[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: Tuesday, 23 December 2008 6:55 PM
> To: torg at justintimeadventures.com
> Subject: Re: [TORG] Philosophy of Polymorphism
> 
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Travis James Hall
> <travisjhall at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > (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.)
> 
> You were fine up until this statement. The binding spell is probably
> the same AK as your summons, which would mean that the Principle of
> Definition will either fizzle your summons or cancel the binding
> spell. Even if different knowledges, chances are that the binding
> spell isn't binding the demon to you. This, even if legal, is a *Bad*
> *Thing* (R).

So you're telling us that it's bad to be stupid? Can't disagree there.

A smart mage makes sure that he doesn't run into problems with the Principle
of Definition or summon somebody else's pet demon. It goes like this...

1. Summon a demon.
2. Bind the demon to your will (using a spell based on a different AK).
3. Turn off the first spell (possibly sending the demon back from whence it
came).
4. Summon the demon again at a time when you need its services.
5. ???
6. Profit!

The operation requires three different spells (because you need a different
spell to retrieve your bound demon to the original summoning of the unbound
demon) from two different AKs, but can be done. I'd say the spell binding
the demon to the mage's will would also be an excellent link for purposes of
the Law of Contagion, too.

Synonymous arcane knowledges would come in handy for demon-summoners, too,
as that would mean they wouldn't have to use more expensive AKs to prevent
clashes in their spells.

> Because we are gamers. And in true "aliquis alicubi" fashion, someone
> somewhere is going to argue that since Queenswrath was written after
> the Aysle Sourcebook, and therefore the authors of Queenswrath
> intended the spell to be doable under the spell design rules.
> Therefore, a work that seeks to codify magic further must either make
> it work or explain the impossibility of such a task.

But you and I and the rest of this list know that he'd be wrong, and can
quite easily ignore him in favour of using the best tool available for our
gaming.

Besides, you are making up new rules for this work, so obviously this spell
was not designed under the rules you will be using in your writing.

> I actually solve the "upper knowledge" cheat, as I call it, by
> insisting in Compleat Magick that no one may use a Principle as a
> result knowledge if its intent is to create things covered under
> lesser knowledges and anyone who uses mixed forces as a result
> knowledge for the purpose of allowing the spell to affect or create
> from multiple lesser knowledges must "circle" on the result knowledge.
> This adds 5 to the state path instead of the 2 for the associated
> lower knowledge.

That'd do the trick with regards mixed forces and kindred/elements. You
might find a few odd consequences as a result of the different rule for
Principles, but you might not as well.

> As for exclusions not being created equal, that seems to be
> intentional. Page 61 of the Aysle Sourcebook makes it clear that each
> different exclusion requires a different spell.

Yes, but the principle also applies to two different spells which are
identical apart from the exclusion applied.

> >> 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.
> 
> Or (kindred)-life-living forces if you want it to be real.

Look more closely. I gave the full path, not just the Pattern, Mechanism and
Result. Granted, I usually write something like "Kindred-(Living
Forces)-Life-Living Forces" for this, to make it clear that the state just
passes through Living Forces on the way to elsewhere, and that was an
oversight in this case.

> Pixaud's has no problem with summoning multiple types of demons or
> golems or elementals, but all of these spells have two distinguishing
> characteristics: 1) They summon from a "tight group"

They summon from a group. A tight group should use less of an AK than a
broader group, and thus be easier, by the Theorem of Exclusion. There's no
reason to suppose that the group of "forms with which vampires have an
affinity" is qualitatively different from the group of "demons" in this
regard. It's just more ammunition for my argument that taking into account
how narrow an exclusion is would be a good addition to the system.

> 2) There is some
> indication built into the spell as to what specific thing is intended
> (demon summoning requires naming the plane from which the demon is to
> come, golem summoning requires the unanimated "body" already be
> present, and elemental summoning requires a contagion whose element
> type matches the elemental to be summoned).

The vampire chooses a single form at the time of casting. Why is this so
different to choosing the plane from which a demon will be summoned at the
time of casting?

> All of these seem different than Polymorphism. First, the two
> indicators above are missing. The group is too loose, and no contagion
> or voice or other component is there to differentiate which result is
> desired.

There is no requirement to build a contagion or vocal component into a
spell. If you can summon a demon from a specific plane using the Theorem of
Voice, you can also do it with without the Theorem of Voice. It just costs
more.

> Second, Polymorphism smacks of an overloaded function in C++,

Don't get hung up on a word. The principles words are used to express are
much more important. You know that my use of the word "polymorph" indicated
absolutely nothing of the sort.

> with different results based on who is casting the spell. That sounds
> like something requiring a higher Axiom Level than 18.

The above said, I don't see an inherent problem with a spell with an effect
that varies with the attributes of the target. "Turn me into a form with
which I have an affinity" still seems pretty reasonable to me. Then the
difference between this and a specifically vampiric version would be an
application of the Theorem of Exclusion on the Pattern as well as the
Result.

> Both options yield possible spells, but at what Axiom Levels?

Here, you're in the realm of new rules. You're writing them, do as you like.
However, I don't see any reason for such spells to require particularly high
axioms.

> At the point where your "standard polymorph" becomes viable within the
> Magic Axiom, wherever that is on the chart, it is likely to supplant
> all other transformational spells, except for those which only
> "transform" attributes.

Now why should it do that? If it is costed appropriately, a general-purpose
transform-to-other-creature spell should be considerably more costly (in
terms of difficulty and backlash) than a transform-to-specific-creature
spell. If it isn't, well, you haven't costed it appropriately, have you?

> And what does it say for other "modal" spells?

That you haven't costed them appropriately either?

Travis Hall