I've perused the "Magical Aging" thread from the sticky post and it didn't quite answer my question, so I'll try to be brief.

I'm quite confused about how the immortality of the Fey and the magical aging of sorcery work together. I don't have the book with me, so I'm working from memory. As I recall, aging starts to become a problem when a character reaches 40, which is when rolls to avoid penalties begin to kick in.

How should I determine how old a starting Fey is? It's safe to assume that they're thousands of years old, but that doesn't quite line up with the table I remember seeing. Should I give Fey a bunch of "free" years?

For example, a starting human with sorcery might begin at age 30, giving him 10 "free" years of aging before he starts to worry about stat loss. Should I start a Fey character at age 0, giving him 40 "free" years of aging before worrying about rolls?

Just how exactly do aging and the Fey interact?

I would say this varies depending on your vision of the Fey in your game. I've always understood the peak of innate physical ability/appearance to be somewhere between 20-25 years old in human terms. Thus the Fey, who do not decline from this peak once they've reached it regardless of how long they live, would effectively start from the physical equivalent of this age -- consider it equal to 20 if you want to give the Fey an extra 60 months of age-loss to lose, 25 if you want them more on par with most starting human sorcerers.

Of course, since male Fey don't have beards (in MY world, anyway :) ), aging just gives them longer hair and gaunter faces.

Basically, for all sorcerers you have to separate Chronological Age from Effective Physical Age. The former is how long they've lived in real time; the latter is the current state of health/fitness/liveliness of their physical frame, measured in terms of how an ordinary person's health would be at that age.

The difference between humans and Fey is that, for Fey, only sorcery causes their effective physical age to increase -- as opposed to humans, for whom chronological age and physical age increase together over time.

Thanks for the reply, Stephen.

So you suggest starting the Fey out at an Effective Physical Age? That seems to make sense. Is this idea one that's supported in the text? It sounds like what I'll use, but I wonder if there's some tidbit about this in the text that I glossed over?

Actually, your idea of Chronological vs. Effective Age raises one question. All Fey are sorcerors, which means that they've been using sorcery their entire immortal lives. How do they survive to the start of the campaign if they've had thousands of years to rack up their Effective Physical Age?

I guess you could say that the character has led a contemplative life with little stress (and correspondingly small need for sorcery), but doesn't that stretch credibility a bit? Am I being too literal?

Dave Turner wrote:
I guess you could say that the character has led a contemplative life with little stress (and correspondingly small need for sorcery), but doesn't that stretch credibility a bit? Am I being too literal?

Dave Turner wrote: So you suggest starting the Fey out at an Effective Physical Age? That seems to make sense. Is this idea one that's supported in the text? It sounds like what I'll use, but I wonder if there's some tidbit about this in the text that I glossed over?

Actually, your idea of Chronological vs. Effective Age raises one question. All Fey are sorcerors, which means that they've been using sorcery their entire immortal lives. How do they survive to the start of the campaign if they've had thousands of years to rack up their Effective Physical Age?

I guess you could say that the character has led a contemplative life with little stress (and correspondingly small need for sorcery), but doesn't that stretch credibility a bit? Am I being too literal?

Jake Norwood wrote: Re-read the Fey section in the book, and start any Fey character out with any effective age you want over about, say, 16 years. The only way that the Fey age is through magic, so if You see a 25 year-old elf (effective age), then he's lost about 9 years to magic in his whole life. That's actually quite a bit of casting--centuries worth, even, if he's been careful.

Jake Norwood wrote:

Dave Turner wrote:
I guess you could say that the character has led a contemplative life with little stress (and correspondingly small need for sorcery), but doesn't that stretch credibility a bit? Am I being too literal?

Wow...how do YOU make it in life without sorcery? ;-)

Re-read the Fey section in the book, and start any Fey character out with any effective age you want over about, say, 16 years. The only way that the Fey age is through magic, so if You see a 25 year-old elf (effective age), then he's lost about 9 years to magic in his whole life. That's actually quite a bit of casting--centuries worth, even, if he's been careful. The "effective age" of an elf can be very misleading--a 3,000 year old fey could appear 17 years old, while a 200 year old Fey could appear 87 years old, all depending on how they've used their magic.

Jake

Shadeling-

You're confusing "effective age" with actual age. A Fey reaches and effective young adult/adolescent age after about 6 years of "actual age." Only "effective age" matters in magic, etc.

