I have 2 questions:

1)
In ArM5 it says that a Familiar is "an animal with a Might Score".
My first question is: WHAT IS an animal?

Can I have as a familiar a Ghost? or a Dragon? or a Faey?

The book states that, due to Medieval Paradigma, animals have no soul...what if I give permanent "life" to an object? (and what would I need to do that?)
Will this be equivalent to a "magical animal"?

With a CreoAnimal spell of base level 50 I can create a "Magical Animal"...can it be an "Obsidian Cat"? ...or a "Wood Dog"?
I mean, can it be an Animal-Item?

And what will be the difference between an Animal-Item and an Item-Animated?

Also...

Verditius Runes:
If I can make a Familiar out of an Item-Animated I sure can use Verditius Runes on the item before turning it into a living thing...
Can I CreoAnimal something following Verditius Runes tenments?

And finally...can I make a Talisman out of my Familiar?
(Can I make a talisman out of my body? or a tattoo?)

[I know...I'm crazy and totally lost in my Frankenstein-Syndrome ^__^'']

2)
How Verditius Runes apply to a Talisman regarding the Vim Vis discount?

Where did you learn to count questions? Two questions? Right!

Ok, magic theory aside Familiars are my weakest point because I don't like them, so I know I'm going to this wrong but lets try anyway.

On a meta level, this is the way I see it. A magi can bind himself to other 'objects'. In doing this they gain the benifits AND hinderances of that 'object'. This is a game so we need mechanics to establish what that means. Talismans are the rules that allow a mage to bind themselves to a inanimate object, Familiars are the rules that allow a mage to bind themselves to an animate object.

Like the mind switching situation there is an issue of essential nature, and I believe this prevents Magi from binding themselves to creatures with Souls. This means you can't bind yourself to another person.

With this in mind...

//My first question is: WHAT IS an animal?//

An animal is an animate object with a spirit, not a soul.

//Can I have as a familiar a Ghost? or a Dragon? or a Faey?//

A Ghost. What is your take on ghosts? Are they just a spirit? If so, yes. If no, they are also the soul of a person, then no. I have to say, if you run with the premise that a ghost is an obsessed mind bound to the earth to accomplish a single task, why the hell would you want to bind yourself to a ghost? Even if you would, could you move a ghost away from it's single minded obsession to submit to being bound like a familiar? I see bad things happening and as a GM that's exactly why I'd let you do it. To make you squirm! As a player I'd kill myself and play a ghost before I bound myself to a ghost.

A dragon or Faey?

Sure, why not. Just be prepared to pay for it!

//what if I give permanent "life" to an object?//

One could take a chair, transform it into a cat and make the spell permanent. The essential nature of the object is "Chair", so I don't believe this creature has a spirit.

With this in mind, I don't think there is a way to create cords of binding because there is no spirit to link to. But lets say I'm wrong.

A familiar isn't just an animal, it's an animal with a Might score. Look at the Creo Animal rules. It's not cheap to create an animal with a Might score, nor is it cheap to build an animal with a decent Int/Cun.

One could argue that if you are willing to dump energy into createing a creature with a Might score, and a decent Int/Cun score then perhaps a spirit occupies the object or perhaps a magus is createing a spirit. In this case the cords could be bonded to the spirit, but again I feel this is a very expensive route to pursue.

//I mean, can it be an Animal-Item?//

Well how abstract to you want to be. You can make air 'unnatural', but does that mean you can make air into airdirtwater? That seems 'reasonable', but what the hell is airdirtwater?

I think you could make an obsidian cat as a magical animal and it is an ANIMAL. Just like a Wood Dog is an animal. You need to at some point establish some point of reference and I think if your goal is to make an unnatural animal no matter how unnatural it is, it's an animal.

Again, these are expensive things to build. Beyond that, you need to dump points in to it giveing it a Might, giveing it Int/Cun, and then you need to make it permanent. So consider this fact, it's entirely possible to build your Wood Dog, and have it dispelled. With that in mind, are you ready to invest more time in to binding it to you? Do you want to bind something to you that can be dispelled? Are you ready to spend 10 odd years building this wood dog only to have it dispelled by one of your enemies?

//And what will be the difference between an Animal-Item and an Item-Animated?//

An Animal-Item is highly unnatural and can be dispelled. Binding it to a Magus would entail using Familar rules.
An Item-Animated is highly unnatural and can be dispelled. Binding it to a Magus would entail using Talisman rules.

//If I can make a Familiar out of an Item-Animated I sure can use Verditius Runes on the item before turning it into a living thing...//

In this nuanced theoretical discussion, a "Item-Animated" can not be made into a familiar, only a Talisman because the core creature is an inanimate object. If on the other hand you make a "Animal-Item", the core creature (this is getting weird) is an animal, in which case you can make it a familiar (though any sane person wouldn't spend the time or energy to do so).
In this case, sure why not. I can see a cat with markings that look like the Veri Runes you cut into it. The bonus you get for using Verdi Runes I don't think helps lower the cost of this nigh-absurd project.

//Can I CreoAnimal something following Verditius Runes tenments?//

No. I don't see how this would work. Verdi Runes are on something. Creo Animal isn't Muto/Rego. Your creating something out of nothing, so I don't see how the runes could come into play. What are they on? They don't just float above your head like some power up in a video game.

