Here's a question... for Ron as designer, for everyone as GMs...

I've been trying to define Taint and Mark in preparation for my own Sorcerer game, and I'm really having trouble.

1) How are these abilities used in game terms (not rules terms, but in play)?

2) Why would anyone want a demon with these abilities...
a) ...as a Sorcerer?
b) ...as a player?
c) ...as a GM?

3) Can they be Ranged, or does the demon have to touch the target?

I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I just don't see what use these are. Since Humanity is defined for each group of players, why is Taint part of the rules? It seems like a "freebie" Humanity loss, unassociated with any *action* of the player, which goes counter to the spirit of the game.

How are other people interpreting these? Ideas?

DBH

David,

As I've interpreted it, Taint is one of those things that's left pretty wide open by the rules. The fact that it incurs a temporary loss of Humanity is just the tip of the iceberg... the second sentence of the power description says: "The special effects include physical as well as psychic malformation, with the details left up to the individual play group." To me, that read like a GM carte blanche

To give a really specific example, I've been working on a mini-sup where the PCs play host to the spirits of dead godlings (sort of), and Taint was going to be a big part of how those gods made their presence known. In short, whenever Taint was used successfully, the player would undergo a transformation of sorts, temporarily becoming the god they were hosting...a change which entailed new scores, new Descriptions, and even a new cover. Maybe I was taking some extreme liberties with the Power, but I've always felt like Sorcerer was the kind of game you push, pull, and twist until it was your own.

- Scott

Scott,

Why in the world would something that says, in the rules, "determined by the play group" be interpreted by you as, "carte blanche for the GM?" This strikes me as a fascinating cognitive leap. When I say "by the group," I mean, by the group.

David,

Taint provides a nice means of giving characters and/or players a close-up look at what Humanity means, for the group. "What does 0 Humanity do?" they may ask (again, with "they" meaning either players or characters). Taint can show them without being permanent.

Secondary effects depend on how 0 Humanity is handled in the group. If you are using the default, rather vague rules in the core book, it basically gives the character over to the GM - which, in my opinion, would be absolutely unacceptable behavior during regular Sorcerer play (see the Mind Control thread in this forum). Yet 0 Humanity is exactly what "unacceptable" is all about, and a formal breaking of the social contract seems, to me, to be a fine thing at that stage of play. The nice thing about Taint is that the player gets the character back.

If you are using any of the suggestions in The Sorcerer's Soul about 0 Humanity, then Taint, again, gives a nice "preview" of the option in question.

Mark is a very, very handy thing. I'm puzzled about your question and don't understand what you're not seeing, and it's hard to discuss a negative. Can you explain your reservations about this ability a little more clearly?

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I knew you were going to call me on that. My only excuse, lame as it is, is that I'm damn selfish. When I see something cool, like the wide-open way that Taint can be applied in Sorcerer, I start thinking of all the cool things I can do with it, without giving much thought to what anyone else would like. And of course, I say GM, because I think of myself as a GM.

Your points about 0 Humanity, and using Taint as a way to explore what that means, have occupied my thoughts these past couple months as I work out the bugs in my own Sorcerer stuff. It's truly awesome, and I think perhaps your warning in the rulebook was a bit too strongly worded. I was initially very nervous about introducing Taint into a game, and it never came into play in my first Sorcerer run. I won't make that mistake the next time.

The notion that the social contract could be broken under certain circumstances without becoming dysfunctional is interesting. I'm not sure that's what actually happens in Sorcerer when 0 Humanity is reached, with or without Taint, but the idea is fascinating.

- Scott

Mark is a very, very handy thing. I'm puzzled about your question and don't understand what you're not seeing, and it's hard to discuss a negative. Can you explain your reservations about this ability a little more clearly?

Best,
Ron

Hi David,

A specific answer depends on the specific qualities of sorcery and among-sorcerer subculture, if any, for a particular game. Marks might indicate property, romantic ties, family ties, sorcerous alliances, or whatever else.

Let's take the Cult of the Dark Lady from the core book. Such a sorcerer might Mark his or her coven members, as a warning to any and all other sorcerers or demons to keep "hands off" this individual.

I left Mark to be customized fairly heavily in terms of information it might convey. A Mark might be totally "blank," conveying only the use of the ability, or it might be full of information, e.g. "This person is a coven member of Janice, sorceress of the Dark Lady, inscribed by her demon Vassth. No poaching." Either approach (or any in between, ie based on a Lore roll's victories) leads to good story potential.