Stephen-

I've had a fey character go through 4 sessions of regular (but not casual) magic use without aging a day. Formalization, Gestures and dialogue, and SAs all make it easier. Plus, remember that most Fey live in their own court boundries--magical places that undoubtedly act as talismans (granting additional dice) for anything cast by its denizens.

An "adventuring" fey is much more likely to age quickly...but that's why adventuring is dangerous. Fact is, most "adventurers don't die of old age in TROS...

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: Shadeling-

You're confusing "effective age" with actual age. A Fey reaches and effective young adult/adolescent age after about 6 years of "actual age." Only "effective age" matters in magic, etc.

Stephen-

I've had a fey character go through 4 sessions of regular (but not casual) magic use without aging a day. Formalization, Gestures and dialogue, and SAs all make it easier. Plus, remember that most Fey live in their own court boundries--magical places that undoubtedly act as talismans (granting additional dice) for anything cast by its denizens.

An "adventuring" fey is much more likely to age quickly...but that's why adventuring is dangerous. Fact is, most "adventurers don't die of old age in TROS...

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: I've had a fey character go through 4 sessions of regular (but not casual) magic use without aging a day.

Think of it this way, Stephen. If you were immortal, and the only way that you could age was by casting spells, how often would you cast spells?

For me the answer would be as little as possible. Basically it would be like birthday gifts. Let's say I do one spell a year. Let's say I live in a community composed of 365 fey. A village level amount. That's one spell being cast by someone each day. Assuming no great level of threat or something.

And spells can have continuing effects. Let's say only 1 in 365 spells has some permenantly magical effect. That would mean that after 1000 years you'd have your community with 1000 permenant magical enchantments haging around. Or almost three per inhabitant.

That's not "magic soaked"? You can get away with a lot more than that depending on the power of the spells. What's not impressive about the tinyest spell?

When you've got all the time in the world, why rush? Consider that most of our human drives are powered by the notion that we only have a limited time, and need to get things done quickly. Hence why human Sorcerers might take shortcuts. Hey, if it takes only one year off your life to instantly build a house that would have taken you five otherwise, that's a savings of four years.

For an elf it represents the use of a totally limited commodity, and a potential to actually age that otherwise does not exist.

Mike

You've hit the nail on the head, Mike.

When time is not an issue, why would you rush anything. In other words, except in the case of an adventuring fey who may have to toss off quick spells in a hurry because there's a tribe of Sslassk running at him, surely all fey who are planning to cast a spell will take the time to design it as a formulised ritual and cast it nice and slowly, with the benefit of symbol drawing, meditation and cooperation with other casters so as to minimise the CTN, maximise the SP and reduce the risk of aging.

Human sorcerers don't do this as much because it's probably as time consuming as the months-of-aging you're preventing, but it's very important when poorly cast spells are the only way you age.

Brian.

(edit: I'm interested in how you see enchantments lasting 1000 years though... that's a lot of successes at Duration: 3... *grin*).

Brian Leybourne wrote: In other words, except in the case of an adventuring fey who may have to toss off quick spells in a hurry because there's a tribe of Sslassk running at him, surely all fey who are planning to cast a spell will take the time to design it as a formulised ritual and cast it nice and slowly, with the benefit of symbol drawing, meditation and cooperation with other casters so as to minimise the CTN, maximise the SP and reduce the risk of aging.

(edit: I'm interested in how you see enchantments lasting 1000 years though... that's a lot of successes at Duration: 3... *grin*).

Mike Holmes wrote:

(edit: I'm interested in how you see enchantments lasting 1000 years though... that's a lot of successes at Duration: 3... *grin*).

Good point. But let's say I create a statue of impossible beauty using magic to aid me. The outcome is permenant (well, it might break in 1000 years), and serves as a reminder of magic. Things don't all have to glow to make for a "magic soaked" environment. Think trees that have been magically encouraged to grow in certain directions so as to make for housing or obscurement.

In general, magic needs not to be large, actively visible, or actively being cast at all to be felt. Put 300 fey in one place, and I'll garuntee you that it'll be magic soaked. Unless you're not considering the logical ramifications.

Jake Norwood wrote: Fact is, most adventurers don't die of old age in TROS...

Jake

Shadeling wrote:
So I was right then? You only count the first 6 years of a Fey's life when aging is added from Sorcery?

I think this all makes quite a bit of sense... I never actually thought about the fact that when you play a Fey there is a great chance that your Fey has already used magic and hence aged. The player just gets to choose how much they think the character has used and aged from the sorcery.
Sounds good to me!

