Paths v.s. Sendings

• User talk:Bruce

Date: Friday - June 1st, 2012
Explanations: The following discussion is about the distinction between the effects and definitions of path magic versus that of sendings. The discussion is being brought up because of an in-game conflict that occurred on the evening of Thursday, May 31st - 2016. The conflict arose when an apparent necromancer used the Bone Path - level four effect: Soul Stealing.

The player, Jamie says that his character Yan is protected by a level three ritual called Scarecrow that shields him from sendings and curses, thus his character's soul couldn't be displaced into the Shadowlands, because the protective ritual would absorb the path's negative effects - at least theoretically. Obviously, there are a lot of variables, but lets start with the basics first.

From the outset, let me say that, on occasion, I have confused these ideas and their meanings.

The point I want to stress here is this, that there is confusion on the part of players and storytellers about what these two types of magics actually do and how they are interpreted in the World of Darkness. To make my point, my first reference will be from the source-book "Blood Magic - Secrets of Thaumaturgy."

The Definition of a Path: A formal, codified “school” of magic that combines a progression of effects united by a common concept. A path may focus on effect (the Lure of Flames), a component (the Path of Blood) or any other ideal. - Page 16 of “Blood Magic - Secrets of Thaumaturgy"

The Definition of a Sending: The end result of a ritual’s magic; the effect of a spell, particularly when baneful or focused on an individual. - Page 16 of “Blood Magic - Secrets of Thaumaturgy"

• Jamie
  

Ok, reviewing the original writeup from some 5 or so years ago, the ritual Scarecrow does say "curses," and never refers to sendings. This begs the question "what is a curse," but that is a discussion for a different page. At the time I wrote the description, I thought I was blocking magic sent against me from afar, figuring that I had an advantage against most sorcerers in my Gangrel's ability to physically shred most rivals. Still, I developed it along with other rituals designed to break curses, so I'll concede the point. Scarecrow affects curses, not sendings. What is a Curse?

The definition Bruce quotes from Blood Magic begs another glaring question. By that definition ("...the end result of a ritual's magic..."), ALL rituals are sendings. It seems clear that this is a bad definition. Some rituals are sendings, others are not. Wards do not seem to be sendings to me - they are placed in a location, not sent through space to a target. Curses might or might not be sendings - some must be pronounced on someone, or affect those who touch a trigger object (an overlap with wards), but others are cast against targets that are in no way in proximity to the caster. Scrying is perhaps the most obvious form of sending - all forms of scrying reach out across space to affect a target.

The question then is, can a path be a sending? Paths (Biothaumaturgic Experimentation excepted) have an immediate effect, and the target must be at least in reasonable proximity to the caster (line of sight, or closer). To be a sending, I think, a path must be precisely targeted - Weather control 5 (lightening) and Lure of Flames affect spots, or areas, not subjects, and are therefore not sendings. Path of Blood 4 (theft of vitae) targets an individual, and cannot be dodged - therefore I think it is a sending. Paths (and rituals) that allow the caster to communicate don't seem to be sendings - they change the caster not any external target.

In the discussion of weather a bit of magic is a sending or not, I don't think it matters whether it was generated via ritual, path or True Magick. The discussion is on how the magic works, not how it was generated.

Therefore, I propose this definition of "sending:"

A sending is a property of a "spell" that causes it to travel across space and precisely affect a target. To be a sending, the spell must be targeted to the target's identity, either through a physical token, body relic, true name, or line-of-sight. A sending cannot be something that (unless affected by other magic) can accidentally affect an unintentional target.

• Jamie (after discussion with Brian)
  

Since he is not posting, I'll try to summarize Brian's argument: Brian does not believe that most paths can be sendings. Basically, line-of-sight magic is something other than a sending, even if it cannot miss. He does concede that paths that operate over distance, such as Morpheus or Oneiromancy might be sendings. Instead, paths are force of will, poorly targeted manifestations of magic that do not qualify. Thus, those magics targeted by line of sight would be removed from the definition I (Jamie) proposed. Brian, sorry if I got your point wrong. If so, please fix it.)

• Jamie (reply to Brian's argument)
  

If line of sight is not a sending, what is it? I agree that magic that requires touch, or enchanting a stationary object is not a sending. Clearly, magic that reaches across space is. My question is this: If a form of magic has limited range but cannot miss, what function of magic allows this? The target is not stationary and accepting the magic: Apparently if it is not a sending, this magic falls into a third, as yet undefined category. If we do create this category, what falls within it? How is it significantly different from a sending? I think that it must be much better defined than "It's path magic, not a sending."
While there are many ways to force reality to conform to one's will, I don't think that there is a real difference in the magic once it has been created. A ritual and a path that have duplicate effects would be duplicates in most senses. Put another way, is Machine Blitz a sending? It is cast ahead of time, and triggered against any machine the caster can perceive. Perhaps it falls instead into Brian's other, as yet poorly defined category? Or is this category available only to path magic? By my previous assertion, this isn't fair: Magic is Magic.
Rather than create this third category, I think it is more reasonable to say simply that line-of-sight is a valid targeting method for a sending.