Theory: Warped Conjurations

A simple question: Since the rules state spells over sixth magnitude can warp the target, and the target of Creo conjuring spells is the creature or object summoned, does the horse, sword, or castle you summon get a warping point when it appears? Realistically, this doesn't actually have any game effects, but I want to see if I can start a metaphysical discussion about it for ideas.

I think it is easilly arguable that the spell was created for the object that the spell created...


Also there is always some kind of warping if only because the caster's sigil is going to be embedded in the created target.

1 Like

Yes, but that is a trait if the object, not necessarily warping. If my Sigil is the color orange I might create an orange horse, but it won't have a warping score.

But if the spell is considered tailored to its target, then what if you cast it twice and you get two horses or two wizards' towers? A spell cannot be tailored to many things, can it?

I was considering looking into Creo guidelines and thinking that if they were like in the 3rd edition, which are the ones that came to my mind, then casting the creation spell would grasp that object from the Platonic realm into the mundane world, so being something coming from the ideal world would make it free of warping. But then I started thinking that while this rules checking could be fun it is even funnier to leave it aside and jump right into the metaphysical debate Racconmask asked for in the first place (er, post). So what a party of slightly drunk Bonisagus, Criamon and Tytalus would say about that?

One of them may claim the above, the item cannot be warped, coming to existence into a perfect, spotless state. Other might argue that what would it matter. It is not that it would come up with a big warping and a bunch of virtues and flaws associated to it, it would be something so subtle to notice, anyway less noticeable than the sigil, which after all is the usual way you use to detect if something is there because it was created by magic. But then maybe not just created items but all items in existence are somehow warped or waiting to be warped, not really having a warping of 0 or 1, but being in a quantum state of warping that only manifests in the form of a score once you measure it and collapse the quantum probability wave equation (well probably quantum physics should be rewritten a bit to fix into the medieval paradigm, but that's a job any Criamon can come up with, if not with something weirder). Or it could also be claimed that all objects are actually warped, but that it is concealed beneath layers of mundaneness that only wash away when you affect them with powerful enough magics.


The spell produced what the spell was designed for. Except for humans, which must be unique, and cannot be created by magic anyways, there is no reason that this cannot be applied to more than one physical object, so long as it is completely identical to the point of being the same thing. You have simply created the same thing twice.

If you create and object and then you create and object and then you claim to have only one object you are claiming that 2 = 1! My dear Maths are going to crumble down if you do that. Please don't do that or I will had wasted a lot of years of my life.

Now seriously (a bit more at least), they probably are different. Most spells allow some flexibility, and they shouldn't if what their effects were going to be the same. Take Conjuring the Mystic tower: you can craft the interior of the tower at the time of casting, so you can cast two Mystic Towers which are going to be different. I wouldn't consider these the same objects, just two objects of the same type. Not that they created durable spells to check but consider Pylum of Fire: if I cast them on two identical twins, if the fire they created were exactly the same, they should do the same damage, shouldn't they?

Had anyone actually checked that? We need two twins and a Flambeau.

I would not agree that silveroaks interpretation leads to a conclusion that 2=1.

Imagine a simpler version of conjuring the wizards tower. Lets call it "conjuring the wizards dining plate" it conjures a dining plate. The spell allows no variation in the created object save for the inclusion of the casters sigil. Say a magus conjures a plate, and then at a later date conjure another plate. If these plates are both realizations of the platonic ideal of the "dining plate" (whatever that is). The only modification allowable is the inclusion of the wizards sigil which will be identical because both castings were done by the same mage. Either the plates are, at the time of their respective conjurings, identical or they cannot both be realizations of the platonic ideal of the dining plate or the platonic ideal of the dining plate is not singular in nature.
If the plates were conjured at different times, as in my example they will have different histories so even though they will have weathered differently.
Even if the plates are identical, such as by being conjured at the same time, that does not mean that they are the same plate, they are simply exactly identical, they even have the same flaws, or more likely lack of flaws. There is no way to tell them apart not just practically but metaphysically.

On the other hand it would be very hard to argue that a spell which creates an entirely new plate was in fact designed to create a different plate.

Can you elaborate your point a little more? I am not sure how to apply your statement to my post.

At the time the plates are conjured, they are the same, even if they change later. how do you decide that the spell was created to create this plate and not that plate?

1 Like

Do you mean in terms of giving warping points to the plates? Normally to have a spell be created for a person or object that person or object must be present with the magus for the duration of the season(s) in which the spell was invented.