Jake Norwood wrote:

Shadeling wrote:
So I was right then? You only count the first 6 years of a Fey's life when aging is added from Sorcery?

Um...I don't think we're seeing eye-to-eye here...
At 6 years of actual age I'd say an elf is at about 14-17 years of effective age. Like all ages (both effective and actual), the starting point is up to the player.

Jeez, ya go away for an afternoon and the thread explodes. :)

Lots of good replies from everyone. They've certainly helped me refine my ideas for how I would handle things in my game.

I hadn't thought of the Fey making heavy use of formalized Spells of Many as a way of avoiding aging through the ages. It makes sense that they would be aware of the danger of sorcery and would minimize that danger by using the "safest" form of sorcery whenever possible. This goes part of the way to resolving the seeming peculiar situation of immortal sorcerous creatures having never racked up Effective Physical Age prior to play.

But it doesn't go all the way. It seems to me that the suggestion that it's a bit odd that even conservative usage of sorcery would cripple a Fey before they reach play is a reasonable one. I appreciate Jake's comment that the Fey might not be "adventuring" prior to play, but this seems like a bit of a duck and weave in response to the matter. ;)

My views are sadly hindered by an armchair understanding of how the game actually runs. In actual play, maybe the amount of aging that a character racks up is reasonably small even during the course of adventuring. But the issue of whether or not a Fey might rack up those months of aging during an immortal lifetime prior to play is still an open one, unless Jake closes it permanently.

Might I ask why the decision was made to have Fey be immortal as they are? Was there consideration given to having a modified Age Table for Fey? So while humans begin to suffer aging at 40, the Fey don't sweat it until 100 years of Effective Age?

Dave Turner wrote: My views are sadly hindered by an armchair understanding of how the game actually runs. In actual play, maybe the amount of aging that a character racks up is reasonably small even during the course of adventuring. But the issue of whether or not a Fey might rack up those months of aging during an immortal lifetime prior to play is still an open one, unless Jake closes it permanently.

Fair enough, Brian, but I don't think that's the spirit of what's written in the text. We can debate or disagree what that spirit is, of course.

If we take what you've said as how most Fey PCs are supposed to be, Brian, then it raises some questions about why someone would choose to be a Fey in the first place. This might be a tad powergamer-ish, but bear with me.

To be Fey, you need to choose Priority A for Race during character creation. What does that get you? Sorcery, but if you want a character with that, you can choose a human with Priority B and not have to use up the precious Priority A. Presumably, then, the choice must be for either roleplaying or game benefit.

The game benefits of being a Fey, however, seem limited to me, perhaps too limited to warrant being Priority A. You receive +3 points to Attributes, but then -2 is applied to MA, leaving you with one net Attribute point. You get a bonus skill at a decent SR and a couple of points of Vagaries. Up till this point, this is only marginally better than most human racial packages. But now the Fey receive -3 SA points as well, which would balance the benefits of having the bonus skill and 2 points of Glamour.

Up until this point, the benefits of the Fey are a balanced racial bonus package (which can be achieved, on a smaller scale, with any human racial package) and sorcerous ability. But the Fey don't seem to be *better* sorcerors than anyone else, they are simply sorcerors. So if sorcery is my bag, why not take a Gifted human?

The roleplaying benefits of the race selection are the most nebulous to define. The immortality doesn't seem to be any kind of a benefit at all if this thread is to be believed. Sure, my Fey PC has the *potential* to live forever, but the campaign might never reflect this awesome time frame. My Fey PC will be risking his immortal life just as the human PCs will, meaning that his chances of death are just as high as any other PCs. If my Fey's supposed immortality is only ever a facet of his background ("Yes, I've lived for centuries, but now I've emerged from my enchanted glade to risk my life."), then it's simply background color. I could say that my human PC has a soul that will carry on into the next life (for example). In actual play, this will never be a significant facet of play, since it will necessarily occur "off-stage". Why should a Fey PC have to pay for his immortality, when it is functionally useless to him in the game? It can be salvaged for roleplaying considerations, but should that have weight in the chargen process as it does when assigning the Race Priority?

