Ask a simple question, Awakened edition

[orathaic]

And it is a consistent element of Paradox that, unless you are a Scelestus of sufficient initiation, you can't control how it manifests or directly inflict it on other people — the entire point of the Abyss dangling power over Paradox in front of its servants is that it leads to them trapping themselves in a world where they can't affect anything outside of the corrupted Mage Sight-induced nightmares that have replaced their reality.

Higher Gnosis doesn't give you root access to another mage's expression of enlightened Will

No, there are two ways to alter another mage's spell, pull it apart (Gnosis + Arcana/ Gnosis + Prime) and helping them build it (Gnosis + Arcana/Gnosis - 3) with their permission*.

And given this

A mage can deliberately infect his spells with Paradox, increasing their power. No Order would admit the fact, but any mage can invite Paradox into his spells.

It seems likely that 'being Scelesti' just requires knowing that you can cause paradox if you try. (And roll Gnosis to control it).

*And if your teamwork draws paradox into the fallen you can choose to let it into the spell.

[Isator Levi]

No, there are two ways to alter another mage's spell, pull it apart (Gnosis + Arcana/ Gnosis + Prime) and helping them build it (Gnosis + Arcana/Gnosis - 3) with their permission*.

I think that trying to litigate this based on citations of possibly comparable precedents isn't really the right way to approach it.

It's really just a matter of altering the parameters of another mage's spells or forcing them to experience Paradox by means other than being a Scelestus not being on the table for reasons of gameplay and setting. The Counterspell Attainment or being able to participate in a ritual to provide bonus casting dice don't figure into it.

It seems likely that 'being Scelesti' just requires knowing that you can cause paradox if you try. (And roll Gnosis to control it).

There are degrees of being Scelesti. Being able to Befoul your own spells (induce Paradox deliberately but have a bit of control over how it manifests) is the kind that any mage can do just by knowing the technique. The more elaborate stuff (including the forms where they can impose Paradox in the spells of other mages) requires one to be more transformed by the Abyss.

[orathaic]

3/3/2017, on 4chan's /tg/ board, DaveB answered a couple of questions on Shadow Names

">DaveB, if you're still around, would it be possible for a mage to have 2 shadow names?
Yeah, just buy the Merit multiple times

> How much Space would it be required to alter a Shadow Name and/or confer an additional one? Making? Dominions? Entities?
Wouldn't say Space. A Shadow Name's just something you call yourself - the Merit represents it starting to resonante Supernally over time, such that you can use it as a Yantra. I would say Prime. Possibly archmaster-y."

So yeah, you can totally have 4, 3-dot merits for
"The Angel of Destruction", "The Wise Old Witch", "She who waits in Shadows", and "The Mystic Leader of Mankind"
It's having at least one Shadow Name which grants your normal life protection from your Nimbus.
Nothing says you can't cultivate multiple separate personas.
I imagine many Guardians do, given the 5-dot Masque benefit can grant a Shadow Name.

So multiple Shadow names are ok? Despite the book not explicitly saying so. What limits should there he? Like having to get into costume, prepare for some time... Like i presume this isn't a reflexive action between two spells... Though if it is just a mental tool to help you (a yantra) form an imago, does changing your clothes make a difference?

[orathaic]

Death Spell Devouring the Slain (Page 130) allows a mage to harvest willpower or mana (dealing damage in a ratio 1:1) for each potency from his target. With 1 reach a mage is allowed to cast this spell on a target that has not received damage. From what is written this seems like a superior version of a spell Rotting Flesh (page 132) or a Rank 4 spell Withering (page 133) allowing the mage to deal lethal damage with a 3 dot arcanum. Is this the intent of a design ? Personally I would rule that the target has to be stationary as the intent of the spell is not to deal damage, but to replenish the mages resources.

Reading this question makes me wonder. Pattern scouring can only be done for 1 (resistant) lethal damage per scouring.

The sentence 'he may Scour the subject’s Pattern for
one point of Mana, dealing one lethal damage in the process, causing existing wounds to open and fester.'

Would allow for the interpretation that this is 1 lethal total, not 1 lethal per potency of the spell (OR they can take 1 willpower per potency to a limit of the subject's available willpower).

It doesn't say you can take 1 mana, dealing 1 lethal to the limit of the subjects health boxes...

So (simple question) does this spell do 1 lethal or 1 lethal per potency?

[Tessie]

The spell gives you two choices:
A.) You steal [Potency] Willpower points
OR
B.) You Pattern Scour the subject which has the following effects: you deal one resistant lethal damage AND gain one Mana

Since the second choice is a Pattern Scouring, it's also subject to your personal Gnosis derived limits for how often you can Pattern Scour. Unless the Reach option is used.

[orathaic]

I think that trying to litigate this based on citations of possibly comparable precedents isn't really the right way to approach it.

Like many questions on this thread about practices and purview, this is about trying to understand the system and what makes sense based on what is already allowed.

