Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2e Changeling and Mage- Arcadia

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Akkiraus
    started a topic 2e Changeling and Mage- Arcadia

    2e Changeling and Mage- Arcadia


    Hello, So I did a little bit of digging and found next to nothing that clarifies this point- Presumably Changeling Arcadia and Mage Arcadia are not the same, but where are people finding this information? Everything I've seen in changeling 2e and mage 2e seem to almost hint that it's the same. All the descriptors are nigh identical. There is a small entry that notes (in regards to an acanthus awakening) in mage 2e :

    "He strays from his usual pub and takes a stranger home; he’s never been with another man. The nameless lover leaves a messy bed and a poem... He takes his lover’s poem as a clue, and follows it to an unmapped forest... The lover doesn’t remember him. He doesn’t remember anything, and carries more poems, in his handwriting, stuffed into the pockets of an expensive coat. If they chase the first Mystery over the threshold — if they catch unseen strangers, or solve the amnesiac lover’s riddle — *secret woods flower into endless, bramble-edged paths*... Ancient mages wrote of a Watchtower dominated by twisted, vine-corrupted woods... Arcadia’s fairy lords are living forces of destiny. Don’t drink or eat what they offer. Don’t fall in love or lash out from hate, because you’ll trade your destiny for theirs. There are no trivial acts in the Watchtower of Fate and Time. *His lover was once a fairy’s slave.* What will he give up to win his memory back?... They’re never simple temptations with straightforward best answers, though *some enslave a soul to the Fae*, making them a bit worse than the rest..."

    This, the amnesiac lover in particular, seems to almost directly reference a changeling and the hedge. There are other numerous aspects that are a bit interesting and very closely resemble or seem to imply the same place. Something else strikes me as very intersting in changeling- At several points the book they refer to changeling abilities or otherwise as Supernal:

    " As their minion, tool, or plaything, some modicum of these Contracts applied to you as well. After all, of what use to an *arcane being* is a spy limited by mortal senses, and how quickly would they grow tired of *a plaything incapable of supernal dexterity?"

    This part in particular directly references pledges as being supernal(or at the very least promises in general):

    "But these already sworn deals are *not the only means by which the words of oaths hold supernal power* By investing your own Glamour into an oath, you can craft pledges that magically bind those involved in them. Carefully spun, pledges can offer a wellspring of power to those abide to their tenets — or a world of pain to those who treat them lightly."

    The last one:

    "He can choose a mythical beast, though he gains none of *its supernal powers* — only the physical form... He can also use the animal’s mundane senses and modes of movement; he can’t levitate, but as a winged dragon he could fly."

    As for any denial that what mages summon from arcadia are not true fae, that is entirely possible- and thus dismissed by this changeling entry:

    "Other strange beings cross through Arcadia, or live within it, hidden at the end of some long forgotten path, like the Huntsmen in their distant woods."

    This changeling entry on hunters even seems to imply a heavy theme of Fate:

    "Everything has rules. Rules and reliability. The crossbow and its quiver of 20 darling daughters are reliable. They do what you expect of them. You’re reliable. Your snares will catch, your sword will draw blood. The woods are treacherous. Without rules and order, the woods will consume you. The woods define you, and they are all you need."

    Furthermore, Huntsmen's hearts are bound inside of a mortal's Bastion to anchor them, which makes an awful lot of sense if they are essentially binding them to the closest part of the astral to the fallen world.(bastions seem to directly be Oneiros given that the means of entering, and more, is the nigh identical- Goetia and Eidolons very much seem the same in most regards):

    *This is their secret: to anchor them and allow them to manifest fully in the mortal world as creatures of Wyrd and flesh, the True Fae must hide the heart of a Huntsman within a Bastion. For months, even years, alien emotions plague some mortal’s sleep, thoughts of hunting in some dark and deep wood. A Huntsman can borrow some of the Gentry’s talent for oneiromancy and Hedge shaping, but they are forever blind to the Bastion that holds their heart — the one thing they cannot track down even with all their cunning, no matter how earnest their hidden longing.*