Best,
Ron

Another good use of this power is like the old Spider-Man "Spidey tracers" or whatever they were called. You can tag someone with a Mark and use that later to notice them.

For example, if you were being assaulted at night, and couldn't get a good look at your attacker, you might have your demon Mark him, and look for someone with that Mark later (or if you know other sorcerers, ask around.)

I hadn't thought of all of Ron's uses - good stuff there.

A couple of good uses of mark:

You have a demon with a desire to follow people, animals or other demons. You put your demon on the trail of something, with instructions to mark the people that the person comes into contact with. That way, you can find out that Otto the Bookbinder, who you had followed, has been meeting with Wolfgang, the burgomeister's Master of Assasins. Your demon doesn't have to know who Wolfgang is; you can find that out on your own (say, while you're on the rack).

Another use might be for a sort of dream walker demon. People of affected might be marked, especially if the demon wants to come back to use them later (maybe it's a possesor and looking for a new host). Other sorcerers might be able to use this to track the extent of this demon's sleep voyages.

I think that David has managed to point out two things that should be on the "One Sheet". Essentially in designing your demons and humanity for your game you should also decide what taint and mark mean.

First of all, the way that Ron made the demon powers is a bit like how powers are done in Champions. You know the effect, but not what it looks like. The game effect is the same, however, whatever the appearance. These appearances of powers are called Special Effects in Champions. So for these powers as well as the others you have to define the Special Effects.

Let's look at Mark. It's a classic power. Consider that in Sorcerer one of the most important things that a Sorcerer needs to be able to do is to note other sorcerers (hence the rules for telltales). Some Demons might mark sorcerers by contact, which means that sorcerers become much more obvious to each other.

"A small inconspicuous looking fellow comes into the room. You can tell right away that he is Marked by his contact with demons."

Suck's to be him. It's like a witchmark or something. He messed with something he shouldn't, and now he's marked. And an easy target to get the drop on. For other Sorcerers (>1 Lore). Note that normal folks still have to go by telltales.

Let's take another example to look a specific Special Effects, tho. Let's say that Demons in your game are hates. In that game the Mark might be unnatural scowl. In another where demons are psychoses, the mark might be a subtle look of madness in the eyes.

I think that the interperetation is pretty open to have more data assigned to the mark, as Ron implies above. I mean, obviously a Marked individual has had contact with a demon; you know that from the start. But you could include other things, like what Caste of demon did the marking, or perhaps even which. Or anything, really as defined by the campaign guidelines.

My favorite idea is to use arcane symbols for the marks, which are only visible to sorcerers, and allow players to make Lore rolls to interperet the symbols correctly. Heck, one might be allowed in some games to send secret messages to other Sorcerers by marking people. The GM might assign a penalty to try a complicated mark. A miss might mean that the target is mis-marked which could result in all sorts of badness.

"That's the mark of Balzur. Before today I'd only seen it twice ever. Today I've seen it on a dozen innocents. The End is near..."

And remember that a demon's powers are not just there for the player to make a utility machine out of. Oh, as the rules go, they can do that with their very first demon sorta, but the GM gets to make later demons himself. So many may have the Mark ability if this is the case. And I can see many an unruly demon marking it's master if not taken care of well. Heck, I'd say just throw in the Mark ability for most demons. I like the idea of non-lethal ways that demons can torment their masters.

"Hah, I see that you are an amature! You have the mark of shame given by all Pendali demons whose masters cannot handle them correctly."

Taint needs to be described, too. For Hate demons you simply become uncontrollably enraged. Which brings you to total loss of control and berzerk frenzy at Humanity 0. For demons as Magic Spirits taint is a fading into the etherial plane resulting in the character disapearing at Humanity 0.

Interestingly, I had not considered closely the Mark and Taint powers for Sorcerer and Space. I think I'll just go and add a section on that.

Thanks for bringing it up, :-)

Mike

Thanks, everyone for the examples. I had seen Mark as the old "Witch's Mark" sort of thing, but since that derives from an utterly different conception of demons-- witches were marked as Satan's, and nobody was binding Old Scratch-- I didn't see it as applicable to this game.

Some examples of this sort would have been very handy in the rulebook.... I'm sure there are other things I'm missing the implications of!

I hadn't considered the degrees and kinds of specification that might be possible with this.

That said, perhaps I can start another thread...

DBH

Ack! Wait, I almost forgot:

Ron, is Mark automatically Ranged or must Ranged be taken as well? The rulebook only suggests that Special Damage, Hop, and Hold need to have Ranged taken as well.