If immortality isn't the reason for assigning Priority A to a Fey PC, then what other roleplaying considerations might? There's the automatic fear/respect from Seelie and Unseelie, but this is relatively useless in textbook Weyrth, which is overwhelmingly human-centric. It's reasonable to assume that most people the Fey PC encounters will be human, who don't necessarily have the fear/respect attitude that the Seelie/Unseelie are required to have. It does seem, however, that Fey can expect superstitious (reverential?) awe from humans. But the text emphasizes that Fey take great pains to avoid revealing their true identities to the humans, which potentially negates the roleplaying advantage of built-in NPC deference and influence that Fey status might lend.

QUICK EDIT/ADDITION HERE: the roleplaying themes that one might be expected to pick when choosing Fey as your race can just as easily be embodied in a human character. Whether it's the PC as a member of a dying race/culture or PC as a "stranger in a strange land", these can be accomplished by a human Seat of the Empire or Fahalish racial choice, can't they?

If Jake's still reading this thread, I'd love to hear his take on the Fey. TROS features a section in which he explains why he made the design decisions he made for certain features of the game. If you would, Jake, could you deconstruct the Fey for me? Why did you design them the way you did?

I think the A priority for being a Fey also has to do with their rarity in the world.

But, loosing 3 SA points for 2 Glamour and Sneak SR7 is a pretty dang good value. Breakdown- Level 2 Glamour trained is 5 SA points, and a Skill at SR 7 after character generation is equal to 6 SA points if you succeed at forced skill improvement rolls. So you loose 3 SA points, to get 11 SA points worth of things.

I think there is also your reason you have to put priority A. That coupled with sorcerous ability, and attribute gains (the -2 MA is not that big of a deal in gameplay-the +1 to AG, Wit, and Per is very much more useful), and well there you have it. I don't think the immortality really has to do with the A as much as it does with flavor.


Now Dave, if all of us want to continue Fey (or Siehe) discussions lets start another thread and leave this thread you started for what you originally started it for-magic and aging.

Fair enough, Shadeling. My last post did veer off-topic a bit. ;-)

I've taken a look through the text and I think you're right. The Fey racial package does seem to have much more punch than any other, once you break it down into SA as you did. I guess that's what your Priority A classification buys you, which is what I was curious about.

Your point about rarity is one that I would classify as a roleplaying one, which is important but ultimately malleable and depenedent on individual GMs (Seneschals).

I'm still not sure that the matter of magical aging and Fey is resolved for me, though not for lack of good effort from all contributors. My lingering ambiguity is primarily one of consistency or credibility surrounding the notion of a millenia-old PC who has survived his sorcery use to start active play in the campaign. Despite what a previous poster said about all Fey PCs starting at age 6-7, I rather think that most would have centuries behind them and there's this credibility problem. Ultimately, however, that's an aesthetic dispute. ;-)

Dave Turner wrote: Fair enough, Shadeling. My last post did veer off-topic a bit. ;-)

I've taken a look through the text and I think you're right. The Fey racial package does seem to have much more punch than any other, once you break it down into SA as you did. I guess that's what your Priority A classification buys you, which is what I was curious about.

Your point about rarity is one that I would classify as a roleplaying one, which is important but ultimately malleable and depenedent on individual GMs (Seneschals).

I'm still not sure that the matter of magical aging and Fey is resolved for me, though not for lack of good effort from all contributors. My lingering ambiguity is primarily one of consistency or credibility surrounding the notion of a millenia-old PC who has survived his sorcery use to start active play in the campaign. Despite what a previous poster said about all Fey PCs starting at age 6-7, I rather think that most would have centuries behind them and there's this credibility problem. Ultimately, however, that's an aesthetic dispute. ;-)

My take on it? I agree with Shadeling et al.
I originally put Fey as an A priority only due to rarity...it sure has nothing to do with "balance." I don't believe in the stuff. It is the most impressive package, though. Remember, too, that as a Fey you have greater access to the world of magic (items and the like) because of your upbringing, and the seelie will bow before you and the unseelie will flee before you. Both effects are discussed in those sections of the books--not as formal "abilities," but that's not really what it's all about.

As someone that worked on the magic system (Rick designed it) and has played with it extensively, I can assure you that aging is not required, and that a "normal" magic-using fey would probably age about 3 months a year due to an occasional aging error. Take into account also that some fey don't use magic at all (no vagary points spent into it) and that others use it rarely. Magic is not "light" in TROS. Likewise, I think you're ignoring my previous post concerning extra SP dice in Fey communities and the ever-so-vital use of SAs in casting anything (I would also assume that all Fey have SA's, where only story-important NPCs of other types would...the Fey are story-important by definition).

