stand to me as a very special case.
10 Likes
I respect your vision of the gentle gift being a more fundamental part of the nature of the magi than other hermetic virtues. I'm not sure I fully agree, because opening the gift can warp existing virtues into something else (e.g. someone who has an inborn supernatural power to manipulate water will often end with Puissant Aquam after), and the teaching is really just dumbed down mystery mechanics that are less restrictive because the apprentice is less developped, much like teaching second sight is easy before opening the gift, hard after opening the gift, and almost impossible after teaching a few arts without an initiation. Is Gentle Gift a more fundamental part of the apprentice's essential nature than Second Sight? Perhaps, perhaps not. Games may differ on this. I also disagree that this is "advancement a la carte". Finding a teacher that can do this as part of a fosterage can lead to all sorts of demands and stories, much like a cult, except they're less likely to be about dancing naked by the moonlight during Samhain night in a druid grove, and more likely to be about finding the magi and earning his favor somehow. Still, I don't see anything wrong with disallowing it for a game. Much like you're not obligated to have a dozen mystery cults looking for PC initiates.
I feel very much the same way about this. I don't like virtues becoming a Smörgåsbord the way it is with feats in the game that shall not be named.
1 Like
Honestly I have a bigger issue with how research and to some degree initiation scripts are developed, where the goal of what virtue to develop seems to come from nowhere in game- my player read a virtue in a book he wants so his magus is doing original research to develop a virtue he shouldn't even be aware exists? The whole goal oriented pulling information from nowhere is a bit much...
1 Like
That is just the deeper problem that I was talking about. And of course @temprobe is right that advancement à la carte is just not the result of the rule being available, but much more about attitude. The extreme case that we object to is the player who reads the book and expect the feature to be available in the world because it is in the book. However, every option available in the book fuels that attitude, and the more options the rules give, the harder it becomes to manage expectations. Mystery cults are exceedingly prone to abuse, but also among the easier rules to contain, by defining only a limited number of cults and being clear that they are not defined by the magus who benefit from it.
The problem that I see is the common problem of drift. Expectations push limits, and limits pull expectations, and it takes a harsh GM to avoid a power bonanza. Troupe style play makes that even harder, because every player sits on both sides of the screen.
2 Likes
Yeah, I've had to make retroactive changes to an associate storyteller's adventure loot at least once, so I understand the feeling. It takes a stable hand to achieve balance in a campaign, and I share your and silveroak's approach of reminding players that the existence of published books doesn't mean we have a catalogue of mystery cults we can contact for virtue procurement. Mind you, I also think having a given level of an appropriate lore can be useful to justify whether a character might have heard of clues or legends, or read a book that helps him try and seek out a story. Whether that story works out as he intended is case by case.
Funnily enough, I've also been in situations where I as a player tried to slow the gamemaster down and make things harder for myself, and keep the RAI / RAW. 
As you can guess, at some point I accepted that the campaign power creep wasn't my fault. Not that the campaign is less enjoyable, mind you, what really matters is the story and that story is fun. There's also a point where fairness comes into play, and if you know the gamemaster is regularly ignoring a rule for his NPCs, you start to consider that a house rule that you can benefit from too.
1 Like
I generally think Mystery Cults should be something of a player-level discussion at the front of the saga if possible. “I really want my maga to have heard of and seek out the Philosophers of Rome.” Then having heard of the cult can be part of the backstory. In one saga my maga is doing exactly that, seeking he Philosophers of Rome but the SG also wanted to include the Dama Matres & Matrones plot (I think he is making some changes but I don’t know what those are) so she will llikely also be recruited to that plot since she might seem a perfect choice to induct into that cult and Dama is bent on increasing its size and reach.
1 Like
as long as the discussion does not take the mystery out of the mystery cult, it is a good thing
1 Like
The mystery of the mystery cult is the stories (and the friends/allies/enemies) you will make along the way. Not the “I want my character to find a cult that initiates X particular virtue or virtues that let me do X” at a player level before game begins. It is no different than say taking a story flaw in that it is a way to communicate some of the direction you would like to go with the character. And, as we both know, a particular player can be unhappy with the choice we made as the SG in how that story flaw was enacted (as in a certain sense surprise, mystery, etc).