The RAW state clearly that light is Ignem. if you want Light in your ilusion you need an Ignem requisite. Clear cut IMO.
Xavi
I like herbam - because it is everywhere.
You can create all kinds of useful things (clothes, houses, tents, weapons, walls...).
You can talk to wooden objects (which basically means: read the past)
You can use it defensively.
It has offensive uses: As a classic low level offensive spell, a vilano spell, a mass offensive spell.
You can create an army of wooden soldiers (and store them as grain) easily.
But best of all: it has an atmospheric feel.
Two weaknesses: fire and creatures without a body. PeVi-ing the second kind is effective but BORING.
I also find mentem, vim, and Corpus very useful .
I find the A-forms least useful, followed by Imagonem (unless you take the species rules and apply them).
But one day, I will play an Auram magus - this is not about being the best, it's about challenging yourself by playing a suboptimal character.
No. Why ever would it? ThereĀ“s absolutely zero reason for it to emit light.
If you create an illusion of a torch, it gives off light as a real torch. An illusion of a mirror will reflect light but not create any. An illusion of something that doesnt create light does NOT create light but will "act" as the real thing does in regards to light.
I did and it was totally outrageous. And without any sort of connection to what i had said what so ever.
As sure as you can get without it being spelled out specifically. Essentially, that is what an illusion is.
For achieving that perfection in looking like a specific person or thing? A fail might still look perfectly like A person, but not like THE person it was meant to look like.
It will be a perfect illusion of an elephant as the caster thinks it should look like. You could say that instead its based on the platonic form, but i prefer not to use this.
Bullshit. What iĀ“ve done is merely giving an alternative way to create light, Ignem is still far better at it.
Or does this mean you demand that the game eliminates ALL ways except ONE to duplicate an action with different TeFo combinations or base effects? Thats what you just said.
I dont consider my interpretation of Im rules to be house rules.
That would require the spell to have an Ignem requisite and it does not.
Eyes of the cat CANT see in complete darkness. There is no published spell that i know of that does this but there is nothing at all to prevent one from being created.
ExarKun, i said DARKNESS. Not moonlight, not starlight, complete darkness.
So im still waiting for an answer to my posed question.
Hmm - so, you are pointing out that there are no spells that allow you to see in complete darkness (my mistake about the eyes of the cat - a serf can only remember so much...), but you are also wanting to know how a spell that allows you to see in complete darkness works?
As I pointed out earlier, that should depend on how you design the spell, but if there is truely no light, then you will see no illusion... In fact you'll not be seeing any visual species...
No i didnt, only that the one suggested doesnt work and no i dont care.
I asked what the effect is if you look at an illusion using a spell to see in complete darkness.
By my interpretation of rules, the illusion works just as normal. By opposing interpretation, the illusion is invisible one way or another.
So, if its dark a visual illusion doesnt work, doesnt exist... I think thats nuts.
The argument comes down to the assumptions and terms that you agree or disagree with.
One side considers that Imag only deals in species. That is all it produces and manipulates. Ign produces light. A visual species of a mouse, a person, a flame, each seen in different light (sun, single candle, complete darkness) appear to the viewer according to the actual light source allows for the reflection of the species. So in full light of the sun they all produce a species one would expect. In candle light the mouse and person would seem dull and darken. A flame, set apart from the single candle would not be as bright as the candle, but would in fact produce the same amount of reflected species as one would expect to see from the mouse and the person. ((On my own reading I would not think that the mouse, person, or flame, would appear as though in a room with a single candle, but would rather appear as a very low species producing origin, meaning they would seem washed out, dull, and unconvincing UNLESS the illusion was created for the actually single candle light source. Imag does not produce an adapting illusion it is creating a very specific species producing illusion. So if you create the illusion of a book in a candle lit dungeon and then someone takes that book out into the light of the sun, I would play it that the book still retains only the appearance of a candle lit book. It sounds absurd I know, but you created THAT illusion, so unless a spell can now adapt on it's own to it's environment without a outside affecter than that would seem to be what you get.))