//And finally...can I make a Talisman out of my Familiar?//

No.
Like I said at the beginning. Ars has *mechanical rules* to describe the things we want to do in the game. Talismans are the *mechanical rules* we used to describe binding magi to inanimate objects. Familiars are the *mechanical rules* we use to describe the binding of magi to animate objects.

An object can not be inanimate and animate at the same time, so you can't use the rules for two different things on the same thing (because it can't be both of them).

So one can not use the rules to bind themselves to an inanimate object and then rebind themselves to the same object because your now calling it animate. Consider that a Talisman's shape and form are essentially established before one binds themselves to. If one runs with the principle that in the process of changing an inanimate object into an animate one, they are investing 'spirit' into it (Might+ Int/Cun), then I argue they are changing something very near the core of the item. The item is not longer 'inanimate' even if only for a brief time. Given this, you are essentially destroying the Talisman (which is an inanimate object) in the process of turning it into a animal that can become a familiar. That's my take.

Yeah, I like that. If you take a talisman, and want to make it a familiar. You first need to turn it into a animal that can become a familiar. The process of turning a talisman into a magical animal destorys the talisman. Once it is a magical animal, you can 1)TRY to turn it into a familar. 2)Let it return to it's previous state at which point you'll discover your Talisman is destoryed.

//2)How Verditius Runes apply to a Talisman regarding the Vim Vis discount?//

Having tried to answer "One" question, I chose to leave your "Second" question to others.

Chuck

I agree with most of these two answers but here are where I find there are some leeks.

//A familiar isn't just an animal, it's an animal with a Might score.//

Not True. You can have mundane animals as Familiars.

//Again, these are expensive things to build. Beyond that, you need to dump points in to it giveing it a Might, giveing it Int/Cun, and then you need to make it permanent.//

There is no longer a 'permanent' appellation for these effects. It is created thru a momentary ritual.

// Are you ready to spend 10 odd years building this wood dog only to have it dispelled by one of your enemies?//

You can't dispell a magical creature. You can banish it same as any other magical creature.

Chuck:
//A familiar isn't just an animal, it's an animal with a Might score.//

William:
"Not True. You can have mundane animals as Familiars."

Are you sure about that? I don't think that you can.

Chuck:
// Are you ready to spend 10 odd years building this wood dog only to have it dispelled by one of your enemies?//

William:
"You can't dispell a magical creature. You can banish it same as any other magical creature."

Aren't there still disenchater spells in the perdo vim lists that could ruin the magic item (even if dispell is not the right word)?

Also in WGRE the ability to bind a faerie as a familiar was a benefit of faerie magic. I'd make this an outer mystery of faerie magic. As for ghosts and dragons; I'd require a mystery initiation or minor hermetic breakthrough to bind one of them as well.

A Moment+Ritual effect is, in all purposes, a "Permanent" effect.
That's what I intended to say ;)

With PerdoVim ANYTHING magical can be ruined...even a normal Familiar.
So...No, I don't see any "added risks" in using a magically created "thing" to use as familiar.

Page 104
"The first step in getting a familiar is finding an animal with inherent magic.
With inherent magic, the beast is likely to have a Magic Might score..."

So we were both riht and wrong.
The animal does not need to have Might...it just has to be a creature "inherently magical".
That's even easier to create with a spell ;)
I can create a "cat with wings and scorpion tail" much before LvL 50 as a "unnatural" or highly unnatural" animal...it may not have a Might though :P

- About the "Familiar Talisman"...the only one issue I actally see after Tuura's reply is the Essential Nature of animate/inanimate "things".
I have to work on this ^_^

- I'll explain about the "Verditius Runes" applied to the creation of a living being:
Verditius Runes are a WAY to shape things, with special engravings on it.
Since the CreoAnimal spell allows me to create "something living" I can decide it's shape, it's color, if it has fur or not, if that fur has patterns on it, etc...
I'm not limited to "natural" animals!

Verditius Magic tells me that, in order to get a better enchantment out of "something", I have to give it a particular Shape and Decoration (the runes).
This way I can create a "Runic Animal"...an animal that is "born" following Verditius phylosophy and rules.
Since the Familiar gets enchanted as an Item I should benefit from Verditius Magic.

THAT, I hope, should circumvent the rule on page 105 that says:
"Verditius Mystery has nothing to do with familiars"
The book presumes the use of a "natural" animal...not one specifically created for the purpose :P
Maybe ^___^''

Erik_Tyrrell used Creo Imaginem to display the following on the vaults of Heaven:

"As for ghosts and dragons; I'd require a mystery initiation or minor hermetic breakthrough to bind one of them as well."

For Ghosts, It all depends...Are they the soul of the departed, trapped between life and death? Hermetic magic can't affect a soul. Is it a spirit? That requires a Mystery (thaumaturgy) or being a Hedge Wizard (a summoner).

For Dragons, I disagree. We have an example, albeit a very old example, of the Magus Pitsdem ex Flambeau, and the Fire Drake Igack (Broken covenant of Calebais). Pitsdem managed to bind Igack as his familiar, using purely hermetic methods. One could argue that since drakes are lesser dragons, one could, in theory, bind a full dragon as one's familiar (you would need to have the Faerie Magic to bind a Dragon aligned to the Faerie Realm). The biggest obstacle for your quest for the ultimate familiar would be to actually find a dragon willing to go through with it (not to mention getting the lab total to perform the feat)! Considering the fact that True Dragons are really, really, really rare creatures (in most sagas), the odds of it actually happening are slim ... to not at all, especially if the Dragon likes his Magus extra-crispy...