    " All a mage needs to enter her own dreams is a Resolve + Composure roll to meditate while going to sleep; Mind spells bypass the need for meditation or are used to enter the dreams of others. Spells within dreams are cast normally, except that Sleepers do not treat spells affecting the dream or its narrative as obvious magic." (mage)

    " Her player simply needs to succeed at a Resolve + Composure roll for her character to meditate while going to sleep to reach this state. The player may make this roll even if the changeling is already asleep, representing the character’s ability to realize she’s sleeping and take the reins, unless she suffers the Comatose Condition (p. 334). Contracts and other abilities work the same way in dreams that they do anywhere else. The changeling can target her own eidolons and any allies or intruders she finds there. She can also practice oneiromancy on her own dreams. If she leaves her own Bastion to wander the Hedge or other Bastions, she recovers no Willpower for that night’s rest." (changeling)


    There are more similarities but this is already far too long so I will leave it with those as an example of my reasons for questioning this.

    Tl;Dr- What I am looking for in particular is any *2e* reference or clarification that denies changeling arcadia being mage arcadia, or perhaps what mages, in general, think changeling arcadia is or why it is so similar in many regards. I am planning on running a changeling/mage campaign soon and we are running off of 2e in nigh exclusivity, and want to be sure that what I make represents the 2e lore as closely as possible, which as far as I have heard changed somewhat from 1e(though I will, of course, be applying personal preference in some aspects).

    From other things I've seen it sounds like at some point it was confirmed that they are not the same, but I have not seen anything in 2e that says as such. Going by the core books alone it seems as though Mage directly references arcadia as per changeling. The only thing that sticks out here is that changeling arcadia is so vast with so many possible aspects- rather than just time and fate- though this could come from the fact that mages, as much as they think they know, still know little about the supernal realm in detail.



    (edited for some miss-types)

    Last edited by Akkiraus; 01-27-2019, 01:39 AM.

  • Deinos
    replied
    Originally posted by Dataweaver View Post
    Imperial Mysteries included a brief section on the Empyrean, a hypothetical state of being “above” even the Supernal, that was suggested as a possible source of the qashmallim; and the same book, when describing how Imperial Practices are able to mess with templates, listed what Arcana would be needed to mess with the various templates in the setting, such as vampires or changelings; but it left out anything relating to Promethean.
    Don't forget "On very rare occasions, strange entities superficially resembling Angels of the Aether but not responding to Prime or Forces magic have been witnessed at work in the Fallen World." Of course, it could be that archmages are simply too stupid to try other arcana, but I'd typically expect Forces and Prime to be the #1 arcana that don't care about what something is.


    Leave a comment:


  • Dataweaver
    replied
    Or “opens for me for the duration of this spell”.

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchel
    replied
    Originally posted by proindrakenzol View Post
    [Edit] To be clear, I understand the "Weaving to apply property of being open" argument
    For clarity's sake, I should point out that the argument is not "Weaving to apply the property of being open." It's "Weaving to change the property of 'opens at midnight for a red-haired child' to 'opens under whatever condition makes it traversable in the timeframe that the spell is used and active.'"

    Leave a comment:


  • Tessie
    replied
    Originally posted by proindrakenzol View Post
    Doors are made to be opened.
    A door is designed to be easily opened and closed, and can remain open or closed indefinitely if you leave it like that (and there isn't a door closing mechanism attached). That's not what an Iris is.
    The natural and only indefinite state of an Iris is being closed, and it takes uncommon circumstances (if not outright supernatural powers that cost a fuel stat) to force them open temporarily.
    You could use a Key, but that's unlocking the Iris, not just opening it like you would a door, and you can use spells of different Practices to facilitate or possibly emulate a Key and open it that way. That's the closest analogue you'll get to opening a door, using a spell to turn the Key just like you'd use Ruling to turn the handle of a door. Exactly which Practice depends on the Key, though, as they're much more diverse than just mechanical contraptions that can be manipulated with Matter 2, or electrical locks that can be manipulated with Forces 2.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    Originally posted by ArcaneArts View Post
    Equally meaning no disrespect, but fanon also is the source of a lot of problems with these conversations to begin with. Hell, half of the problems of Mage/Changeling arguement threads are rooted in a fanon understanding.

