Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Neal A Porter <nap@*****.PHYSICS.SWIN.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Fetishes, Astrally active?
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 11:18:42 +1100
>
> The difference being that a spell lock can be turned off. I don't think a
>fetish can be.
>
>Matt
>


I think that you will find that a fetish is NOT astrally active, and a foci is
only active when 'switched' on. True that both can be detected astrally,
wether active or not, but only when they are active can a spell be
grounded through them.

A'Deus.
Message no. 2
From: Neal A Porter <nap@*****.PHYSICS.SWIN.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Fetishes, Astrally active??
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 11:55:20 +1100
>The enchantment process creates a permanent link from astral space to the
>object and will therefore make the fetish present on both planes.
>So, yeah, that means a physical spell will ground out every time.
>
>
> Micah Levy

True, except that to make a fetish you done need to enchant, you just
need talismongering. You dont even have to be a mage. Check the contacts
section of SR for the talismonger. In addition foci can be switched on/off.
And it takes a simple action to do so, so no activating foci and casting spells
(complex action) in one action folks. As for the section on switching on/off
foci look under the combat section, in the examples of a simple action and
you should find 'activating a foci' as one possiable simple action.

A'Deus.
Message no. 3
From: Micah Levy <M.Levy@**.UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Fetishes, Astrally active??
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 12:40:50 +0000
> True, except that to make a fetish you done need to enchant, you just
> need talismongering. You dont even have to be a mage. Check the contacts
> section of SR for the talismonger.
> A'Deus.


Hmm. In the Grimoire 2nd ed. under fetishes, it specifically says that an
Enchantment Test must be done (albeit with a T.N of 4, I think).
Therefore, since enchantment is used, there establishes a permanent link which
CAN be used for grounding.
Can anyone who says that fetishes are NOT astrally present please give me the
reasoning behind their argument.


||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|| ||
|| Micah Levy ||
|| Department of Computer Science ||
|| University College London ||
|| ||
|| GCS d--@ -p+ c++ l(!) u++ e+ m- s n+ h* f g+(-) w t+ r++ y? ||
|| ||
|| ||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Message no. 4
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fetishes, Astrally active??
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 11:07:40 -0500
>>>>> "ML" == M Levy <M.Levy@**.ucl.ac.uk> writes:

ML> Hmm. In the Grimoire 2nd ed. under fetishes, it specifically says that
ML> an Enchantment Test must be done (albeit with a T.N of 4, I think).

That's for making a fetish focus, not a fetish. They are /not/ the same
thing.

As I said, fetishes are /not/ astrally active. Read the books, read the
Talismonger skill.

|||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||
| Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/USER/ratinox |
| GAT d--@ -p+ c++ !l u+ e+(*) m-(+) s n---(+) h-- f !g(+) w+ t- r+ y+ |
| Character is what you are in the dark. --Lord John Whorfin |
|||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||
Message no. 5
From: Micah Levy <M.Levy@**.UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Fetishes, Astrally active??
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 16:43:12 +0000
>
> >>>>> "ML" == M Levy <M.Levy@**.ucl.ac.uk> writes:
>
> ML> Hmm. In the Grimoire 2nd ed. under fetishes, it specifically says that
> ML> an Enchantment Test must be done (albeit with a T.N of 4, I think).
>
> That's for making a fetish focus, not a fetish. They are /not/ the same
> thing.
>

If you look in the Grimoire, never mind about fetish focuses, under fetishes,
it clearly requires an Enchantment test. It then goes on to discuss fetish
focuses.
Correct, they are not the same things and their enchantment procedure differs
greatly but both require an Enchantment test.


||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|| ||
|| Micah Levy ||
|| Department of Computer Science ||
|| University College London ||
|| ||
|| GCS d--@ -p+ c++ l(!) u++ e+ m- s n+ h* f g+(-) w t+ r++ y? ||
|| ||
|| ||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Message no. 6
From: "NEAL T. MOSS" <ntmoss@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Fetishes, Astrally active??
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 16:54:50 -0500
The reason you get a bonus when using a fetish is that you are putting a
restriction on yourself for that spell. A normal fetish doesn't have a
link to astral space and therefore you can't ground a spell through it. A
Fetish Focus on the other hand is a focus and does have link to astral
space when it is active (ie ready to use) so you can ground a spell through
one of these as per page 139 SR2 "Attacking Through A Focus".
Message no. 7
From: Neal A Porter <nap@*****.PHYSICS.SWIN.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re[3] :Fetishes, Astrally active??
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 14:14:57 +1100
>
>>
>> >>>>> "ML" == M Levy <M.Levy@**.ucl.ac.uk> writes:
>>
>> ML> Hmm. In the Grimoire 2nd ed. under fetishes, it specifically says that
>> ML> an Enchantment Test must be done (albeit with a T.N of 4, I think).
>>
>> That's for making a fetish focus, not a fetish. They are /not/ the same
>> thing.
>>
>
>If you look in the Grimoire, never mind about fetish focuses, under fetishes,
>it clearly requires an Enchantment test. It then goes on to discuss fetish
>focuses.
>Correct, they are not the same things and their enchantment procedure differs
>greatly but both require an Enchantment test.