Now, a Tazeltwurm might make an interesting familiar, and, of course, there's always Creo Animal rituals...

Steve

William:
"Not True. You can have mundane animals as Familiars."

Erik:
Are you sure about that? I don't think that you can.

Not being able to bind mundane animals would be very surprising. Besides, treating them as Might 0 works with the rules.

William:
"Not True. You can have mundane animals as Familiars."

Erik:
Are you sure about that? I don't think that you can.

Not being able to bind mundane animals would be very surprising. Besides, treating them as Might 0 works with the rules.

As was quoted above;
Page 104
"The first step in getting a familiar is finding an animal with inherent magic.
With inherent magic, the beast is likely to have a Magic Might score..."

First off... my interest in "Ghosts and Dragons and Faey" was only mentioned as a way to make a point:
What can be considered an ANIMAL in regards of getting a Familiar?

On that we formulated a quite satisfactory definition:
an ANIMAL is an "animated item".

Animals don't have souls nor spirits...so an animal is a "thing" that is alive.
Dragons and Faey are "supposed" to not have a soul...and that's what can define them as animals.
A good point may be that, since they exist in a different realm, you will need a way to work magic of THAT realm...
Thus someone with Faey-Magic can possibly bind a Faey.

That's a good theory...the problem will still be that the "animal" has to be willing to cohoperate WITHOUT the use of magic tricks or any mundane form of costriction :P
______________

Instead I have another doubt:
The book says that a Familiar can be invested of powers "like an enchanted device".
Does a Familiar needs the "opening" before being "invested"?
A Talisman needs the expenditure of VimVis before any power can be putted into it...does the Familiar also requires such a preparation?

This point may explain why Verditius Magic should not apply.
Verditius Runes allow an item to store more Vis...and then they get you a discount on the "Opening" vis costs.

A Familiar has no limit of power...and if he also does not needs to be "Opened", then the reason why Verditius is not usable will be finally clear ;)

Thoughts?

"On that we formulated a quite satisfactory definition:
an ANIMAL is an "animated item".

Animals don't have souls nor spirits...so an animal is a "thing" that is alive."

I'm fine to use that definition for purpose of this conversation but I wouldn't treat an animated candlestick is an animal

I likewise am not convinced that animals don’t have spirits. I can easily imagine a powerful magical animal having a ghost. This situation would not be possible if the beast did not have a spirit.

“Instead I have another doubt:
The book says that a Familiar can be invested of powers "like an enchanted device".
Does a Familiar need the "opening" before being "invested"?
A Talisman needs the expenditure of VimVis before any power can be putted into it...does the Familiar also requires such a preparation?”

You do need to invest vim into the familiar in order to bond it initially (page 104 in the middle column, fourth paragraph). This also forges the cords so it isn’t just opening an item.

“This point may explain why Verditius Magic should not apply.
Verditius Runes allow an item to store more Vis...and then they get you a discount on the "Opening" vis costs.”

A Familiar has no limit of power...and if he also does not needs to be "Opened", then the reason why Verditius is not usable will be finally clear ;)

Thoughts?”

That’s a sensible conclusion given your definition of an animal. However if you have a different definition of animal such as “things made of flesh that eat, breath and generally resemble in most ways the non-human creatures of god’s creation” (I realize that this isn't a real rigorous definition but I’m only using it as an example) then you can use a simpler rational for the applicability of Verditius magic: Verditius magic concerns enchanting items, not animals. There is sufficient difference between enchanting items and enchanting animals to prevent the skills of the verditus from applyig to familiars.

I have to agree with Erik (again).

I want to strongly stress that I believe the primary difference between Familiars and Talismans are *mechanical rules*. This is a game, and the game has rules which establish parameters and guidelines by which we play. Familiars represent rules for binding living things to Magi. Talismans represent rules for binding objects to Magi. I would not compare them to closely as the rules for doing one feat do not need to match line for the line the rules for doing another feat.

I know how to build a wall and nearly every aspect of building a wall involves a hammer, nails, and wood. I know how to build a computer. They both involve 'building" I feel your asking how you can use a hammer, nail, and wood to build a computer. Both are being 'built', but they are completely different constructs. The tools of one are not relevant to the other.

For what it's worth, when I layed out my poor man's definition I said an animal is an 'animate object WITH a spirit."

I find it interesting how Hasimir dropped the spirit point. Even the books establish that Magi theorize that when animals are created a spirit comes to occupy the created animal. (See Creo Animal guidelines)

So I do not think animals are simply 'animate objects.' They have spirits. And for what it's worth, I perfer Erik's definition (of animals) a lot more.

I'm going to tackle questions from several mails rather than just one. Let's see how I do.

///Chuck:
//A familiar isn't just an animal, it's an animal with a Might score.//

William:
"Not True. You can have mundane animals as Familiars."

Are you sure about that? I don't think that you can.///

P.104 It says, "The first step in getting a familiar is finding an animal with with inherit magic. With inherit magic, the beast is likely to have a Magic Might score...."

However it does not say it MUST have a Magic Might score. So I stand corrected. A familiar does not need to have a might score, but is in some way 'inheritly magical'.

