i wasn't aware sacrosanct was latin, i knew what that one meant. reducto ad absurdum i can only guess at, "reduction by absurdity?" or is it the other way around?

I think someone posted a link on the thread somewhere (and whatever you do, don't browse alone... its dark in there) to what all the latin meant. I looked, but then my brain hurt (there was a REASON I skived latin in school you know...) so I stopped. Suffice to say the vast majority of the sayings are the expanded vocabulary equivalent to the hitchikers guide to the galaxy explanation of QED:

"QED: which is latin for 'so don't argue with ME, you bastard'."

hope that helps

and 3Threes, I agree with everything you said in your first post. I don't know that the second needed to be quite so... venomous. Though it was extremely funny to read, with the greatest of respect to the targets!

This is of course, my opinion. yadda yadda yadda.

I loved this thread. Polaris was ever so entertaining, and at least some of the arguing was top notch debate! What happened to him/her, anyway? I don't think i saw anything of them after this thread fizzled.

tyically Polaris goes like this:

Polaris: <A>! <A> all the way!
Someone Else: But not <A> because <B>
Polaris: No, are you <insert Latin or obsucre phrase> it's <A>!
Someone Else: But man, listen to <B>
Polaris: <F!> I say <F>! (Where F is looseley related that will cause argument.)
..<122 more posts>
(Conversation loses entire original point, polaris saying whats necessary to argue, even if if veers into completely different territory often using horribly flawed logic.)
....<104 more posts>
(Conversation goes against polaris, people come up with valid points and try to get him to stop changing the subject, where he either he keeps changing the subject regularly or insults posters)
.....<95 more posts>
(Polaris doesn't post for a few months, go to step one)

"reductio ad absurdum" of course means 'so don't argue with ME, you bastard' but can be loosely translated as "to take so many of the nuances out of the question that the case of the opposition seems ridiculous."
"sacrosanct" is not really latin, but can be loosely translated as "is a holy cow."

Actually, I once lost a point on a Latin test for using the "i". It is in fact "reducto ad absurdum", though the (incorrect) common usage adds in the i. It means to logically push a point until it is shown to be absurd. For instance, if two people kill someone, one eighteen and one seventeen, and someone says "try them both as adults! It's just one year of difference, they should have the same level of responsibility!" and someone else points out "well, what about between seventeen and sixteen? Sixteen and fifteen? Logically extending your argument, a one-year-old is as accountable as these people." It's a valid argument, though not infallible.
And on a side note, Polaris has not used language that should not be par for anyone with a high school education. I understand that we've got some people on the board under that level (I know there was a thirteen-year-old posting a month or two ago; at least I hope he hasn't completed high school yet ), but that's not Polaris' fault.

~J

Well, I guess I'm just dumb then. I can live with that.

Vile Thread Necromancy!

That is the way the rules would work. the Ally knows the spells as its creator knows them. Fetish limited and everything. If he wants to give the ally useful spells that don't require it to be materialized and holding a bunch of junk to use them, he's gonna have to learn unlimited versions for it. Embedding them in the Ally formula is fairly useless, as it's a guide to creating the ally, not actually part of the ally itself (as nothing happens to the ally when it breaks or is destroyed, you just can't alter the ally unless you rebuild it).

It IS fairly necessary for your poor mage to buy and learn all the spells he wants to teach his ally solely so he can teach them to the ally, that's explicitly what the rules say (though it would be handy for him to learn them himself as well).

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but a mage COULDN'T cast a fetish-limited spell while projecting, IIRC.

Fetishes have an astral body which projects with the magician. So yes, fetish-limited spells can be cast on the astral plane.

I see no reason why an Ally wouldn't be able to carry around the astral bodies of its fetishes the same way a magician does. Since the Ally is dual natured when materialized it may not have any problems wielding just the astral forms of the fetishs although some GMs might rule that the ally needs a physical fetish to cast on the physical plane. This latter interpertation leaves the ally with unrestricted casting on the astral plane but limited casting on the physical plane. To cast a physical spell it would have to physically carry the fetish.

If the fetishes are part of it's astral form, then when it materialized, it would have them..

The problem with this is that it means the ally literally cannot be missing its fetishes.

Also means that any NEW spells the ally would get would require adjustments to the ally's astral form.

So.. what I'd suggest is: Ally can learn spells as normal. Ally can only cast spells that it has appropriate fetishes built into it's form for -- and can only have fetishes for spells which it knows. Of course, because the ally doesn't have any disadvantage to having fetishes, it doesn't get the advantage either.

What that means is:

• Teaching the ally spells requires adding another form, which has the fetish. Since astrally, the forms don't matter, the fetishes from all forms count as being there -- but materialized, it can only cast spells it has the fetishes for. This penalizes the character slightly, but it doesn't cripple the character for having only fetish limited spells.
• The ally doesn't get the benefits of a limit when it doesn't have the drawbacks