[TORG] Philosophy of Polymorphism

[Travis James Hall]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com 
> [mailto:torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com] On Behalf Of 
> Dominick Riesland
> Sent: Monday, 22 December 2008 7:48 PM
> To: torg at justintimeadventures.com
> Subject: Re: [TORG] Philosophy of Polymorphism
> 
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Travis James Hall
> <travisjhall at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> > Eh. I think a lot of people put way too much stock in the
> >> "one spell, one
> >> > effect" rule. Really, I think all that was ever intended to
> >> mean was that
> >> > the purpose of a spell should be statable in a fairly
> >> simply, single-clause
> >> > sentence.
> >>
> >> Not quite. "Summon a friendly demon" is quite simple, but a clear
> >> violation of the rule.
> >
> > But we were only discussing a spell summed up as "summon a 
> demon", not
> > "summon a friendly demon".
> 
> I just used that as an example of how a simple, grokkable sentence can
> conceal multiple effects within it.
> 
> >> The problem here is with the adjective; not all
> >> demons are friendly, therefore that part is a separate effect.
> >
> > I'm not sure that adjectives are necessarily disallowed. 
> There happens to be
> > another rule of magic that says that the emotional state of 
> a spell's
> > prospective target cannot be taken into account. One could 
> possibly "summon
> > a red demon", but one could not "summon a friendly demon", 
> because even if a
> > friendly demon exists, the spell can't distinguish between it and an
> > unfriendly demon.
> 
> It's actually listed as an example of the misapplication of the
> theorem of exclusion, created specifically as a response to the
> prohibition against summoning charmed demons under "one spell, one
> effect". (Pixaud's p. 5)

Pixaud's p. 5 discusses charmed demons, loyal demons and demons bound to the
will of the caster, not merely friendly demons. There's a big difference
there. The specific example reads "Example: A Storm Knight want to design a
spell designed to summon a demon from another dimension and bind it to the
will of the caster. Summoning the demon from another dimension is one
effect. Binding its will to the caster is another effect, requiring another
spell." There's no actual prohibition against summoning a friendly demon
there.

And we are definitely permitted to narrow the result of a spell below the
level of the result knowledge. We can summon a dwarf, not just a person. And
we can turn someone into a falcon, not just an avian creature, and a falcon
is also a subtype of bird. I would also think that it is reasonable for a
spell to be able to summon an earth dragon, not just a dragon of unspecified
type. Just because "earth" is a descriptor applied to "dragon" doesn't mean
this is necessarily disallowed.

And I really don't think we can rely on the rules of English grammar to help
us out in any major way - "can't do that, it uses an adjective". Yeah,
right.

But that doesn't mean we can summon a friendly demon. If we can't get a
bonus for emotional state from the Theorem of Exclusion, it's pretty
reasonable to suppose that we can't use emotional state at all to narrow
down the result.

(I'd also suggest that a spell which summons an already-bound demon is
pretty reasonable - making the spell not dependent on the emotional state of
the demon, but on the fact that the demon is already under the influence of
a binding spell. Though, that may well require a separate divination
component.)

> However, the goal in "Compleat Magick" is to explain the magic of Torg
> well enough to be the definitive reference guide for everything
> covered under the Axiom. To that end, I need to address the
> metaphysics of magic. And here, when dealing with Polymorphism, I come
> across a situation that I can resolve in several different ways, but
> each choice influences how the metaphysics of magic work.
> 
> > So if a suggested spell seems unreasonable, just don't allow it. To me,
> > though, a spell that allows a vampire to assume traditional vampiric
> > alternate forms seems pretty reasonable.
> 
> For my particular campaign, it's quite reasonable to just ban things I
> don't like.

I didn't say "ban things you don't like". I said don't allow things that
seem unreasonable. Big difference.

> "Compleat Magick" is intended to go beyond just my
> campaign though.

Then you need to explain how to apply principles to reach reasonable
conclusions within the framework of the game, so that every GM referring to
your work is able to do likewise. Game supplements that fail to enable the
GM this way really aren't that useful.

> Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is derive the Spell
> Laboratory Sheet for this spell.

What possible point would there be in that? We already know that the writers
typically did not use the spell design rules for these rules, this spell was
probably written before the spell design rules even existed, and many spells
can already be safely identified as unreasonable for use in many campaigns.
Why would we want to create a Spell Laboratory Sheet for such a spell as
this?

More relevant may be the question of whether we can create a spell that fits
the effect statement "turn me into a form with which I have a vampiric
affinity," and that's easy enough to do. The gaseous mist form has its own
motive ability, retains sentience and so on, so it really isn't inanimate
mist. As that is the case, I'd call the mist form an elemental form, not an
element. That means that animate forces is an appropriate result to cover
all of the four forms. So, Entity-(Living Forces)-Life-Living Forces should
do the job nicely. Then an application of the Theorem of Exclusion narrows
down the result to those forms with which a vampire has an affinity.

Something which the Torg magic rules lack is an acknowledgement that not all
exclusions are made equal. If you allow vampires to have this spell, why
would they ever bother with a "transform to bat" spell? If you really want
to do a service to future Torg players with this work, you'd do well to base
the Thereom of Exclusion's bonus on how much of an exclusion is being
applied. "To bat" would then nett a bigger bonus than "to form with which
vampires have an affinity".

Similarly, the state path under the current rules is more expensive when
designing a "transform to avian creature" than for "transform to creature".
This is also a problem. Even if you were to limit transformation spells to a
result as specific as "bat", "wolf", "rat", "living mist" or "frog" (see
Linfir's Little Frog), there would still be no reason to use a kindred
knowledge as a result, as each of these also falls under Living Forces, and
that would be the cheaper state path.

Which means that this is another area in which the spell design rules could
really use some tightening up. It could be done by disallowing Living Forces
as a result for a transformation, by making the step down to a kindred
knowledge a reduction rather than an extra cost, or perhaps by making this a
requirement before using the Theorem of Exclusion on the result knowledge.
Or maybe something else. But something is either unclear or not well
thought-out here.

> That's the problem: what *is* the standard polymorph spell for Torg?
> Even if we go with the above spell, it's not "turn me into an animal"
> as it has a mist form as well. Bats are avian, wolves and rats are
> earthly, and mist form is either water or elemental or raw living (or
> perhaps inanimate) forces.

"Turn me into a different creature," then. Since, as you point out, "animal"
doesn't fall under any single kindred knowledge anyway, expanding beyond
"animal" really isn't a big deal. Straight polymorph with target form
determined at casting time would be Kindred-Living Forces-Life-Living
Forces.

> As for "turn me into a creature with which
> I have affinity", it has four possible results spanning three
> different arcane knowledges which may or may not be in the same
> category. I can justify the answer that this should be one spell, and
> I can justify the answer that it should be multiple spells. Either
> answer sets a precedent for future decisions.

I'd suggest you stop limiting yourself to that binary choice. It can be
both.

Travis Hall