//Chuck:
// Are you ready to spend 10 odd years building this wood dog only to have it dispelled by one of your enemies?//

William:
"You can't dispell a magical creature. You can banish it same as any other magical creature."

Aren't there still disenchater spells in the perdo vim lists that could ruin the magic item (even if dispell is not the right word)?//

See, here is the pointlessness of this discussion. Hasimir wants to build an item, turn it into an animal, then turn it into a familiar. On the premise that the *core* object is an item, all the magic work that makes it an animal, that allows it to be a familiar can be undone. So I maintain that it can be dispelled.

However if you read this as "a magical creature can be disspelled" you are correct in saying I am wrong. That's why this is a silly endeavor. Why build a talisman to turn it into an animal to turn it into a familar? I'd rather build a Heremtic Clock, it's cheaper and simpler.

///A Moment+Ritual effect is, in all purposes, a "Permanent" effect.
That's what I intended to say ;)//

Both your threads on this page discuss Momentary+Ritual. You said your useing Ars5 and the way I read Ars5 this version of 'Permanent' no longer exists, so it can't apply. Am I wrong here?

//"As for ghosts and dragons; I'd require a mystery initiation or minor hermetic breakthrough to bind one of them as well."//

Steve disagreed. Good call Steve, that's an OLD SCHOOL reference.

Sadly my friend I have to disagree. The material your citeing is Caleobis via Ars1 or Ars2. Mysteries didn't exist at the time, so they couldn't have been used in developing the familiar link. I think with Ars5 and Mysteries being incorporated into the game, that some kind of Mystery would be necessary to bind a Fay or Dragon. I suspect that Calebois Ars5 only details Pitsdam's ghost and in doing so skirts the answer of just how a Flambeau took a dragon as a familiar. But common sense of Ars5 suggests a Mystery was involved.
For what it's worth Steve, that doesn't mean I expect you to learn a Mystery to accomplish the same feat for our specific game.

I maintain that Spirits are minds and can be influenced, but they are also obsessed with a task and it would be foolish to bind oneself to a ghost.

Well that was all over the place. Probably won't help at all, but had to give my two pence.

Chuck

All my discussions ALWAYS take into considerations both Setting and Rules.
If something is impossible for setting reasons...it's Impossible.
If something is impossible for mechanical reasons...it's Impossible.

But on this issue we are trying to DISCOVER if it is possible to do something that both setting and mechanics do not openly prohibit.

That's our special kind of "Magical Theory" ;)
__________________________

About "Permanent" and "dispelling".

Effects created with a Mom+Ritual spell are REAL, they are permanent, they are NON-MAGICAL.

You can't "dispell" them because there is not a "spell" to "di" :)
You can use a new spell to manipulate/destroy them, as you can do to ANYTHING else.

A Vim spell can damage even a "natural" Magic Creature, and it can damage ANY magical device or talisman.
So creating a completely artificial "thing" to use as Talisman and/or Familiar presents no "extra" risks.
An arrow can kill my normal Raven-Familiar...what risk is major than this one? ;)
_________________________________________

// Even the books establish that Magi theorize that when animals are created a spirit comes to occupy the created animal. //

Where does the book says so?
I read carefully both the "Creo Animal Guidelines" and the introduction to "Animal Spells" and all the CreoAnimal spells.
It is sayed that animals have a MIND...but that's all.

Ermetic Magic can create, move and generally manipulate "MIND"...so the whole point would just be to use a Mentem requisite, or an addittional Mentem spell.
BUT, guess what?, the mind of animals falls under the total control of the Animal-Form...so with just CreoAnimal spells I can "make" animal bodyes and animal minds ;)

Also in another topik it was stated that a "Spirit" is nothing more than a disembodied Mind...so I don't have any problem with "animal spirit" either :P

// Talismans are the rules that allow a mage to bind themselves to a inanimate object, Familiars are the rules that allow a mage to bind themselves to an animate object. //

What means "animate"?
That it can move? Eat? have sex?
ANY mechanical device can simulate such things...
So "alive" is not a behaviour, maybe it's the presence of this thing you call "spirit".
But the spirit is unrelated from the body...it's just the driving force that tells the body what to do.
It's like an "internal puppeteer" that pulls strings to move it's flesh puppet.

Follow my reasonong...

What is an "animal"?

Things we saied:
1) animals don't have a SOUL; that's why Ermetic Magic can create them
2) "animals" are alive.

So an animal that is not "alive" is not an animal?
No...because Animal magic works also on inanimate things made of dead animal materials :P

That leads me to belive that, in the eyes of Ermetic Magic, an animal is not something dead or alive...but composed by "animal materials".

So I take an animal, kill it for raw materials, and build a device.
Is it an animal?
As far as Ermetic Magic is concerned...yes...it's a dead animal.
To magically affect it I will HAVE to use Animal-Form...as Terram-Form is needed to affect stone and Ignem-Form to affect fire.

I can take this device and enchant it...it will still be seen by Ermetic Magic as a "dead animal".

But let's make it easyer...I take a cat, I kill it, and then I use it's corpse to make a Talisman.
This will STILL be an animal...dead.

Now...the Familiar bond.
A dead animal is an ANIMAL...but can I bond to it?
No.
Because it's dead.

What's the difference between a dead animal an a live animal?
Mind...the Spirit.
That means that I bond with the animal's SPIRIT...not with it's body!
That's why it doesn't make a difference if I bond to a raven instead of a coyote instead of a snake.