Now for utter darkness. No light available at all. The three illusions are there. The mouse looks like a mouse. A person a person. A flame a flame. None of these are capable of creating light since light is a domain of Ign. Light is required to observe species reflecting off of a object and arriving to you for you to perceive, therefor all three, no matter how Finessed or perfect you make them, are simply an illusion in utter darkness. If a magus wanted to perceive the visual species of the room, which is in utter darkness, she could not do so with magic visually. There is no light there to allow species to come out of the objects of this room, including the illusions, and so no amount of magic can change that EXCEPT for the actual producing of light with Ign.
Commenting on the eyes of the cat, I think the spell is based on the belief born from observation that animals can see in the dark better and not the modern scientific recognition of the fine biology that goes into the function of the eyes of animals. The spell actually seems to be a bit "off" when you start peeling away it's function and reasoning, but I do love it. Barring the idea that cat's eyes are better at focusing low light into a area that reflects the low light more effectively http://cats.about.com/cs/eyesvision/a/cats_eyes_2.htm, I think the spell is actually giving you the physical eyes of a cat and as such the "believed and observed" function of those eyes. So while according to physics cat cannot see in absolute darkness, and according to Ars you cannot see in absolute darkness with this spell, I wonder if that gels with the Aristotelean or medieval assumptions of cat's eyes? Does anyone know that the people of this time did not believe that cats could see in utter darkness? Or perhaps it was just a gaming limit of a low lvl 5 spell, heh hah!
Now for the other side's argument. That Imag creates a intact and whole illusion that is completely perceive as "real" by the organs of the observer that receive the magically created species. And that when created, these species act as real for the extent of it's existence. So a stench remains a stench, a species of the sound of a bell ringing duration of say sun will continue to be the sound of a bell ringing, ect ect., and the visual species of a flame with have all the visual properties that a person would assume belong to a flame. You create the illusion of the torch floating in mid air, that torch would look like a torch and give off all light in the same manner as a torch. This would require a higher modifier for the torch be "alive" and in motion and giving off a constant stream of "light species", but the entire illusion is not only the torch but also the illumination of the room.
So go back to the example of the mouse, person, and flame each within the three areas of light. Each illusion would appear as created in sunlight. In a room with a single candle, the mouse and person, their illusion being created in a room with little light, would give off species that would seem consistent with the candle light source. However the flame, created as a complete visual species of a flame, would be creating species of "light" illuminating the room as a flame would, which would also require us to ask: If the illusion of the flame is creating the species of a flame and all visual properties of the flame, IE light, then when that illusionary light strikes the objects of the room, how does their species react? Does the species of a wall or a table respond the same under the illumination of flame species created light as they would under the single candle light? ((For me this is where you have to start adjusting the concept of species, cause now species can be conveyed by other species, meaning red can be illuminated by blue light and still be red instead of the nature of the light changing the nature of the species. This reasoning does not provide the simplest answer so by "applying the Rake" (thankyou Stephenson for such a great phrase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathem) or rather by looking for the simplest and most elegant solution, I would not go down the this path of reasoning.))
Now in the room of utter darkness, we have a illusions of a mouse and then a person each done separately for the sake of study. Each illusion created in the total darkness maintain their "nature" and as such are actual manifested species, and since no mouse or person (excepting for biological experimenting) ever produces light, then the illusion does not produce light. The flame when created true to it's existence as a illusion of a flame, creates the proper amount of light species as a flame would create were it a real flame. So in a utterly dark room you create a visual illusion of a flame, and the species that affect the organs of sight would then, according to this understanding of magic, appear as a flame in this utter darkness.
Now the question here, as it was above: When this visual illusion of a flame, created in a utterly dark room, appears, can you only see the species of this flame or can you see also the reflected species of everything else in the room? Are you simply in a blackened room that has specifically the image of a flame emitting the species that appear as a flame floating in the room, but affecting no other object and as such no other species emitting? Or does the illusion of the flame, emit illuminating species that then make the species erupt from the rest of the objects in the room, thus acting in the true nature of a flame? Or even more dubious, because of the implications and the disrupting of the nature of magic, does the visual illusion that creates the species of a moving, natural flame that gives off species that appear to the visual organs as light, also create, as the illusionary light strikes the objects of the room, illusionary species of all of the objects in the room? This would mean that the magic would not only create visual species that is viewed as a flame, but also all of the other species of the room, the chair, floor, walls, corpse, maggots, trap door, ect. The problem being that the magus had no idea all of these were present until he created the "prime mover" illusion of the flame.
