Mage OOC Talk and Questions

[Fedup]

You stated your opinion that mana is not important.
You miss the point that for mages, mana is important. You also miss the point that Minor penance is the equivalent of sweeping the floor for a week or something, not something that would eat up a ton of mana.
My opinion remains unchanged, a -5 or -6 to mana is huge for a mage. Whether we use it or not in game is completely irrelevant. There are wars between cabals over a hallow as a source of mana because it is in-world very important.

To be honest, the most appropriate representation of a minor penance would be "No penalties on mana, Phoenyx has 1 social scene less for the duration of her penance" as the penance is supposed to eat up your free time, nor your mana.

Furthermore, you say we know ICly that Phoenyx took the paradox modifier for sleeper witnesses. I call BS on that. Corn was not there and Unseen senses don't pick up how much paradox was rolled. Puck in my opinion has no way to know that "the risk of paradox was indeed greater" unless he used some magic to gauge it.
You are using OOC knowledge as IC knowlege, Xander.
But this is also irrelevant in what the penalty should be.

We are discussing what the mechanics of a minor penance may be Xander, not whether Puck can tell that the risk of paradox is greater by looking at a spell being cast.

[Fedup]

Oh, and for anyone thinking that Corn should take Puck's word about what happened... Corn has seen Puck change his "Is it legal to heal my child If I sense that he would be born blind or with down syndrome or a heart disease? Or leave it to science?" to "Corn wants to practice eugenics".
So... nope. Corn finds Puck VERY unreliable.

[Aeolus]

For what it's worth, I'm with Fedup about not being able to tell how many dice were rolled. How would a character know that dice were rolled without metagaming? Granted, vulgar Magic shows the character's Nimbus, but there is no Abyssal hint that shows anyone that Sleepers are witnessing it. And if the caster takes Backlash and is good at hiding the pain, I don't really think anyone would be any wiser.

So the only reliable information any Awakened witness would have is that Phoenyx used vulgar Magic - but whether the actors had any effect on the Paradox pool is OOC information.

[Fedup]

So... a question that popped in my mind.

Mages of this consilium don't make a distinction (as far as the law goes) between coincidental vulgar spells and blatantly vulgar spells.
How about improbable covert spells? Are they also considered vulgar as far as the consilium is concerned or covert?

[Matt]

The Precept of Secrecy States:

The existence of magic must be kept secret from those who do not practice it. Our knowledge is our greatest treasure, and it is a trust placed within each Mage by the Oracles themselves. Betraying that trust by creating the impossible before the Sleeping Innocent, or sharing our knowledge with The Others between the Cracks: is one of the greatest betrayals of trust an Awakened may perpetrate.

Vulgar spells - The Sleeper knows you did something to cause that, something they cant explain.

Improbable covert spells - This is when you have stretched what is considered believable and therefore have revealed magic to the sleepers. Note the wording above "Creating the impossible" Which is what an improbable covert spell is.

There is no difference when it comes to the Lex... you revealed the secret, something magical to a sleeper and therefore you have broken the law.

[Fedup]

Makes sense. However, by that definition, coincidental vulgar spells (like boosting your cognitive abilities with mind 4) should not considered a breach.
Still, I think you are right; improbable spells should be considered vulgar.

More or less, everything that risks paradox in front of sleepers seems to be treated as breach of law, whether improbable, coincidental or vulgar.

[Matt]

In my mind, there is no such thing as a "Coincidental Vulgar Spell"

Vulgar magic works outside the bounds of reality. Vulgar magic produces an effect that could not possibly occur through the normal laws of physics, or whose probability of occurrence is so high as to be unthinkable. Vulgar magic is by definition showy, accomplishing the impossible right before one’s eyes. Using vulgar spells, mages can fly through the air, transform into creatures out of legend, throw fire and lightning, and literally turn the world upside down. But reality rebels against such magic, so mages pay a price for vulgar spells. That price is a Paradox.

Vulgar magic does not necessarily reveal the spellcaster as the source of the magic, unless the effect obviously comes from him (such as an electrical charge shot forth from his fingertips). The Storyteller decides whether onlookers can trace a spell back to its caster based on the circumstances.

[Fedup]

In my mind, there is no such thing as a "Coincidental Vulgar Spell"

That's how we treat magic in here, so your mind is correct.

Now, whether that is the way the rules handle it... there's that sidebar in that page (Hiding magic in plain sight, p113) that explains that there is coincidental vulgar magic. However, my question was about how the Concilium treats improbable covert spells... and the answer of "like vulgar because you breach secrecy" seems the reasonable answer.

BUT: Aside of "common sense says that improbable should be treated as vulgar..." is there a ruling about it?

And also something else that has to do with the rules and not the consilium:
Aeolus :
Improbable covert magic triggers disbelief (p274). However, does it trigger unraveling? Again, common sense says "yes" but I want to be sure.

[Drakken]

More or less, everything that risks paradox in front of sleepers seems to be treated as breach of law, whether improbable, coincidental or vulgar.

This, I'm cool with spells being considered Vulgar for the sake of calculating Paradox; that's been explained away as 'the world pushing back.' What I'm not okay with is every Covert spell over 3 dots being treated as Vulgar when used around Sleepers. There's a point for Covert spells beyond mitigating paradox. I don't know if that's how things exactly are for sure, but I certainly hope not.

[Aeolus]

I guess this comes down to the intend of the house-rule back then. "Spell Aspect (whether a Spell is Covert or Vulgar) will now be solely determined by it's Proficiency level (dot rating)" (Emphasis mine) - so any spell above 2 dots are considered vulgar for in-universe purposes and therefore the Lex.
1 and 2 dot spells that stretch suspension of disbelief for Sleepers so much that they could be considered vulgar also get you in trouble. Frankly, with the broad brush the houserule paints, I don't know how to reconcile 'hiding Magic in plain sight' with this. If any 3+ dot spell is considered vulgar and therefore triggers the +2 to Paradox rolls when Sleepers are present (and please correct me here if I'm wrong), then there really is no good reason to jump through hoops to make is seem 'plausible' - except for evidence removal.

On the other hand, unraveling could be argued to check for obvious signs of Magic. If Exceptional Luck doesn't unravel, why would Bestow Exceptional Luck? Again, correct me if I'm wrong, those are my two cents.