Then what prevents me from Binding to a human Mind?
The fact that Human and Animal minds are Essentially Different...humans have Intelligence, animals have Cunning.

So I need an animal Mind.
Stop.

////Talismans are the rules that allow a mage to bind themselves to a inanimate object, Familiars are the rules that allow a mage to bind themselves to an animate object.

I think that this statment, inexistent in the rulebook, can be refined into this:
Talismans are the rules that allow a mage to bind themselves to an object, Familiars are the rules that allow a mage to bind themselves to an animal spirit.

I'll also give a "poor man" example:
I have a car and I have a dog.
I can meke a talisman out of the car, and bond with the dog.
Putting the dog "INSIDE" the car won't change the situation...even if the dog was DRIVING the car :P

What will be the problem, Hermetically speaking, if I take a dead cat...enchant it as my Talisman...then add inside it a nice animal spirit...and bond with it as my Familiar?

I can do this...unless someone (you ^_^) finds explicit rules (mechanical or setting) that prove me wrong.
_________________

For the record...my Master will just say "Yes" and play along with it.
My interest is purely accademical.
I enjoy to KNOW how things work ^_^

"The first step in getting a familiar is finding an animal with inherent magic.
With inherent magic, the beast is likely to have a Magic Might score..."

"is likely" does not mean "has to", does it?

"is likely" does not mean "has to", does it?

Hey let's be nice here. All I said is that I thought I remebered that the animal couldn't be mundane. I didn't say it needed a might score and even if I had there'd still be no good cause for being snippy with me.

Of course it is possible that I've misinterpreted you, and that was a perfectly forthright question to which the answer is - it doesn't mean "has to", and I appologize for being overly defensive.

//Sorry if I sounded rude, I didn't mean to. //

Well then let me appologise for my unnecisarily defensive post

I find it somewhat amusing that rules I have played with for years and always considered unambigious and clear can raise so many questions from someone new to the game. It is good to have dogma qustioned!

Firstly I feel the need to say that talismans and familiars are two different things. I cannot find anywhere that explicitly states that one "object" cannot be both. I have never considered this. I believe the reason it doesn't say so explicitly is because it is an underlying assumption in the game. A familiar is a beast and an object is a thing. I would certainly never under any circumstances allow a player in my campaign to have anything that is both his familiar and his talisman at the same time.

As to what can be bound as a familiar and what can become a talisman. This is more complicated.
Familiars first:
You can certainly create a magical animal using CrVi and bind it as a familiar. The key requirement seems to be that it is some kind of beast which is inherently magical. It doesn't need to have a might score but it must be able to do something magical that other "mundane versions of the same animal can't do. If you do create the animal using magic it must either have a might score or some supernatural ability in order to become a familiar. Remember that you still have to befriend it and gain its trust. In my opinion it is far easier to go find one rather than create one.
But what else can become a familiar?
Faeries?
Certainly if you have faerie magic. Otherwise no. But we'll have to wait for HoH: mystery cults to find out if it has rules for this.
Dragons?
I dont see why not. In the mediaval paradigm dragons are animals just like unicorns, fire breathing salamanders, griffons, hippogriffs and what not. I dont see why a mystery initiation is nescesary in order to bind these magical animals when other magical animals can be bound. All that is required is to befreind it, convince it to bind with you, have an outrageous labtotal and more vis than most gamemasters allow players to have in their campaign.
Spirits?
Some of them i would say yes.
First we must find out what a spirit is. What do we mean by spirit.
Generally when I say spirit I mean a non-corperal entity whith a might score.
If it has faerie might, it's a faerie. (see above)
If it has infernal might it's a demaon. Attempting to discover if it is possible to bind a demon is a high crime and will result in the magi in question bieng marched.
If it has divine might, I'm not sure. Maybe it is possible for a pious magi with true faith to bind a lesser angel or other holy creature. I don't know.
And lastly, magic might.
I believe it is possible to bind some spirits with magic might.
They come in many shapes and sizes. Ghosts, disease spirits, former magi, spirits of artifice, animal spirits, guardian spirits, elemental spirits ( elements bieng fire, air, earth, water, regiones beneath the earth, and darkness or things unseen which are called lucifugum), and countless more inluding for instance abstract concepts from the magical realm.
some of these can certainly be bound using the normal rules for familiars, a fire elemtal might be an exsampel of this. Others may require initiation into mystery cults, such as maybe guardian spirits.
Others may well be impossible or hopelesly useless. So far 5th edition doesn't have rules for this, but I assume(or hope) that the upcoming Mysteries revised will at least have rules for binding Parhedros. Parhedros bieng spirits/entities from the magical realm.
In short its up to the GM what spirits can be bound.

Humans?
I would say no. But I don't see it as breaking any limits as such. I believe it would be possible to discover a way for two magi to bind to one another in a SIMILAR fashion to familiars. It would have to a breakthrough discovery, I believe. And who would do it? Maybe only magi who are each others true love. And it may not be possible to do if they are married, since then they are already bound to one another under the prescence of the divene... hmm... unless they are pagans.

// Even the books establish that Magi theorize that when animals are created a spirit comes to occupy the created animal. //

Theurgist are of the opinion that everything is inhabited by a spirit.
The theurgical approach to spell casting for instance is that, when you cast a spell a spirit from the magic realm appears and does the spell. Thusly, spells are spirits that fall under my above mentioned category of abstract concepts from the magical realm.