If the plates are same the plates, metaphysically, the spell is either created for both plates of none of them. If they are not the same, the most likely situation is that neither plate is true to the platonic ideal which then begs the question, how did the magus have either plate with him when he invented the spell?

I could accept some sort of explanation about how a magus could have "the platonic ideal" present in some magic-ey metaphysical sense and thus allow a spell that conjures something that is a literal platonic ideal made physical object to count as "the spell being designed for it" but if the conjured object is not true to the platonic ideal I am much more skeptical.

Honestly the whole idea of warping something which did not exist prior to the casting is absurd to me- if it is not a ritual casting it is irrelevant as it will not last long enough to matter, if it is, then the guidelines specify that it is created as wholly natural not Wholly natural except being warped due to its magical origins...

I agree with your conclusion wholeheartedly.

Besides being mostly irrelevant from the perspective of playing the game it is also very hard to justify within the framework of ideas that Ars magica is built upon.

I never really liked that platonic invocation Creo Stuff concept, but let's carry on (and @raccoonmask did explicity ask for metaphysics anyway): I think it is not an all-or-nothing business, using ritual Creo spells. The way I see it, let's say you can get close to the surface or deeper into the realm. So you are not going to invoke perfect plates, but perfecter or perfectless plates depending on, I don't know, your casting score, Penetration, wind speed, aura mood or sheer luck. This would be why some spells require Finesse checks for "more perfect" results.

So you took Mystic Towers away from me (by the way I don't see the point of that. To remove the spell explicitly allowed flexibility? There isn't any flexibility build on the spell's level, just a "+3 elaborate desing" that we could apply to our Conjuring the Mystic Plate, because we have a passion for truly complex plates. Which just by itself is proof that spells don't make "perfect" stuff just finger snapping, because if Conjuring the Mystic Tower creates a perfect tower, then what about a version with that modifier removed, or dialed up to +5? Wouldn't these be less and more perfect by themselves?)... so what was I saying before the parenthesis... oh yeah: Take pottery. Let's say you are actually going to take some clay and make a plate. Prior to getting dirty, the plate is in the platonic world of ideas: that's where the potter looks to with his imagination. Then he sits, starts whistling Ghost's theme, and makes his best to make that perfect plate that will grant him access to the hall of fame of potters and turn him into a legend. Then he rolls a Craft skill and he makes his best, but never The Plate. Magic is pretty much the same, just without having to get dirty, sweat or spend time, which are the goals of magic, so the caster casts the spell and gathers magical energies and burns the required vis and this turns into him trying to do his best creating the best Mystic Plate ever, but then again will never be The Plate, but a lesser version of it.

Otherwise it would be odd that any well designing grog smith is going to be crafting swords with a quality bonus from character design, while any non specialist magus invoking a sword is going to get one without any quality bonus.

Still, you wouldn't allow a T: Ind spell to target both of them, right?

Going back to identical twins, would you allow a spell tailored for someone apply the benefit also to his twin? I personally wouldn't (though you can get a really Dumas-esque story from there).

Well given that you still grant me that they aren't the same plate, as long as I can distinguish them by pointing a finger to them and counting up to two I would say they are different objects practically. So let's move to the metaphysical battlefield and let's call in Heraclitus, which I see as a Tytalus predecessor: Panta Rhei, everything flows. It doesn't matter if you call in for the perfect plate when you create an actual one. If you do that twice at different times, you are going to to that in a different world, because time changed the world, by a different caster, because time changed the magus, through a different spell because magic changes... so: different plate. Not metaphysically per se, but from the process of taking the metaphysical plate and make a real one.

I wouldn't. I'm not arguing against the plate being the target of the spell, but against the spell to be tailored to affect every plate you create through the spell.

Would you decide that a ReMe spell is tailored to affect whatever target I cast it to just because the spell is created to affect whatever target I cast the spell to?

Well, magic warps stuff, so why not? It's not that the natural target is going to appear only when the spells end, but during the spell, which warps, casting.

Well, I'm trying my best to justify it from inside the framework. About irrelevancy at actual play, magical warping most of the times also is. Whenever you see a stone or a tree or a flower of some random guy the GM hopefully won't spend much time considering if it have a warping score because maybe a magus might have come by earlier and cast some spells on it.

The the reason why I chose to go away from "conjuring the mystic tower" is precisely because you as the caster have flexibility in how you want your conjured tower to be. You can determine the appearance and internal layout of the tower. That complicates things because it is more hard to argue that two towers with different appearances are both realizations of the same platonic ideal.

