I'm pretty sure that's not even close to what those foci mean. Magic is not intelligent, and foci pertain to the magic, not what the reason for using it is or the mental state of the caster (well, okay, if they cast a spell on themselves with a focus based on a certain mental state and the caster happens to share that mental state, it becomes relevant, but that's still something else entirely). A Focus in worthy causes relates for the most part to Mentem effects; making somebody consider a certain cause worthy, making them forget about a cause they consider worthy, that sort of thing. That's why such a focus would be Minor, not Major; it's not all that broad by itself. (Though the Houses cover a range of aspects each, so it's not a bad deal either.)
...huh? Where do you get the idea that "worthiness" is a state of mind as opposed to an objective criterion?
Isn't that(worthiness as a state of mind), in itself, an objective criterion?
A mMF is narrow, a similar discussion came up with mMF wands. You can read it as broad, and an mMF(wands) allows one to instill effects into their wand and it provides a bonus. Or you can read it as narrow, and only effects that affect the wand can have the focus apply.
I'm firmly in Lucky Mage's camp on this one.
I'm leaning towards the more narrow focus, as well: with a MMF in "worthy causes", that means you have magic to create, control, modify, destroy, or comprehend a worthy cause - not "all magics used in support of the cause". Those all sound like mentem effects, or some really specialized Vim effects ("summon spirit of Worthy Cause X").
Otherwise, that would be like having a MMF in "kings", and then trying to argue that your MMF should include every spell you cast while in service to the king.
"While in Service to a Worthy Cause" sounds like Beneficial Circumstance(?) - that minor virtue that gives you a +3 "while in thunderstorms", or whatever.
A general point on using & abusing the wording of virtues: poorly-defined/vaguely-worded ones allow you to argue the case to use the bonus more widely, but also allow more room for the Storyguide to argue the case against it applying. The time spent discussing this can slow your game session. On the other hand, tightly-defined ones make it a lot simpler to claim the bonus, but you have to accept there are a lot of times it won't apply.
Which do you feel is better?
Yes, but so is the inherent worthiness/virtue of a cause itself. Medieval paradigm, so goodness is most certainly objective (and defined by God).
It could go either way and the wording is utterly unclear. LuckyMage simply pulled a possible viewpoint out (that I hadn't thought of, mind) and asserted it as fact. (I imagine I'd probably use that
Yup. I said the virtue was broken. And now it's unclear, which is a different kind of broken. (That said, note that if you take a Focus in "kings" and then get yourself crowned...well, you probably deserve the benefits to Personal spells if you do that.)
In general, I'd prefer a specific virtue to have a clear definition. That way, you can pick what virtues you want for your character.
Sure, it (the cause) might be worthy, but the magic isn't always directly affecting the cause, is it? If it can directly affect the cause, then you might have a point, but this requires magic to be intelligent, and to know the ramifications of the spell. Just because a magus thinks that casting the spell is for a worthy cause doesn't make it so. And given the sinful nature of most magi, one could simply say that his spells are never for worthy causes, too. Problem solved, virtue invalidated. But that's not how I read the virtue with respect to Worthy Causes. YSMV.
I can turn pretty much any virtue in the game into something that's broken. Ars isn't balanced, doesn't pretend to be balanced, but what it does do is say that the troupe should discuss these kinds of things as they come up and determine what is reasonable for them. I see this countless times in play, someone comes up with something that they think the rules allow them to do, but doing so can invalidate other characters's concepts at the very same table. Is that reasonable? No. Do the rules allow it? Maybe, more often than not, it's an overly broad reading of the text that is failing to take some other rules into consideration. But the bottom line is that the troupe decides what is and what isn't broken, and if they work together they won't have to deal with these kinds of "broken" issues.
Uhh, there are a lot of virtues that do not have clear definitions, or can be read in such a way that makes their definitions muddy. Even more there are plenty of rules in other places that are murky, at best, or contradictory. There was a discussion I was part of regarding spell mastery for ritual spells and mitigating botch dice. Some believe that ritual spells can be cast without risk of any botch if you have one level of mastery and the casting situation is relaxed, while others (my position) believe that mastery only removes botch dice equal to the level of mastery. And the text later on says that you can cast spells with vis, if you are relaxed without risk of botching!
I said, "I prefer clear rules for what each Virtue does." Did you even read my post?
Oi. Right back atcha, pal.
There are a lot of things I prefer, I rarely get them.
Oh, aye. I was answering the question of the guy above me.
That's not what you quoted...
This starts to sound like it's going to brush up against the Limit of the Divine - attempting to affect Justice and goodness itself with magic. If that's the case, then you might be able to get away with Intelligo - again, getting into some wacky Vim effects ("Detect underlying fundamental aspect of reality"). Which, in and of itself, starts sounding a bit like Nobilis.
Hermetic magic cannot change fundamental nature, and sometimes not even temporarily warp that nature, but can most certainly detect it.