Call it litigating if you like.

[Isator Levi]

Like many questions on this thread about practices and purview, this is about trying to understand the system and what makes sense based on what is already allowed.

Call it litigating if you like.

I just find there's a difference between "what can a Practice do" and "what if I use the standards of a Practice as a basis for this other unrelated but similar thing being allowed", and a point at which it keeps being argued on past the point of several people saying "it doesn't really work like that" gets to be a bit much.

As for other questions:

I'm not really sure even if Dave said that multiple Shadow Names are permissible, using the Merit or otherwise, considering what the Storytelling chapter has to say about the subject. If I was involved in that conversation, I would ask for the idea to be reconciled to the description of the intimacy of Shadow Names making them not an easy thing to adopt or leave, as well as how it would work with their capacity to shape your life. Like, if you have the names of the head gods of different pantheons, are you going to be afflicted with marks from all of them? Are you only vulnerable to losing an eye when you're acting and casting under the Odin name? It seems excessive.

I'm inclined to read Devouring the Slain as yielding Mana and lethal damage fully equal to Potency. It comes out less efficient than Pattern Scouring in a way that can still push a mage towards more grievously damaging another person to get more Mana in a way that makes it an interesting affront to Wisdom.

[Isator Levi]

Supernal Beings are supposed to have Banes in the Mage 2E core. The Black Angels in SoS don't. Which would be the RAW in this case?

My copy shows them having a Bane of indestructible materials.

[Satchel]

Supernal Beings are supposed to have Banes in the Mage 2E core. The Black Angels in SoS don't. Which would be the RAW in this case?

Check that you've got the post-errata version of the book, because I remember reporting the same error for the Red Castellan.

[orathaic]

I'm inclined to read Devouring the Slain as yielding Mana and lethal damage fully equal to Potency. It comes out less efficient than Pattern Scouring in a way that can still push a mage towards more grievously damaging another person to get more Mana in a way that makes it an interesting affront to Wisdom

Yeah, i think i agree. At one lethal (using up your limited pattern scouring) for one mana, not being at all efficient with the mana - compared with blood sacrifice which doesn't even require Death - this seems like a rather poor option.

It was only the questions about why Death can do lethal at 3 dots that threw me. I think with the 2e 'different Arcana can do different things at different levels' it makes sense that Death of all Arcana would have lethal damage earlier (Not that forces can't rule lethal fire go burn someone at 2 dots...)

[orathaic]

If I was involved in that conversation, I would ask for the idea to be reconciled to the description of the intimacy of Shadow Names making them not an easy thing to adopt or leave, as well as how it would work with their capacity to shape your life.

Indeed, all good questions. I think the fact that, where intended, merits say that you can buy them multiple times. Though i suppose an imbued item doesn't say that because it is obvious you could have more than one... So maybe that isn't the convincing argument i hoped for.

[TakWrote]

Do runic yantras have to be created while casting the spell?

By my reading of the rules, there are two parts to the rules for Runes. One gives rules for how to use runes as a yantra (+2 dice, subject of the spell must have the runes on it, must be for a specific imago etc) and the other gives rules for scribing the runes (takes time equal to the mages ritual interval). While it seems like you could scribe runes as part of a ritual casting, nothing in the rules seems to actually require that to be the case.

Are the runes themselves the yantra, and thus they can be pre-made, or is the act of inscribing the runes the yantra?

[Tessie]

The runes themselves are the Yantra. The rules for creating them are just listed so that there are rules for how long preparations would take. Once the runes are there, using them as a Yantra just requires a reflexive action, or an instant action if they're not the first Yantra you add to your casting.

[TakWrote]

Ah, thank you. I thought that was it, but no other yantra has rules for creating it as part of the text so I wasn't sure.

[Isator Levi]

Ah, thank you. I thought that was it, but no other yantra has rules for creating it as part of the text so I wasn't sure.

Not specifically, but I note that all of the Action Yantras have some little exception. Concentration greatly limits what else the mage can do, Mantras can't be used reflexively, Mudras only work with their rotes (and rotes can't be cast without using their Mudras). I think it's all a counterbalancing thing for the fact that these are Yantras that get to be a lot more impromptu than things like environments or tools. Runes aren't quite as versatile as the other Actions, once a rune is inscribed it can only enhance the kind of spell it describes (and also adds a vulnerability that methods lack), but as you say, it provides the opportunity to prepare something ahead of time or place a Yantra that can always be available thereafter.

Plus, like, I think the main reason for there not to be rules for making the others is that the others aren't really things that get made, or at least where processes for making them are probably more understandable by virtue of what they are. Like, if you need a silver knife for casting, you're either using the usual item creation rules or some form of magic, and either method is self-evident and has its own challenges. Runes differ where they'd only ever be created, but on the face of things it may not be clear how much effort is supposed to be put into that.