Also remember that until "recently" the fey were "recycled" when they died, so death wasn't such a big deal...now it is. TROS is not about power, it's about hard decisions. Magic is now a hard decision for the Fey, because it sprials them towards death, especially outside of their communities.

If you want more I need specific questions.

Jake

Those answers are good ones, Jake. It's what I was looking for.

In the main, my concerns about Fey are settled. What remains is semantic and aesthetic, which is difficult to agree on universally. The bit about Fey previously being "recycled" is new to me. If that's written in the corebook, I either glossed over it or it wasn't made sufficiently clear. It adds some perspective to the situation of the Fey. I understand that Fey aren't being born anymore, but I didn't know they were recycled. ;-)

My criticisms of the Fey and the magical aging aren't reflective of my overwhelmingly positive opinion of the game. I'm really only digging into some of the concepts because I like them (and the game) so much. TROS is definitely my new "default" fantasy system.

Dave, there's another erroneous asspumption that Jake only sorta clears up.

What in the hell is an "Adventurer"?

This is a D&D assumption. I imagine all my characters in TROS as having done absolutely zero "adventuring" before play. Maybe one learned his fighting in a school. Maybe another on the streets. But a resonable character may have only had a little in the way of unusual experiences in his life prior to play. Maybe no more or even less than you and I.

How much magic have you needed to use to survive until now?

Even if you do have a character who's defined as being "experienced" prior to play, that's just that character. He is a heroic sort, a cut above the rest. Not all Fey are the adventurous types. Some probably spend all their time attending to gardens. I can see a 300 year old Fey who's never ever cast a spell (which Jake corroborates). Then one day, he runs into a beautiful human girl and gets an SA Passion. Suddenly he's a PC. Now we have to start worrying about the spells he's going to cast in order to get her.

Yes, the sort of action that the GM throws at you in play is going to age you, likely. The reason that a PC Fey will cast spells is becuase he finds himself in extraordinary circumstances. Probably the most important moments of his life.

Is the story of Frodo Baggins one about an adventurer who took on destroying the One Ring as just another quest? No, he was just joe average until destiny was thrust upon him. Then his story begins.

The Fey in communities will have few "adventurers", and mostly typical community members. And those that are "adventurers" are started at some point, "adventure" for a while until their stories are resolved, and then settle down (or are killed as was pointed out).

Get away from D&D standards, apply more realistic and/or dramatic assumptions, and it all makes much more sense. Wanna know the answer to the Riddle of Steel? Once you've got enough loot using your steel, purchase a condo and retire. You'll be happier.

Here's a cool idea. Next time you play a Fey, make him 39.5 Effective Years old, and defined as the veteran of many adventures. That'll make each spell a real choice. He'll be looking at burning out or retiring.

Jake, the whole thing about the Elves dying out is really cool. Just makes each magic use that much more dramatic a choice.

Mike

P.S. The Fey are immortal in most literature. In fact D&D is the only place I can think of them having a limited lifespan.

That's all good stuff, Mike.

I recognize that "adventurer" is a loaded term. I was using it in the sense that you elaborated on, namely as applicable during time during which the campaign occurs. This is a meta-game distinction just as the term "adventurer" is in this discussion. :)

My original concern was that I saw some potential confusion and/or inconsistency regarding Fey and magical aging. This has been largely cleared up for me thanks to the thread. It appears as though I needed to adjust my expectations of how TROS views sorcery. Even natural sorcerors such as the Fey can be brought down by the power and danger of sorcery. It's a shift away from a more traditional conception of magic as essentially benign and harmless for the magic-user. Traditionally, those who wield powerful magic can do so because they have mastered it and make magic serve them. In TROS, magic doesn't serve anyone and it shouldn't be expected to. So the greatest natural sorcerors in the world never achieve the dominance of magic that a D&D wizard does, for example.

So the greatest natural sorcerors in the world never achieve the dominance of magic that a D&D wizard does, for example.

Valamir wrote:

So the greatest natural sorcerors in the world never achieve the dominance of magic that a D&D wizard does, for example.

Dominance OF magic...right.

Dominance WITH magic is, of course, another matter entirely.

Valamir wrote:

So the greatest natural sorcerors in the world never achieve the dominance of magic that a D&D wizard does, for example.

Dominance OF magic...right.

Dominance WITH magic is, of course, another matter entirely.

A Sorcerer who's willing to risk shaving a year off his life, can do far more in TROS than any Level 9 D&D spell.