>|| Micah Levy


But also requiring an enchanting test is the refining of ores etc, you need
to roll enchanting to produce refined, or radical, materials. Are you
suggesting that the simple process of rolling enchanting that they also
become astrally active, and hence astral entities.

A'Deus.
Message no. 8
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Re[3] :Fetishes, Astrally active??
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 13:37:08 -0500
Talismongering is a Concentration for the Enchanting Skill. It deals with
the manufature of fetishes. So says my Grimoire2, page 20, under
Enchanting.

|||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||
| Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/USER/ratinox |
| GAT d--@ -p+ c++ !l u+ e+(*) m-(+) s n---(+) h-- f !g(+) w+ t- r+ y+ |
| Odds don't matter when Humans want something bad enough.--UHED series 507 |
|||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||
Message no. 9
From: Micah Levy <M.Levy@**.UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Re[3] :Fetishes, Astrally active??
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 11:14:36 +0000
Ok, I think you're right but the grimoire is a bit ambiguous about this.
(What's new?). It does say that it is a magician who makes this test.
A typo maybe?
Possibly, since the Grimoire desribes Talismongering as the collection and
preparation of materials , this only includes the process up to the refining
stage?
But I do think you're right about them not being astrally active cos' no
KArma is spent, which seems to be a good rule-of-thumb to go on.


||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|| ||
|| Micah Levy ||
|| Department of Computer Science ||
|| University College London ||
|| ||
|| GCS d--@ -p+ c++ l(!) u++ e+ m- s n+ h* f g+(-) w t+ r++ y? ||
|| ||
|| ||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Message no. 10
From: Dave Sherohman <esper@*****.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fetishes, Astrally active??
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 11:11:30 -0600
>> True, except that to make a fetish you done need to enchant, you just
>> need talismongering. You dont even have to be a mage. Check the contacts
>> section of SR for the talismonger.
>> A'Deus.
>Hmm. In the Grimoire 2nd ed. under fetishes, it specifically says that an
>Enchantment Test must be done (albeit with a T.N of 4, I think).

It should read a Talismongering Test instead of Enchantment. (In this case,
Talismongering is the appropriate Concentration under the Enchanting skill.)
Does this include actual magical activity? Nope. "A character need not be
magically active in order to engage in talismongering... Talismongering
requires knowledge of plant lore, a little mineralogy, and the centuries-
old formulas used to make charms, powders, incense, lucky pieces, and similar
junk." [Grim2, p. 20]

>Therefore, since enchantment is used, there establishes a permanent link which
>CAN be used for grounding.
>Can anyone who says that fetishes are NOT astrally present please give me the
>reasoning behind their argument.

That's an easy one, even without using the above line of reasoning that you
don't use magic to make 'em. Every reference to grounding through foci says
that you have to ground through an _active_ focus. When is a focus active?
When you're making use of it's power(s). Fetishes are used while in the
process of casting spells and would be effective at no other time, therefore
fetishes are only active for a moment and only at this time could they be
grounded through (assuming, for the moment, that they would otherwise be
valid targets). However, before the spellcasting begins, you can't start
casting a spell at the fetish, as it's not a valid target, but if you wait
for it to become a valid target, you've let the fetish's owner start casting
his spell before you started yours and the fetish will no longer be a valid
target when your spell goes off. (And this is even assuming that the fetish
would remain active for the full duration of spellcasting and not simply for
an instant as the spell takes effect.) In ritual sorcery, the fetish would
be active long enough to have spells thrown at it, but in this case, the
mage using it would also be astrally present, so you may as well just target
him directly. How's that?

esper@***.umn.edu

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Fetishes, Astrally active??, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!