    A whole lot of fanon is very often like a wave-particle function-it works "fine" until it's actually looked at, at which point it rapidly collapses. The other problem is that since a lot of people look for surface answers because they are quick and easy, the type of fanon described spreads like wildfire and becomes the popular understanding, which just makes problems when it become apparent with even a shred more of questioning (as often happens with question threads, as much as people look for the surface answer) the answer so many accept as "canon" is actually wrong.

    Fanon's fine at the table, and I get the appeal of ease for it-I, too, once mapped the Supernal to every other gameline as a one-to-one-but when people are discussing the actual text in a shared context that isn't centered on your table, bad fanon can fuck that conversation, and I've seen it happen so much for Chronicles alone that I could easily describe a lot of conversation on this site as "No one shot the fanon early and now we have to deal with this shit."
    To be fair, Chronicles kind of delights in being inscrutable. You can hardly blame folks for clinging to easy, clean fanon answers when canon is actively trying to confound their efforts to understand it. I love how beautifully complex and mysterious Chronicles can be, but it's kind of begging to be misunderstood.

    Leave a comment:


  • proindrakenzol
    replied
    Originally posted by Satchel View Post
    They are also made to be shut.

    There are specific things you need to do in normal circumstances to get a door to open. If you want to open a door without doing the thing you need to do to open the door, you need to change the door's conditions for opening. That's changing a quality of the door without changing it into something other than a door. That's Weaving.
    If those are the official rules, those are the official rules, can't say they make sense to me, though.

    [Edit] To be clear, I understand the "Weaving to apply property of being open" argument, I just feel that "Ruling to force the door to open" makes more sense because 1) that's what you'd use on an actual door to force aside whatever was holding it closed and 2) if you can mind control people with Ruling you should be able to open a gateway with Ruling, both are performing natural functions under your order.
    Last edited by proindrakenzol; 02-01-2019, 03:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Second Chances
    replied
    Originally posted by Satchel View Post
    They are also made to be shut.

    There are specific things you need to do in normal circumstances to get a door to open. If you want to open a door without doing the thing you need to do to open the door, you need to change the door's conditions for opening. That's changing a quality of the door without changing it into something other than a door. http://forum.theonyxpath.com/forum/main-category/main-forum/the-new-world-of-darkness/mage-the-awakening/872952-a-changeling-related-question?p=873580#post873580"]That's Weaving[/URL].
    And piggybacking on top of that (although Dave said it in the linked post too) a Hedgeway is an Iris. Everything in 2e core that opens an Iris is Weaving (see Reaching, Spirit 3 for example), ergo opening a Hedgeway would also be Weaving.

    Satchel's got the right of it and hit the nail on the head.

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchel
    replied
    Originally posted by proindrakenzol View Post
    Doors are made to be opened.
    They are also made to be shut.

    Opening is fulfilling their purpose, ergo you should only need Compelling or Ruling to force the door.
    There are specific things you need to do in normal circumstances to get a door to open. If you want to open a door without doing the thing you need to do to open the door, you need to change the door's conditions for opening. That's changing a quality of the door without changing it into something other than a door. That's Weaving.