//Where does the book says so?
I read carefully both the "Creo Animal Guidelines" and the introduction to "Animal Spells" and all the CreoAnimal spells.
It is sayed that animals have a MIND...but that's all.

Ermetic Magic can create, move and generally manipulate "MIND"...so the whole point would just be to use a Mentem requisite, or an addittional Mentem spell.
BUT, guess what?, the mind of animals falls under the total control of the Animal-Form...so with just CreoAnimal spells I can "make" animal bodyes and animal minds ;)//

I have no idea where the book says that animals created by magic have spirits attached to them. Possibly in previous editions.
You must also remember that mind and true mind are differnt things. True mind is possesed by biengs with and Int score and are affected by mentem and their form, Corpus for humans and animal for an intelligent cat for instance.
The non-true mind is possesed by everything with cunning, your average domestic cow for instance. These biengs are not affected by mentem.
I am unfortunatly unable to find this in the rulebook.

I hope this has enlightened you slightly.

Talismans:
//Talismans are the rules that allow a mage to bind themselves to a inanimate object, Familiars are the rules that allow a mage to bind themselves to an animate object.

I think that this statment, inexistent in the rulebook, can be refined into this:
Talismans are the rules that allow a mage to bind themselves to an object, Familiars are the rules that allow a mage to bind themselves to an animal spirit.//

Seems reasonable enough. Although I'm not of the opinion that the spirit needs to be an animal spirit.

//What will be the problem, Hermetically speaking, if I take a dead cat...enchant it as my Talisman...then add inside it a nice animal spirit...and bond with it as my Familiar?

I can do this...unless someone (you ^_^) finds explicit rules (mechanical or setting) that prove me wrong.//

Well lets see. I find it hard to believe that an animal spirit trapped in a dead body will be inclined towards freindliness towards the magi. And this is nescesary inorder for it to become a familiar.
The more I think the more an alternative comes to light. The object you want to make a talisman and the entity you want as a familiar are two different things. Maybe it is possible to enchant something and make it your talisman, and then summon a spirit and bind it within the talisman, befriend the spirit and make it your familiar. But this is still two seperate lab activities.
For eksampel, lets say a magi (probably Flambeau) makes a huge bonfire, opens it to enchantment and attunes i...[Message truncated]

//Well lets see. I find it hard to believe that an animal spirit trapped in a dead body will be inclined towards freindliness towards the magi. And this is nescesary inorder for it to become a familiar.
The more I think the more an alternative comes to light. The object you want to make a talisman and the entity you want as a familiar are two different things. Maybe it is possible to enchant something and make it your talisman, and then summon a spirit and bind it within the talisman, befriend the spirit and make it your familiar. But this is still two seperate lab activities. //

This brings to mind third edition shamans (I never really spent any time familiarizing myself with the fourth ed version in DatB)who could make an object enticing enough for a spirit to _want_ to call it home. After they made this accomodating object, they would talk a spirit into living there.

Having a parhedros who just happens to dwell in the talisman of a magus seems to be more consistant with my vision of the setting than a talisman that has become an animal and then bound as a familiar.

Yet the magus would still be liable to call his talisman/ parhedros item "the basket which has been enchanted to hold ALL of my eggs". But this take on the combined item doesn't strike me as impossible.

The basic idea may have been to "summon/create" a suitable "spirit" (accountable as ANIMAL) and befriend it, talking it into an "item".

The "item" would have been created/constructed and enchanted as a Talisman.
Then the "spirit" goes into the "item"...and we bond as Master and Familiar.

Obviously these are two separate Lab Activities.
Obviously the "item" has to be suitable to become alive...or at least "usable" by the spirit.
Obviously the spirit has to be suitalbe for the bond...which arises the question about WHAT can be bonded.

As far as this topic (and the book) goes it looks like that you have to "bond" to an "animal".
BOND is a link between your spirit/mind and the animal's spirit/mind
ANIMAL _should be_ anything with a Cunning score.

But...there is a "but"...
The bond specifically requires an animal with some kind of magical attitude.
Most animals with Might, or just "supernatural" animals, have INTELLIGENCE scores, not CUNNING scores o_O'

So, maybe, "cunning" is not the defining factor.
Then WHAT would be an animal?

The book is VERY clear...you bond (for Familiar purposes) with an _ANIMAL_.
What will, then, make "something" definable as an animal?

The Parhedros in 4th ed was a spirit that you could take _instead_ of a Familiar if you were initiated into one of the inner myteries of Thaumaturgy.

I never meant to imply that the particular familiar bonding ritual in the core book was to be used.

Pardon me for not being more precise.

The Parhedros is an excellent alternative/compromise. I'm curious why your so adamant on defineing what is and isn't animal. Over the course of 50 odd emails we discussed animals and now we are discussing them in a new thread. We all seem to mutually agree to what an animal is and yet you don't seem satisfied. Rather than try to more narrowly define what is or isn't an animal, why don't you provide the particular mindbender you have in mind and we will tell you why it is or isn't an animal.

Is it the dead cat? Is it something your created with magic?

On a seperate issue two points.

One, I was the one that said some magi theorize that a spirit occupies the creature when an animal is created, and while I swear this is from the book I have yet found that blurb.

