Okay, Jill, it's occurred to me that we may have reached a point where we need to agree that we see things differently. I'm willing to accept your ruling that a Location Affection is a Domus. I really really don't understand it, but in the long run I'm not sure that it's worth pursuing as I'm not sure that we are actually getting anywhere anymore. If you want to continue the conversation, that'll be up to you.

I do want clarification on the ways in which a Domus can be destroyed though, please.

OK. I have read and re-read the replies since my last postand I am still very confused. If Jill could give a yes or no answer to, "Can a Fallen have more than 1 location affection?" I would be very appreciative.

Friedrich wrote:How does it violate the spirit of what you are trying to do and say? I
honestly don't understand. I have no problems with your House Rule for
Domus and I can see why you implemented it. There is still only one
Domus and the amount of Zeal you imbue into it determines how connected
you are to it and how much it draws you back from Purgatory. How does
having a second location as an Affection detract from the need for a
solid and invested Domus? Or am I missing the point completely?

Because in my opinion, when you create an Affection of a place, it becomes a Domus. Which is to say, you cannot, in my opinion, create an Affection of a place *without* creating a Domus. I don't understand the desire or the need for having an Affection of a place that is not a Domus. Maybe we are missing each other's point.

No, because in the book you don't have to spend Zeal to make either.
The extra step is a more-than-normal attachment to the weapon and
place. It is a weapon that you are so in tune with that you can summon
it and the place is where you feel so relaxed and at home that it is
the one place where you instinctively want to go when the horrors of
Purgatory release you.

You *may* start with a Domus without investing Zeal in it. I still don't understand what the Extra Step is you talked about, unless you mean investing Zeal. When you start a character who has both a Chosen Weapon and a Domus, it is understood (to me) that that means at some point, you have chosen to use Hallow + Devotion to have these things.

Then how can a Domus ever be destroyed? In the book it says that
the only thing that will break a bond is time or desire -- when talking
about humans. If we carry that over to objects and places then touching
and desiring the connection to end will end it, as will not reinforcing
it over time by visiting the place. So then, once you make a Domus no
one can ever break that link and you'll never need to remake a Domus
again?

A Domus can only be *destroyed* when you choose to release it, or when you allow the bond to weaken over time (so in this case, apathy = destruction, eventually). Same with Chosen Weapon; they cannot be destroyed, presumably, unless you choose it. You can choose to release a Domus and create a new one, but you don't have to.

cenobyte wrote:

No, because in the book you don't have to spend Zeal to make either. The extra step is a more-than-normal attachment to the weapon and place.

I still don't understand what the Extra Step is you talked about, unless you mean investing Zeal.

More-than-normal attachment, i.e., conscious character choice to love it and hug it and call it George.

Domus can only be *destroyed* when you choose to release it, or when you allow the bond to weaken over time (so in this case, apathy = destruction, eventually). Same with Chosen Weapon; they cannot be destroyed, presumably, unless you choose it. You can choose to release a Domus and create a new one, but you don't have to.

Does this mean that if someone tries to burn down my domus is won't work? Does it mean that the building still burns down, but even if it is a smoldering pile of ashes, it's still my affection? I don't have the book in front of me but I seem to recall it talking about hollow deathing a Fallen and then destroying their domus. Is this being changed or do the above rules not apply when a Fallen is in Prugatory?

Also what's the final verdict on "Can you have location affections other than your Domus?"/"Can you have more than 1 location affection?"

Yeah, I can totally think of reasons I'd want to make a location an Affection, Jill.

Such as?

Dave wrote:Does this mean that if someone tries to burn down my domus is won't work? Does it mean that the building still burns down, but even if it is a smoldering pile of ashes, it's still my affection? I don't have the book in front of me but I seem to recall it talking about hollow deathing a Fallen and then destroying their domus. Is this being changed or do the above rules not apply when a Fallen is in Prugatory?

Also what's the final verdict on "Can you have location affections other than your Domus?"/"Can you have more than 1 location affection?"

1) The building/area will burn down, yes. It will "work" in that it will destroy everything in and around the Domus.

2) I would think so, yes. The geographic location would still have some kind of attunement to you, but maybe it would be weakened (particularly if someone attempts to Desecrate your Domus, perhaps).