    Leave a comment:


  • proindrakenzol
    replied
    Originally posted by Tessie View Post

    Opening a portal with a spell bypasses the Key (word applied to both its regular Key and indulging a Vice in this case). Just because the Key is easy to find/create doesn't mean the portal will be any easier to force open without it. What you could potentially do at lower dot levels is to facilitate the Key, but in the case of indulging a Vice the Hedgeway won't open most of the time, and if it does open it'll slams shut once the person has entered rather than staying open for the duration of your spell.
    Doors are made to be opened. Opening is fulfilling their purpose, ergo you should only need Compelling or Ruling to force the door. Compelling would be if you have a sometimes-key (such as fulfilling a Vice) and you're just nudging it to definitely work, whereas Ruling would simply force the thing open.

    Hedgeways are generally one-way for non-Fae (indulging a Vice only works from ironside, and the proper Key is generally not the same from both sides) so once in the Hedge the mage would still require having the right Arcana for getting out, unless they find someone who can open a Hedgeway for them.
    Well, yes, obviously. I didn't say it was safe to wander into the Hedge, just that it's comparatively easy to wander in.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dataweaver
    replied
    I'll have to disagree. There was a widely held belief for quite some time that Prometheans and Promethean-related phenomena were largely outside the scope of the Arcana. This came from a misreading of some sections of the Promethean line, and it eventually even made it into print in a manner of speaking: Imperial Mysteries included a brief section on the Empyrean, a hypothetical state of being “above” even the Supernal, that was suggested as a possible source of the qashmallim; and the same book, when describing how Imperial Practices are able to mess with templates, listed what Arcana would be needed to mess with the various templates in the setting, such as vampires or changelings; but it left out anything relating to Promethean. That was a case of fanon that got confused as canon.

    In their defense, the proponents of this idea didn't think that it was fanon; they thought that the books actually supported it (as I said, a misreading of text from a Promethean supplement) and talked about it as fact rather than as personal preference. So ArcaneArts certainly has a point — but so does Ramnesis, in that it doesn't take much to make it clear when you're talking about fanon vs. canon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    I can't say I can remember this ever coming up in any other context.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gurkhal
    replied
    Originally posted by ArcaneArts View Post
    That's fine, just remember that this is useless in anything outside of conversations of "So what if Changeling Arcadia were Mage Arcadia?" because most other questions rely on all of us working off the same canon and this ain't it.
    Well, I usually don't have a problem separating my headcanon from the lore canon of a setting, so I don't think this will be any different.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArcaneArts
    replied
    Originally posted by Gurkhal View Post
    Personally I don't care what the official statements are. I love the idea of C:tL Arcadia being where one of the Watchtowers are located and so that's how I roll with it. I am aware that I am wrong, officially, but I don't care. I'm sticking to my guns.
    That's fine, just remember that this is useless in anything outside of conversations of "So what if Changeling Arcadia were Mage Arcadia?" because most other questions rely on all of us working off the same canon and this ain't it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ramnesis
    replied
    Originally posted by ArcaneArts View Post
    Equally meaning no disrespect, but fanon also is the source of a lot of problems with these conversations to begin with. Hell, half of the problems of Mage/Changeling arguement threads are rooted in a fanon understanding.

    A whole lot of fanon is very often like a wave-particle function-it works "fine" until it's actually looked at, at which point it rapidly collapses. The other problem is that since a lot of people look for surface answers because they are quick and easy, the type of fanon described spreads like wildfire and becomes the popular understanding, which just makes problems when it become apparent with even a shred more of questioning (as often happens with question threads, as much as people look for the surface answer) the answer so many accept as "canon" is actually wrong.

    Fanon's fine at the table, and I get the appeal of ease for it-I, too, once mapped the Supernal to every other gameline as a one-to-one-but when people are discussing the actual text in a shared context that isn't centered on your table, bad fanon can fuck that conversation, and I've seen it happen so much for Chronicles alone that I could easily describe a lot of conversation on this site as "No one shot the fanon early and now we have to deal with this shit."
    All true, and I've certainly seen that happen more than a few times. I do think phrases like "I tend to go with the idea" are sufficient to highlight that the idea is head canon or fanon, though.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X