Two, the animal rules establish (p117) that if an animal has Cunning they are affected by Animal, but if they have Intelligence then Mentem is used.

Chuck

One day I thought "what if I make a _runic_ animal? what if I use the animal to make a Talisman and a Familiar?"

From this questions the thread was started.
Now I'm exploring more deep possibilities...

The rules for binding a familiar require ad "animal".
If I am able to understand WHAT makes "something" into an animal (rule-wise and setting-wise) then I would be able to modifiy whatever is not necessary to define an "animal".

I'll give an example.
If the only thing that matters for "something" to be an ANIMAL is the animal-spirit...then the material part, the body, doesn't matter...and I can do whatever I want with it.

But WHAT IS a so colled "animal-spirit"...does he NEEDS "cunning" or can it have "intelligence"...and if it has Intelligence, what's the difference between IT and a human-spirit?
I know "Animal Form" allows me to create a FULL animal (body+spirit)...will I be able to use "Mentem Form" to create a stable and sane human mind?

Can I bond a human mind?
____________________________

If we can understand and define the little single elementar parts that are at the basis of the Hermetic system we get a very powerful knowledge.

One example may be a Familiar-Talisman.
Rules DON'T prevent it, and it doesn't even generate an inbalance of power in the game (on the contrary, if you bust my Familiar you also destroy my Talisman!)
...but I, as a player, would not accept to do it if I can't find a suitable Hermetic justification.

I like to go deep into the things I am interested in, and ArM5 is such a fine game that it allows for a lot of speculation.
I don't want "house rules"...I want to examine all the facets of the Hermetic magic untill I can do something "new" or "better" that is POSSIBLE in the canon rules/setting.

The book defines "breakthrough" in magic as an achivement that allowed to break some limitation of Hermetic Doctrine.
My own kind of "breakthrough" is an achivement that allows to innovatively use the tools I already have at my disposal...

A Familiar-Talisman has many good advantages as well as many major flaws...but it is "new" and maybe it can be the first step-stone on the road to something greater :)

Defining what an "animal" is will help me define what a "human" is, and how both can be affected...
Defining if the "mind/spirit" is part of the Essential Nature or not, if it is tied to the soul or not, if it is rooted into the body or not...
And Warping? is it a feature of the mind, the soul or the body?
It is part of the Essential Nature?

All this questions will allow a much greater control over Hermetic Magic... to me, they are very important questions! ;)

//If we can understand and define the little single elementar parts that are at the basis of the Hermetic system we get a very powerful knowledge.//

//I like to go deep into the things I am interested in, and ArM5 is such a fine game that it allows for a lot of speculation.
I don't want "house rules"...I want to examine all the facets of the Hermetic magic untill I can do something "new" or "better" that is POSSIBLE in the canon rules/setting.//

you're approaching the system as if it were the fundimental rules of the Ars universe. Something that could be studied to derive deep insights into the underlying functioning of the magical world which it attempts to describe.

Now certainly this can be done a bit. Ars has gone through four previous editions, It has been put under a pretty big magnifying glass for a long time (with the berk list the three fanzines and lots of messageboards and games). David had seen a lot of it before he started on the new edition and I'd doubt that there's more than a tiny fraction of it that hadn't been absorbed by at least one of the playtesters that are listed on page two of the book. I'm sure that five rounds of playtesting plugged up a great number of inconsistencies that existed prior to fifth edition.

But any insights that you find have got to take a back seat the to lager fact that Ars was devised as a game and was produced as a game. It isn't a set of rules that's made to be a puzzle. I'm sure the priorities of the publishers have always placed the highest importance on having a game that people will want to play. Internal consistancy was pursued because it served the purpose of making the game enjoyable not for its own value.

//Defining what an "animal" is will help me define what a "human" is, and how both can be affected...
Defining if the "mind/spirit" is part of the Essential Nature or not, if it is tied to the soul or not, if it is rooted into the body or not...
And Warping? is it a feature of the mind, the soul or the body?
It is part of the Essential Nature?//

Now suppose that you find some particular animal and corpus spells that when looked at in the correcet way, define animal in some way that allows you to do something "new" or "better" than most players would expect. Useing your understanding, a character could accomplish feats with a fraction of the effort that David or the playtesters forsaw. Imagine that one couldn't argue with your new understanding unless they wanted to disregard selected portions of the rule book.

Would you have uncoverded secret power for your character? No, you would have uncovered a place were I and the rest of the playtesters screwed up.

Ars magica 5 has a very tight system (one of the most consistant that has ever been published imho) but it was put together as a justification for playing games. To attempt to "back calculate" the true definition of animal from the rules is entirely misguided. The rules were an attempt to create the setting that the designers wanted. To try and derive the nature of the setting from the rules is somewhat backwards. (I don't mean to imply that the rules didn't have extensive influence upon the setting, they did (longevity potion specialists and mystery houses come to mind)).

The rules are tools that was designed to run games. To this end they describe the nature of the setting. To use the rules to derive the nature of the setting is not to put the tool to the purpose for which it was intended.

I'm sure there are rule loopholes (I bet that there are a few of them in muto in particular) but a loophole that you find should be corrected rather than exploited.

EVERY game is JUST a game.
The fun of RPGs is to "pretend" a given world is "real", that it exists and works as told by the books that describe it.

I'm not trying to find loopholes in the rules to get "cheaper" results.
I'm trying to SPECULATE on the setting to desume answers where there are no answers.