3) No rules are being *changed*, Dave. I'm working through trying to understand other points of view. If you cause a Fallen to suffer the Hollow Death, you could burn down their Domus, but I don't know that that would necessarily destroy the bond to the location, particularly if it's fully attuned. I'd like to think that it wouldn't. Sever the bond. It would, however, be a direct attack on a Fallen's Affection and would be an attack on that Fallen's Security. Now, a question that follows from that is: "well as soon as the Fallen comes back from Purgatory, what's to stop him/her from releasing the Domus and making a new one?" Nothing. The Zeal would be lost, however, in this situation, I should think. Then again, does "Destroying" mean "destroying"? Does it necessarily mean the bond is broken between you and your Affection? Does it mean it's physically destroyed? I don't know.

4) There is no final verdict yet. I don't like the idea of a Fallen having more than 1 location affection; the way I see what happens metaphysically and mechanically, a location affection *IS* a Domus, and since you can't have more than 1 Domus, you can't have more than 1 location Affection.

I think of a Domus as akin to a Chosen Weapon - a Chosen Weapon can't be destroyed or permanently removed without a Fallen's consent. That's how I think of a Domus. I don't think of Location Affetions as being objects. I think of them differently.

No rules are being *changed*, Dave

When I used the word changed, I wasn't actually referring to rules; It was about flavour text. If a Domus can be burned down but not un-domicified, flavour text that describes Hollow Deathing someone and then destroying their Domus so they return somewhere else in the world should be removed (if it hasn't already which was the crux of that question) so that flavour text and rules align.

As for question 4, since this isn't purely theoretical and we are actually playing the game, should work as if the answer is "no, until further notice"?

As for question 4, yes, please keep playing with the rules we've been using (that you cannot have more than one location/place affection).

I think that maybe some of us have differing views on what a "Domus" or "Location" includes. When I think of a Domus, I think of a metaphysical beacon -- like a lighthouse. For me the concept is encompassed in the structure that the Fallen is living in and made a sanctuary. It has never included the ground itself. You can't live or seek refuge in the ground.

I have a same view of a Location, I am again not thinking of the land or street. I'm thinking of what stands at that location. A shop, a house, or even a playground -- the physical structures.

I think that I feel this way because with Hallow it seems that a Fallen is always creating ties/infusing themself into things in the World of Clay, be it people, objects, weapons, or abodes. You can't Hallow the ground at any one place because it is a fraction of the Earth. No one can Hallow the Earth. It's just too big.

I thought that when Jill told me I had to spend Zeal to make my domus someplace I could return to after Hollow Death, that she knew it was contrary to the BRB and intended that as a House Rule. I thought I even remembered her saying that it was something she was intentionally doing contrary to the book. I am reasonably certain that the BRB does not mean for you to need to spend Zeal on that, but if Jill wants to House Rule it, that's fine with me.

cenobyte wrote:A Domus can only be *destroyed* when you choose to release it, or when you allow the bond to weaken over time (so in this case, apathy = destruction, eventually). Same with Chosen Weapon; they cannot be destroyed, presumably, unless you choose it. You can choose to release a Domus and create a new one, but you don't have to.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Apathy? Defined how? Does it actually say in the book that you can lose your domus by ignoring it, or is this a house rule too? I've been thinking all along that a Fallen has to intentionally release their will on the domus, or die the True Death in order to lose a domus. You are saying that this is patently false, and that changes a lot of things.

1. If a Fallen makes a domus and then goes crazy or something and wanders off somewhere, and there is no doubt that the character's apathy toward the domus is complete, how long would it take for it to no longer be his domus?

2. If a Fallen makes a domus but lives away from it for a long time, but still misses it and wishes they were living there, how long would it take? What if they visit it occasionally? What if they live there about 1 week in 8? I think it is very important that we understand what sorts of inaction would cause us to lose our domuses.

Actually, Laura, what I said to you was that what I was doing differently from the book was describing how close you return to your Domus after Hollow Death, depending on how much Zeal you put in to it. In the book, it does say that if you have a Domus, it acts as a beacon in Purgatory and you return to it when you come back from that horrible experience. What I am doing differently is saying "you come back near the city if you spend 1 Zeal; you come back near the neighbourhood if you spend 2 Zeal; and you come back near the Domus itself if you spend 3 Zeal".