While this discussion is a topic of just what is determined by the mechanics of Ars Magica and of the paradigm of this RPG and of the nature and "how to" of the magic system... HOW AWESOME would this be as a topic during a Tribunal? Or thru letter between researchers? The game and story implications of hashing this one out would be on par with the actually real world hashing out that scholars, alchemist, physicist, and natural philosophers went through, even including the belief in supernatural stimuli. I am just saying, I wish I made that optical Verditius wizard now.
Actually, unless you want to add one MORE variation, thats not how i use it. The illusion of a flame creates light just as if it was a real flame.
Otherwise you can start get into some very odd situations with nonvisual illusions. Sound that isnt heard beyond the effect radius of the spell for example(if there is supposed to be a cutoff thats fine, but otherwise it gets rather looney after a while).
:mrgreen:
Oh and BTW, a bit more back on topic... A form with an advantage usually overlooked, Herbam can give you permanent creations without the need for vis or rituals. Just make sure you always carry seeds for plants with you, and you can always speedgrow them, and shape them however you want while growing them.
Neat.
This is actually pretty neat. It's not really that good for combat - instantaneous growth has a level 40 baseline - but you just made me realize that magi and covenants can grow entire harvests literally overnight. Hmm, but would the clause "any food created is nutritious only if the creation is a ritual" apply to any harvest created through magically accelerated growth?
Well, it isnt actually "created", its just that the growth is speeded up extremely. So i think its not an issue.
Of course, one might want to apply that clause anyway if game balance gets out of whack due to this use.
And it can be used for combat if you make sure to always "be prepared", using the level 20/25/30 bases instead its accessible for many specialists and if the magi has a relevant focus, no problem.
Ie, you do the growing where you expect combat, then use Re(and maybe Mu) to make use of them.
If youĀ“re conducting a siege, plants can get into each and every little crack and over a bit of time tear or split most things apart. And if you need to cross a troublesome little river, you throw down a seed and grow it into a bridge, which can be made to last, even remain a living plant.
Just make sure you find yourself suitable plant seeds(the seeds for a little bush wont do much good if what you need is a bridge over 50m of water). 
And thus, it'll fool no one who knows of elephants. Imperfect illusion. And it'll have no weight, thus the ground will not behave rightly under its weight (like a frail bridge not crumbling). Imperfect illusion. There's no problem with this, at least to me.
The platonic forms argument is good, but I seem to remember that you must have at least some knowledge of the thing.
Yet it is. Look at the other posters comments about this, including spells. Look at the lack of illuminating effects in Imaginem spells or guidelines. The only one have an ignem requisite.
Yet it is again: RAW imaginem deal with species, not light. Species don't produces light. And you clain to use modern physics. Species don't exist as per modern physics.
Btw, a thought: Under your "modern physics" setting, what are illusions constituted of? I can only see them being light manipulation (Unless your illusions are mental effects?) Thus (and this must have been where the hologram analogy came from in the first place) CrIm should glow in the dark, unless detecting and adapting themselves to ambiant levels of light...
It seems you use the rule of stuff: Illusions are stuff, behaving as stuff. The species have their own problems, but at least provide a coherent model most of the times.
Good one!!!
Agreed.
The only problem I could see is the food being warped by a powerful mystical effect, and that is a single point.
Of course, other time, it'd get worse (as you take the seed, grow them, take seed, grow them...) but this is easily avoided.
Speedgrowth is Creo, isn't it? And is subject to durations in the same way that the spells for making children grow into adults in a day are...
Oh dear no, its an absolutely perfect illusion. But its not a perfect illusion of specifically an elephant but a perfect illlusion according to how the caster thinks it looks.
And even a person who knows what a real elephant looks like wont automatically be able to say that its a illusion and not real because they cant know that it was meant to look like an elephant(unless the caster was silly enough to actually say so or something of course, but thats besides the point really).