Bob Richter wrote: A Sorcerer who is willing to kill himself can destroy the universe in the process

Bob Richter wrote: A Sorcerer who is willing to kill himself can destroy the universe in the process. That aside, there's actually very little TROS Sorcery can do that being a Landed Noble can't. :)

Brian Leybourne wrote:

Bob Richter wrote: A Sorcerer who is willing to kill himself can destroy the universe in the process. That aside, there's actually very little TROS Sorcery can do that being a Landed Noble can't. :)

Bob's back.

I still maintain, there's nothing you can come up with that we can't do with a spell. From destroying the universe to shining your shoes.

Does that make TROS magic too powerful? Only if you want it to. In my games, certainly not. Firstly, because why would my players want to destroy the world? Secondly, if they tried it they would find that there are other, more powerful sorcerers in the world.

Brian.

Valamir wrote:

Bob Richter wrote: A Sorcerer who is willing to kill himself can destroy the universe in the process

Which is actually my biggest problem with the Sorcery rules to tell the truth. Given that today we have suicide bombers willing to kill themselves to take out a handful of their hated enemy, how unwilling would a devoted sorcerer be to prematurely age a year or two to wipe out an entire city worth of enemies.

I mean if Osama Bin Laden was a sorcerer, don't you think he'd cheerfully give up a decade of his life to turn the city of New York into a crater rather than just knock down a couple buildings?

Yet, the impact of sorcerer feuds and vendettas on Wyerth history seems pretty inconsequential...

Valamir wrote:

Bob Richter wrote: A Sorcerer who is willing to kill himself can destroy the universe in the process

Which is actually my biggest problem with the Sorcery rules to tell the truth. Given that today we have suicide bombers willing to kill themselves to take out a handful of their hated enemy, how unwilling would a devoted sorcerer be to prematurely age a year or two to wipe out an entire city worth of enemies.

I mean if Osama Bin Laden was a sorcerer, don't you think he'd cheerfully give up a decade of his life to turn the city of New York into a crater rather than just knock down a couple buildings?

Yet, the impact of sorcerer feuds and vendettas on Wyerth history seems pretty inconsequential...

Sslassk, eh?

More tantalizing tidbits from OBaM?

you may not resume your regularly scheduled thread. ;-)

arxhon wrote: Sslassk, eh?

More tantalizing tidbits from OBaM?

you may not resume your regularly scheduled thread. ;-)

hehehehe....;-)

Get as bubbly as you like, Brian. It's called teaser advertising. A very effective form of advertising. It just serves to make me want the book even more i.e. I want it yesterday.

I just noticed a typo, i meant to say "You may NOW resume your regularly scheduled thread". My apologies.

Back on topic: Is it actually possible for a Fey to die of old age from sorcery? Or do they just show the physical effects of aging?

arxhon wrote: Back on topic: Is it actually possible for a Fey to die of old age from sorcery? Or do they just show the physical effects of aging?

Brian Leybourne wrote:

arxhon wrote: Back on topic: Is it actually possible for a Fey to die of old age from sorcery? Or do they just show the physical effects of aging?

Well, for every year they age after 40, they have to roll on the aging chart in chapter 5 (is it 5? Yeah, I think so), just like a human does.

So yeah, eventually they would die. Unless they cast a certain ritual from OBAM... ;-)

(Sorry, just more of that teaser advertising)

Brian.

I'm wondering if this is the body-snatcher spell we've discussed on the boards.. Nasty, nasty Fey. Gives a whole new, sinister explanation to "Stolen Child"

Away with us he's going,
The solemn-eyed:
He'll hear no more the lowing
Of the calves on the warm hillside
Or the kettle on the hob
Sing peace into his breast,
Or see the brown mice bob
Round and round the oatmeal-chest.
For he comes, the human child,
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
From a world more full of weeping than he can
understand.

Amy1419 wrote:
I know you are just doing a teaser but this makes me concerned. I like the way sorcery is, with the aging and having to make aging rolls after a certain age, etc... So if there is going to be a spell that makes a sorcerer able to just make that all go away and not suffer the effects of the aging and death than what is the point of the sorcery system? It would be contradicting to me. I mean these are just my thoughts but reading that seriously makes me lose interest, it seems like a way to powergame. Obviously I don't know the specifics but if it is as it seems than well it is kinda cheesy.

What Jake said :-)

No need to worry, you got the wrong end of the stick.

Brian.