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Apathy? Defined how? Does it actually say in the book
that you can lose your domus by ignoring it, or is this a house rule
too? I've been thinking all along that a Fallen has to intentionally
release their will on the domus, or die the True Death in order to lose
a domus. You are saying that this is patently false, and that changes a
lot of things.

Actually, I'm not saying anything is patently false. I'm talking through my understanding of the game. In the book it says "once a permanent Affection is created, only time and desire can dissolve the relationship". I'm working through whether that relates to the Domus, or just to other Affections.

In that vein, I'll answer your two questions, but I want you to understand that I'm kind of thinking out loud and none of what I'm talking about in this particular part of this message is intended to be taken as canon.

1) I don't know how long it would take for the relationship to fade. Probably dozens of years.
2) I don't know. I don't know why a Fallen would live far away from her Domus and not return to it, particularly if she's taken the time and energy to strengthen it.

I kind of like what Alan just said up there, too. I think he makes a very good point about what a Domus is/should be - it's more than a house or a patch of grass. It's HOME. Safety. Shelter. Sanctuary.

However, I do want to make it clear that while I kid of agree with what Alan has described, it's also geographically tied to a place in the World of Clay. I don't yet know what that means if the house is picked up and moved by an industrious congregation.

I just meant that my assumption was apparently poor. However, if you're talking on the timescale of dozens of years, then whether this is canon or not doesn't actually mean I've been working on poor OOC assumptions IC, which I was concerned I had been. (For Cheriour's domus to no longer be his, for example, he should either have put effort into making that the case, or died. He couldn't have gone crazy and become apathetic about it - within the rules of the universe as we know and understand them - or it would still be his).

In my opinion, the statement "once a permanent Affection is created, only time and desire can dissolve the relationship" means time AND desire, ie the desire to remove, and that time + lack of desire would *not* dissolve the relationship. But I'm a little less concerned about your judgement on this now that I understand your timescale better. (If the final decision is that apathy can remove your affections, I think that the wording should be changed to time OR desire).

"I don't know why a Fallen would live far away from her Domus and not return to it, particularly if she's taken the time and energy to strengthen it."

Not *far*. But in the case of Malicia, she wants to have a domus, and she has emotional attachment to the domus that she strengthened when she moved to the city. But she feels very strongly that with the current threats to the city, no Fallen should be living alone, herself included. She lived in her domus briefly when she was waiting for Cheriour to come back after the Hollow Death; she lived there briefly after she herself died the Hollow Death; but she has been living, the rest of the time for many many months, outside of the domus for safety's sake. I'm sure there are many other possible reasons, but there's mine. And if that meant she was at risk of losing said domus, I wanted to understand what she could do to mitigate that risk.

Thanks!

Well, in Malicia's case, she could visit her Domus whenever she wanted to, or she could choose to move it closer to where she's living in sin with everyone else. (oh. Did I just say 'living in sin with everyone else'? Bad me. Bad, bad, bad me.)

Laura wrote:(For Cheriour's domus to no longer be his, for example, he should
either have put effort into making that the case, or died. He couldn't
have gone crazy and become apathetic about it - within the rules of the
universe as we know and understand them - or it would still be his).

There could also have been Other Forces At Work that CAUSED him to sever the bond or to just leave it wither away.

"There could also have been Other Forces At Work that CAUSED him to sever the bond or to just leave it wither away."

There could be forces at work that caused him to sever it, for sure. But if it takes many years for it to wither away, then forces at work that caused him to leave it to wither would not have done anything noticeable just yet. And that is a very important distinction, in my mind.

Re: "living in sin"... Heh. But that would more appropriate if more of the infernal were sinful.

Malicia wrote:In my opinion, the statement "once a permanent Affection is created, only time and desire can dissolve the relationship" means time AND desire, ie the desire to remove, and that time + lack of desire would *not* dissolve the relationship. But I'm a little less concerned about your judgement on this now that I understand your timescale better. (If the final decision is that apathy can remove your affections, I think that the wording should be changed to time OR desire).