My hypothetical plate conjuring spell does not allow for variation in how the plate turns out.

The reason why this platonic ideal thingy even matters is precisely because conjuring something into existence is not comparable to a craftsman making something. Rego craft magic is the magical equivalent to a craftsman making something by realizing a platonic ideal through the process of crafting real things. Creo magic that conjures things also notably does not require Finesse rolls.

Creo magic that conjures things out of thin air does not require any ability to imagine the thing on the part of the magus the spell does that for him/her by drawing on the realm of platonic forms. Things made by Creo magic are also flawless in a way that naturally made objects cannot be. See for example TME in the section about crafting an island where they specify that clay conjured by Creo magic is free of the impurities and deformities that causes pottery to misfire. Similarly items conjured by Creo magic will always have no structural deficiencies or imperfections. Note that a lack of flaws is not the same as something necessarily being high quality, it is rather an aggressive lack of low-quality traits.

This whole business about things being made flawless and without requiring any imagination on the part of the caster is why there is even a debate about platonic forms.

For me the most obvious solution to this whole conundrum is to rule that the platonic ideal is not "the platonic ideal" but rather "the platonic ideal space". In terms of the example dinner plate my proposal would mean that there is no single platonic ideal of a dinner plate but rather a range of different possible dinner plates that all fall within the platonic ideal of the dinner plate.

However I am not well versed in platonic philosophy and so my proposal is not based on a reading of Platon but rather on making up an explanation that fits the conclusion I want to draw to get my own game going on.

1 Like

Careful! Look up HoH:S p.60 Creo Magic: "When creating artificial objects, the same level of Finesse is required as when using Rego to make them from raw materials." It makes sense to read the rest of HoH:S p.60f The Creation of Beautiful Things again, too.


Which is kind of unfair because I chose Conjuring the Mystic Tower was precisely because it explicitly stated that flexibility and the possibility of different tower variations at casting. Anyway there isn't anything in that spell design that couldn't go into Conjuring the Mystic Plate (I'm kind of starting to like that spell) spell. Base whatever for clay, we could even add complexity factors because we want a carved relief depicting Bonisagus eating soup while having the idea of Parma Magica at the bottom of it (and then on a further casting I would personally allow you to change that relief to display Merinita getting lost in the forest or whatever other stuff). Or leave it aside and allow some circular pattern in the design that could be different from casting to casting, the same that conjuring a talking head or human image may display different results, sometimes involving Finesse to achieve a particular result, without needing to explicitly say that the spell allows some flexibility in the results, or a CrHe spell that creates a tree might create slightly different trees (let's say that with different branches in different places and leaves in a different ways) without absurd results.

Regarding the differences between Creo and Rego magics, I'll just dodge and hide behind @OneShot's reply...

1 Like
  1. complex is not perfect. Complexity means it has more parts, like rooms, stairs, and perhaps balconies. A simple cylinder of stone might be more perfect and less complex.
  2. the main difference with ReMe and CrTe is that the mind being affected by Re Me existed before the spell was begin. If a spell is designed to create something new then how can it create something other than what it was designed to create? Whereas a spell to make someone angry can make any person angry.
  3. Your argument at this point consists of several philosophical aspects which did apply to 3rd edition but not 5th, most essentially the idea that created items are associated with platonic ideal to which artists and artisans must ascribe as per platonic theory. You might as well argue for one's ability to get into heaven based on quotes from the Norse Eddas- it simply doesn't follow.

Oh man, how do I have replies with numered points.

I kept bringing back complexity just because from a spell design perspective that would be the only difference between Conjuring the Mystic Plate and Conjuring the Mystic Tower (besides the size modifier unless you want a really huge plate and the base levels for clay and stone), and it could be argued that the possibility of altering the resulting effect by changing the inner layout could come from the +3 complexity magnitudes (which they actually amplify, because a complex layout makes more room for stuff you can change).

Sorry, what? I think I never said a Creo spell can create something else which is not what it is designed to create. What I stand for is that a Creo spell allows you to create something giving some narrow space to create different things, not just copies of something.

I guess "several philosophical aspects" mean having mentioned Plato and Heraclitus, particularly the concepts, useful enough to be taught even today two thousands year and then some more in basic philosophy, that there are ideals of objects which inspire people when they create stuff and that everything changes. Honestly wave-hand them away as philosophy mumbo-jumbo is the same as disregarding real numbers because Pythagoras' proof that square root of two is irrational is just a "philosophical aspect" which for some reason should only have room in 3th edition. Now that I don't follow.