Necromantic Tokens

[Plotin]

Hello all and most of all Ron, who is my foremost addressant for these questions!

I am about to meet with my group for for a first discussion to mutually decide upon what our upcoming (first) Sorcerer & Sword campaign will be like. Thanks to searching these threads I think I was able to settle all difficulties with understanding the rules I am aware of, but there are some issues with necromantic tokens I am not sure about:

1) Once a token is established, how long does it hold those bonus dice? Forever, to be reused over and over again, or just until used once?

2) When you establish a token, how narrowly do you have to decide upon what actions the bonus dice will apply to? The exact action, the broad class of actions or do they apply to any action, as long as there is some kind of "connection" between the establishing act and the action the bonus dice are conferred upon?

3) Does the necromancer have to bring about the death(s) of the victim(s) consciously, planning to establish or strengthen a token, or can he use any death occurring in his vicinity? I would have thought of the former, but the example from the rulebook about using your girlfriend's death as a token to bring her back from the dead (p. 60) has raised some doubts.

And finally a question to Ron aimed somewhat at the design premises of these rules:
It seems to be a feature of the genre that ashes, bones, skulls, whatever of dead sorcerers are powerful magical fetishes, which I would interpret as tokens. But most sorcerers in the game tend to have rather low Humanity scores, providing for a very weak token. So -

4) What about allowing the use of the higher of either Humanity or Lore to establish the strength of the token when killing a sorcerer for this reason?

Thank you.

[Arturo G.]

Hi, folks!

I'm also interested in some of the answers. And I want to add another related question.

As far as I understood the token can be used over and over again, for centuries to come. Although I've not found it explicitly in the rules, I think it is part of the genre that the token may be physically broken, destroying its power.
Moreover, things done with the power of the token may be "dispelled" if the token is broken. Or is this last detail part of the later fantasy literature?

Cheers,
Arturo

[Ron Edwards]

Hello!

Necromantic Tokens are sort of advanced Sorcerer, so I hope I don't confuse anyone by referring to other things during my explanation.

The basic value of the Token really doesn't matter much - what matters is using it and increasing that value. The Token does hold its dice forever, so you can see that feeding more deaths into it makes it bigger and bigger.

In practice, though, the real power of the Token comes from affecting other rolls, especially Summoning, but really, any acts that are being committed in thermatic/symbolic accordance with the Token. If you get creative and cunning about how act A affects act B, then the Sorcerer rules for rolling-over victories into bonus dice can be applied as well. This is how you get armies of undead, but as illustrated in the source literature, blood/death magic snowballs fast with success, but is very unforgiving of failure (i.e. lose accumulated bonuses of roll-overs).

That should answer the questions about the starting value (Humanity only) and the permanency of the value. Arturo is right that physically destroying a Token will remove its baleful influence, i.e. dice, from play.

I'm going to combine these questions from both of you, because they have the same answer.

When you establish a token, how narrowly do you have to decide upon what actions the bonus dice will apply to? The exact action, the broad class of actions or do they apply to any action, as long as there is some kind of "connection" between the establishing act and the action the bonus dice are conferred upon?

things done with the power of the token may be "dispelled" if the token is broken. Or is this last detail part of the later fantasy literature?

The answer is, It depends. All Sorcerer games have their own look & feel for sorcery, which is not the same as "sorcery physics." You'll have to arrive at a group standard for it, at first by one person suggesting it, and later by looking over the starting demons and other visual, thematic components of just-created characters.

3) Does the necromancer have to bring about the death(s) of the victim(s) consciously, planning to establish or strengthen a token, or can he use any death occurring in his vicinity? I would have thought of the former, but the example from the rulebook about using your girlfriend's death as a token to bring her back from the dead (p. 60) has raised some doubts.

The former is correct. If you use her death as a sacrifice to bring her back from the dead, then you would have to kill her in the first place, or be responsible for it in such a way that it would be considered murder. If the girlfriend died by accident or whatever, then you'd be stuck with basic Summoning, assuming that undead were demons in your game.

Best,
Ron

[Plotin]

Hello Ron!

Thank you for your answers; they helped to clarify a few things I was not sure about, and Arturo's point about destroying tokens was helpful as well. It seems that you are not much in favour of allowing Lore instead of Humanity for establishing a token, and in the meantime I have thought of another way how the unholy remains of sorcerers could be used to work magic - simply by tearing his soul screaming from Arallu's/Lord Thro' Ellet's hell (i.e. summoning it) and binding it as an Object demon.

If you use her death as a sacrifice to bring her back from the dead, then you would have to kill her in the first place, or be responsible for it in such a way that it would be considered murder. If the girlfriend died by accident or whatever, then you'd be stuck with basic Summoning, assuming that undead were demons in your game.

Being responsible for the death is what I meant with "bringing it about consciously", but I might allow for this in a somewhat broader fashion. I am thinking of Xaltotun at the end of "The Hour of the Dragon", who does not only plan to sacrifice a single virgin to Set, but effectively offers up the entire Nemedian and Aquilonian army fighting on the plains below to reestablish Acheron. I can't see him bringing about this battle and thereby being responsible for murdering the warriors, but he is definitely involved in it, faciliates it and therefore should be entitled to use its deaths for his necromancy.

All the best,
Michael

[Arturo G.]

Hi Ron and Michael!

I really like the customizable features of Sorcerer. What initially seemed to me as a lack of definition is becoming my best ally to use the game. I have good expectations to introduce it to my small group.
Ron, is this another example of what you call "fruitfull void"?

Cheers,
Arturo

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Plotin, glad to help! Welcome to the Forge, by the way, and it's clear you will be a fine contributor to this forum at the very least. Anyone who casually tosses off references to Lord Thro'Ellet and Xaltotun is a friend o'mine.

Arturo, the customizable component of Sorcerer is almost a fruitful void ... but not enough, by itself. It's really just a piece of subordinating Setting (look & feel of sorcery) to Situation (Kicker).

I'll contrast the Sorcerer approach with our approach to HeroQuest (then Hero Wars), which I think offers a functional alternative.

SORCERER

Situation/Kicker requires sketchy but consistent Setting as a form of reinforcement. This is like seeing a movie preview and being intrigued with the crisis faced by the protagonist: "One man ... two women ... each one leading a ruthless army ..." and also seeing that it's set in some kind of ancient Chinese context. The setting is cool, but specifically because it supports the crisis that's presented as well.

HEROQUEST

Setting necessarily includes crisis-point scenario Situations. This is like looking over a map of armies, ethnicities, and recent history with circles & arrows drawn onto it, and saying "Holy shit, they must be going nuts right there in that border town." The situation is what's left wide open for development, because it represents a local version or permutation of the larger-scale, even metaphysical instability.

Best,
Ron

[Arturo G.]

I think I see Ron.
Related question: If a game fix too much both, setting and situation, it is somehow constraining the players freedom for authorship and exploration, doesn't it?

Cheers,
Arturo

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Arturo,

We're getting off-topic for this thread, but I'll answer this last question.

First, I suggest not introducing such loaded and vague words as "freedom" into the discussion. I can't tell whether you mean "opportunity," "privilege," or "expectation," which as you can see are very different concepts, or something else entirely. Instead of clarifying this to me, let's move on.

Second, consider that all components of Exploration (character, setting, situation, system, color) are interrelated; I've described how in other posts. In some cases, holding some of them (or some parts of them) constant is extremely useful, because it provides a framework for the others to develop. In other cases, it works as a block or choking constraint (the bad sense of the word) upon play as a whole, everybody involved.

So I can't answer the question with a simple yes or no. This is really something we'd have to address from a foundation of discussing actual play.

Best,
Ron