A creature's gender is considered fundamental, yet an easy InCo detects it.
Similarly, hermetic magic cannot change evil into good, but could in theory detect it... except what Form would we use? InMe can detect a good intention, but...
InMe would also detect the personality of a person. (This is assuming, of course, that you don't run into the Limit of the Infernal.) Determining whether such traits are positive or negative is the province of a Theology or Philosophiae roll.
This came up on another thread - but "Failed Apprentice" is a fantastic virtue...for your grog to have. It's a minor virtue, and covers a spectrum of "not having the Gift", anywhere from your Gift just not working with Hermetic magic, all the way to it being completely destroyed in a botched Opening.
At the least, it allows the character to act as a lab assistant via the core rules - and thus potentially adding up to +15 or so to your lab total. Depending on how you interpret the virtue, they may still be able to learn Supernatural Abilities as though they were Gifted, as well - although this version of it may kick their character from grog to Mythic Companion, as they are functionally just a Gentle-Gifted Hedge Magician, at this point.
Meh. It's great for a magus to have a grog with that Virtue, but if you're the grog being forced to help... Well, actually, being "forced" to work for somebody who is extremely powerful yet has a vested interested in your well-being is much better than being most of the other little peons known as covenfolk in Ars Magica. So I guess this Virtue is pretty great from every perspective except for that of a grog who happens to value his freedom more than top-notch safety and consistent health benefits like good food and magical assistance with illnesses so you're always in working condition.
... Huh. Yeah, even if all it allows is assisting labwork (and it could give you even more than that!) it's probably among the best Virtues. Until somebody declares War over your services and you get killed in the crossfire, but hey, can't have everything.
Well, the virtue does say that "Magi welcome you and have compassion for you - those who are given to such emotions, anyway." That suggests that the grog's services would be highly sought after, rather than compelled. And if they were compelled, the Wizard's War would be to rescue said grog, rather than force the grog to come work for someone else.
That being said - sure. It's functionally a Story Flaw, for a character type that isn't supposed to have Story Flaws. Ah, well - one could probably set it up so that the relevant Story aspects have already been resolved, and that the grog's service to the covenant was the result of that plotline.
Although if a grog just showed up with it, it's likely a quick justification for said grog to gain the Wealthy advantage, just by bartering out his or her services to the highest bidder.
It goes against everything I believe in to accept the existence of moral magi who consider the fair treatment of a human who isn't a Hermetic wizard worth more than +15 to their Lab Total. You would stymie the growth of the magical knowledge and power base for the sake of some otherwise essentially useless mundane whose thoughts and feelings don't really matter to the Order as a whole? Bonisagus would be ashamed! All of the Founders except Jerbiton and maybe Criamon would be ashamed! Criamon wouldn't be ashamed! That makes it even more wrong! How can you not see the selfish depravity of your actions in light of this [strike]anecdotal[/strike] irrefutable evidence?
Speaking of gaining advantages...
Can one gain True Love/Friend in play? equips friendship headband
On a more serious note, yeah, a grog who can help in labs and has a substantial Magic Theory score would be considered extremely useful by the covenant magi. Granted, I almost feel he'd be more likely to be offered Longevity Rituals and items than money, since he'll have a better understanding of "what really matters" than your average covenfolk. In which case all this Gifted and unGifted and Wizard and unWizard nonsense becomes even more of an adjudication headache... Divide by 5, divide by 10, regular Warping, irregular Warping, what kind of irregular Warping, regular Warping makes him nigh immortal with a good CrCo specialist... Yuck.
Well, to be fair - that's an extreme example; an experienced Failed Apprentice probably had Int 2, Magic Theory(lab) 7 - they're professional lab assistants, so their MT is probably pretty high. But that's still a +10.
And as described in Apprentices, most magi consider their apprentices to be the closest thing they will get to having children. As such, a failed apprentice is basically the magically-handicapped offspring of another magi - and the reason they're that way is because (probably) of something the paren failed to do. Mentally coercing one would likely be casus belli for a Wizard's War. Are there wizards in the Order who would do that? Sure - but it's the stereotypical Evil Hermetic Wizard, rather than the wizards I actually read about in the Tribunal books. Sure, some of them might do that - but they'd get marched if anyone found out.
Especially if you consider that the Failed Apprentice himself is probably working as a lab assistant anyway - after all, it's likely the only thing they're any good at, unless they've got some other form of training.
EDIT - also, consider that the only way to be cast out of the Order is to be Marched - and Failed Apprentices aren't. Therefore, there is likely some implied legal protections on them, stemming from their apprenticeship.
EDIT II - finally, consider the mage who targets a foe in Wizard's War, and succeeds in destroying his target's Gift. Should it be appropriate to then mind-control your ex-foe into being your enslaved lab assistant for the rest of their (un)-natural lives? In scenarios like this, I would imagine that the Order has "enlightened self-interest" in keeping Failed Apprentices (and magi with damaged Gifts) safe and free to do what they desire.