Magic. As iĀ“ve said before its real physics+. Ie, its real physics PLUS whatever is needed to accomodate the setting.
Which is why i normally dont bother. It is after all a construction aimed to create a gameterm explanation.
Most certainly not. Your arguments might force illusions to become mental effects though.
CrIm will only glow in the dark if whatever its made to look like also would.
Coherent? Hardly. Its a good attempt at providing a reasoning but it creates some big fails as well.
One of which is my earlier question, thereĀ“s no light combined with a see in the dark spell(no matter how its done), my version of illusions still work, yours dont exist meaning that if its dark any casting of visual illusions fail, except we dont know. Its a Schroedinger box problem, and thats really not something that belongs as part of any game mechanics.
Yup, there are some downsides, but really the big advantage isnt with using it for food anyway, its using just 1 or 2 spells, to speedgrow the plant and to shape it as you wish allowing you to create almost anything with just that/those spells. And even have it last.
Those Creo spells are not creating something, therefore the limitation doesnt apply.
Just as the spells to mature children are not creating anything either.
If you create a plant out of nothing, then when the duration is up, its gone. But if you grow it from a seed, then its a real plant even if its growth is magically speeded up.
This was discussed backa while ago - as far as we can tell, the tree/plant retains it's size/age. Don't think anyone dug up a counter argument anyway.
[url]guideline "bring xx to maturity": ritual? - #3 by Vespasian]
Thus, you're not using the RAW, in which illusions are constituted of species instead of "stuff"
Thus, as I said, you're using house rules.
Which is fine, there's no problem with this. It's just that we can't really discuss illusions and Imaginem, since we're not really talking about the same thing.
Your illusions have no flaw at all, not because your system is "better" or more logical, but because they run of handwavium. Ars 5 tries really hard to avoid stuff magic, and thus, RAW ones don't, and thus can be imperfect at times. This is not a criticism of your game. A lot of RPG magic is great fun but just does stuff, too. Likewise, despite being coherent, Ars5 MR gave us Pink Dot, which is despicable. It all comes down to preferences in the end.
I'd be curious to see how or why.
I thing the line editor and authors who decided to use the species as a basis for Imaginem might be, too, if only in order to find a better idea for an eventual future edition.
Please.
This was already answered by other posters.
One of the fundamental problems in this question is that you're putting stuff magic (a generic "see in the dark" spell) vs Ars Magic. That's what people tried to convey to you, apparently without effect.
In stuff vs stuff, you'll see the illusions. You see in the dark, the illusions are there and perfect, thus you see them.
In stuff vs Ars, all bets are of. These are different paradigms: One doesn't use species, the others do. What do you say?
In Ars Magic, you have to know how do you see, and consider if that vision receives or not species. If, say, I manage an InCo(te, he, an) spell with vision Target (Note: I don't know if this is possible at all, this is purely for the exemple) allowing you to see these Forms, you won't perceive the illusions. If you use "eyes of the cat", you should see them. But, for every spell, you'll have to ask yourself about the species. You don't like it? Fine! People do, which is fine, too.
Does an invisble fire emits light? 
IMO Yes, and a big shadow.
I may be wrong, but (noble's parma) I'd say yes: PeIm destroy species, not light.
Thus, this'd kinda resemble some CrIg light spells: Light appearing from nowhere.
As i already said at least once, i see no reason to consider the relevant part in this case as house rules.
And magic isnt you mean? As i said, that part of the rules can be interpreted my way or your, my way works better so i prefer that. THEN, ASIDE from that, then there are house rules.
If the illusion of sound isnt sound then what is it? And if it IS sound, then by the same logic, the illusion of a torch will emit the light of a torch.
Because it was completely irrelevant to the question.
Lol... Thats not a game, thats the "how things works in my alternate reality that i made up".
And i know plenty enough of history to see the glaring inconsistencies between canon AM and common beliefs.
As iĀ“ve said many times before, this is the very reason i prefer not trying to create an alternate reality with handwavium physics which works according to ONE little minority of people.