Thanks,

Dave

Hi David,

Mark may be performed from a distance without taking Ranged as well. I was going to say that only attack abilities need to take Ranged to be ranged, but of course Psychic Force is automatically ranged, so never mind.

Best,
Ron

Seems to me that the Ranged thing is one that would probably get altered by customizaton of the definitions. For example, in a particular game where demons powers were represented as Martial Arts Chi stuff, the Psychic Force power might require a touch (but be allowed to be bought with ranged to make for more varied potential abilities).

I like the idea of Taint requiring actual contact, as another example. A lot of these things will seem pretty intuitive once you have your vision for your setting (which is why I forgot to include them explicitly in &Space).

Mike

David Howard wrote: witches were marked as Satan's, and nobody was binding Old Scratch-- I didn't see it as applicable to this game.

greyorm wrote:
Being Bound doesn't necessarily mean YOU are running the show,

Mike,

There's nothing special about greyorm's supplement that allows the demon to be in control. That comes out of the rules for binding. If the demon has the victories, the demon is the boss. That's why it's a good idea to keep the advice from The Case of Charles Dexter Ward in mind, "Do not call up that which ye cannot put down."

One of my players once tried to bind a cat passer. Now, if you've ever tried to give orders to a cat, you can predict how this binding came out. Six dice worth of complete victory, favoring the cat. So the cat gave him aid when she felt like it, and otherwise did as she pleased.

FWIW, I wasn't implying that there were any changes required, mechanically, just in perspective. In a more standard Sorcerer setting, I think of sorcerers as being the boss. A hgh number of successes makes it hard to control your "employee", but note that it never means that the player must have the character do what the Demon says. You always have autonomy. If the demon wants you to do something, it has to find a way to coerce or cajole you into doing it.

In the case of he Gods rules I would just make it pretty easy for the gods to coerce or cajole you. So the binding has different perspective, then. Since you cannot force this being to do something, it becomes you who have to cajole it into doing something. With a bonus for the binding roll representing how much the being likes you.

Like I said, if you think about the rules long enough you can bend them to make all sorts of settings work.

Mike

greyorm wrote:

David Howard wrote: witches were marked as Satan's, and nobody was binding Old Scratch-- I didn't see it as applicable to this game.

Who says he wasn't?

Being Bound doesn't necessarily mean YOU are running the show, just that you get use of nifty powers from the thing which you've summoned...sounds like a witch to me.

quote]

Sure... but not what I meant. From the rulebook, page 89 (don't you love me?): "a demon can only be Bound to one sorcerer at a time."

I never said the Binder is running the show; just that, in the Satanist concept, one demon was binding/being bound to many sorcerers. The rules of Sorcerer do not allow many people to independently Bind one huge honking mega-demon.

But that was probably just Pacting, anyway...

DBH

"When's it ready?"

When I finish it! Heh.

"The rules of Sorcerer do not allow many people to independently Bind"

Again, who says?

Yes, the rulebook does; but take a look at the supplements...all are major thinking outside the box of "the rules"...and, whoever said that the sorcerer was the one doing the Binding?

Yes, again the rules do...but that's just flavor text.

There's a minisupplement forthcoming (not mine) where the "secrecy" rule is thrown out the window -- sorcerers and demons are out in the open.
Demon Cops -- Ron's own minisupplement -- makes it clear that everyone knows about demons and imps and such, again, bending the rule of secrecy.

Suppose it is the demon Binding the sorcerer?

Or if you want to stay completley within the rules: In regards to medieval Satanists, the legend is that each witch gained a familiar, a demon in an animal's body...now check out the Cult of the Dark Lady in the main rules for where I'm going with this line of thought.

greyorm wrote:

"The rules of Sorcerer do not allow many people to independently Bind"

Again, who says?

Yes, the rulebook does; but take a look at the supplements...all are major thinking outside the box of "the rules"...and, whoever said that the sorcerer was the one doing the Binding?

Yes, again the rules do...but that's just flavor text.

greyorm wrote:
Or if you want to stay completley within the rules: In regards to medieval Satanists, the legend is that each witch gained a familiar, a demon in an animal's body...now check out the Cult of the Dark Lady in the main rules for where I'm going with this line of thought.

David Howard wrote:
Sorcerer implies, and *not* just as "flavor", that the Binding relationship is one-to-one. The whole point of the game is the sorcerer-demon relationship, however "demon" is defined.