For example...Can a Familiar be also a Talisman (and vice versa)?
It's not about _easier_ or _harder_...it's about _different_!

Let's be honest...there are games with a SETTING, and then a set of rules that are used to make gaming possible into that particular setting.
Ars Magica is a very Rules-Heavy game...RULES define the setting! o_O'
In most games this is very bad...but ArM is indeed a very good game because the setting itself is all about Hermetic Magic and what comes with it.
Depending on the laws and limitations of the Hermetic Theory the setting would function in a very different way...history itself would develop in a different direction...etc...

In ArM "rules" are the practical way in which the setting is made manifest when you come to ask "how does this thing work" or "why something is like it is"?

Look at D&D.
D&D is crappy because the setting (witchever it is) describes things totally unsupported by the rules.
A littlle and stupid example are "Sorcerers", described as powerhouses of raw magical force, barely controllable, often unaware of all their talents, wells of chaotic mana...
Then the rules are totally opposed to the setting, giving more strict limits than those of a "normal" magician.
And that's just one little example...

This is something that can't be "worked with"; it's inconsistent, contradictory, superficial...basically flawed.
Either you say WHATEVER and fudge it...or you don't play D&D.

Instead there are other games that use rules to "support" the setting...shaping the game-system "just" ad a mechanical explanation of how things work.
There is not a Setting-thing and a System-thing...there is just a SETTING and HOW IT WORKS.
Rules exist BECAUSE of the setting, so if they would be different the setting would be influenced too.

Consistency, deep tought, and generally speaking...quality.
Ars Magica is such a game.
It allows theoretical speculation and debate...to get to SILID (possible) answers that are a "logical consequence" of setting and rules.
OBVIOUSLY any conclusion that I (or anyone else) can draw is just an assumption that can be proved wrong in future supplements.
But untill then...

Untill then I will enjoy doing "Magic Theory" and question whoever may be interested about the "nature" of things, about the WHYs and HOWs, and so on... :)

Chuck raises a his Mountain Dew to toast Erik, then beats his head against the wall.

I'm not totally at odds with you here. (although I don't share your loathing of D&D)

I'm just saying that if you look into the rules a bit and you'll get insight, look in to the rules too deep and you'll end up arguing about the validity of the green grog defense and its ilk.

The Green Grog defense:

Magic resistance in ars keeps magic away from the protected entity. Thus a flamming sword can not strike a protected creature unless it penetrates MR and a falling magus will fall around magically created spikes rather than on top of them.

If a magus casts a spell of duration sun to turn an entire grog green (from the inside out) that grog will have a difficult time slapping the magus. Also (and this is where the arguments will come up) the magus will have a difficult time doing any more than contacting the skin of the grog. Likewise, a dragon would be able to superficially scratch the grog but not be able sink its teeth or claws into him because the grog is protected by the _dragon's_ magic resistance.

Now you can go back to the magic resitance examples in the core book and make arguments why this won't work. But I would submit that dwelling on such things does not make for a great game.

Characters should be doing mythic heroic tasks, not oozing around the weak points in the rules.

Of course you said that your point was to learn rather than to use it in play. If that's really the case, then perhaps we'll derive something of use to head off sillyness before it rears its ugly head in play.

(I really did enjoy the thread about rego derived strength boosts.)

>Magic resistance in ars keeps magic away from the protected entity.

I thought it "prevented magic from affecting the protected entity"

> Thus a flamming sword can not strike a protected creature unless it
>penetrates MR and a falling magus will fall around magically created
>spikes rather than on top of them.

correct

>If a magus casts a spell of duration sun to turn an entire grog green
>(from the inside out) that grog will have a difficult time slapping the
>magus.

ok

> Also (and this is where the arguments will come up) the magus
>will have a difficult time doing any more than contacting the skin of
>the grog.

eh?
there is nothing I've read in 5e that suggests that a protected being can't affect a being under the effect of magic, only the other way round. The "protection" is not symmetric.

> Likewise, a dragon would be able to superficially scratch the
>grog but not be able sink its teeth or claws into him because the grog
>is protected by the _dragon's_ magic resistance.

again, I am astonished at this reading - it's the first time I've encountered it, in many discussions of 5e MR and some of its quirks...

As I read it, you can enchant a grog to be both fire-proof and burning continuously (a useful, mobile combined torch and fire-brand?). A magus, protected by Parma can still punch the living daylights out of said grog (ok, their puny arms need a spell to help them!) -- and their Parma protects them from the magical flames enveloping the grog, but does not protect the grog from their puch. Nor is the grog protected if the magus adds magical spkiy claws to their fists...

/>Magic resistance in ars keeps magic away from the protected entity./

/I thought it "prevented magic from affecting the protected entity"/

I've no rulebooks here to double check (perhaps when I get home tonight I'll remeber to check) in the meantime there is a quote from David in the FAQ that uses "keeps magic away".

//eh?
there is nothing I've read in 5e that suggests that a protected being can't affect a being under the effect of magic, only the other way round. The "protection" is not symmetric.//

If what parma does is "keep magic away" rather than "provide protection" then....

Look, this is precisely the discussion that I said would yeild no benefit. (and even if we do have it, we should have it in a different thread.)

Edit: p. 85 functiioning of magic resistance first sentance "Magic resistence keeps magic away from the maga, her clothing, and other items that are very close to her."