Laura, I think that what is saying is that time and desire are both factors which can cause the dissolution of the bond. I say this because it later talks of an Affection being able to break the bond by staying away from his/her Begetter -- implied is that it happens even if the Begetter wishes otherwise. (At least, implied to me.) However, when it says "(see ranks for how long this takes)" it lies as it isn't mentioned in the section detailing the various effects of the ranks.

Oh, and Jill, I strongly disagree with your "geographically tied" component. I do think that if you moved the Domus by mechanical means it would still be your Domus. The more I think about it, the more I believe this to be at the core of our inability to fully appreciate the other side's reasoning.

I'm still thinking about what I mean, and how it makes sense in the way that I understand things.

What I *don't* agree with is that a house/apartment/tool shed/dumpster what have you is an "object" like any other object. There has to be something that defines both the *place* and the *structure*, I think, to encompass what Hallowing a location/place means.

cenobyte wrote:Such as?

Reasons why you'd want a place an Affection by not a Domus? I want it protected by the Codex - Thou shalt suffer the Affections of thy fellow Fallen.

Easy example: There is an old church I went to as a kid. I don't want to live in it - I've already got a nice cozy apartment I've made my Domus. But I've got enough Hallow I can afford to make another Affection, and I'd like to make that church an Affection so that I then have a tie to it and it is marked as mine. Anyone who goes burning it down is a) going to know it is marked as someone's if they take a minute to look with True Voice first, and b) is then violating the Codex. You can burn me, you can kidnap me, you can torture me, whatever - that's all fair game under the Codex(even if the current Kings have a problem for it, and you should listen to your Kings). But come after my Affection? That's dirty pool. That's why I'd want to make that church my Affection.

I really do see, above and beyond some mechanical benefits you can get if you choose to invest XP into them, the prime function of the base level of making something an Affection is simply to mark it as yours. It is how Fallen spiritually piss on trees(or people) and define their territory.

Okay, yes, this is also an example Alan gave me. It's really the only argument that's swayed me at all.

IF (and I'm saying IF with a great deal of capitalisation and bolding) I were to accept that you *can* create regular Affection out of locations, you would not be able to spend Zeal on them to 'strengthen' them, nor would you get any benefit out of being in them. They'd just be an Affection, like the fork you Hallowed because it's your favourite fork and you like it when it's all shiny and clean.

cenobyte wrote:like the fork you Hallowed because it's your favourite fork and you like it when it's all shiny and clean.

Ooh! Shiny!

Damn it, that's MY fork. I HALLOWED it all by myself. MY fork. MINE.

cenobyte wrote:Okay, yes, this is also an example Alan gave me. It's really the only argument that's swayed me at all.

IF (and I'm saying IF with a great deal of capitalisation and bolding) I were to accept that you *can* create regular Affection out of locations, you would not be able to spend Zeal on them to 'strengthen' them, nor would you get any benefit out of being in them. They'd just be an Affection, like the fork you Hallowed because it's your favourite fork and you like it when it's all shiny and clean.

IF (and I'm not saying that you should if you don't agree because that causes it's own problems) you were to do so then it would be similar to any non-Chosen Weapon object made into an Affection. Or am I wrong? -- and I dearly hope that I am not. Can I imbue my favourite skipping rope with Zeal so that I get Inspirations for doing Double-Dutch?

Oh, and I just want to say that I'm really liking the non-angry, non-upset discussion about something that obviously is being interpreted in multiple ways. I don't often land up in rules-discussion-forum-threads like that.

I wonder if perhaps, Jill, it would help to distinguish thusly:

1. You can make an affection of a structure, but cannot spend zeal on it unless you do it as #3. I don't think, then, that moving the structure would change anything. Burning it down would mean it's gone, but now you can get revenge via the codex.

2. You cannot make an affection of a geographical location unless you do it as #3.

3. Making a domus is making an affection of both the structure and the geographical location, as both are a part of what you're making your own. Moving or burning down the structure would change the heart of what you've done. Perhaps you lose 1 point of zeal, if you've spent any.

I don't have any particular sympathy with this point of view except that it seems to be somewhat of a meeting point between the differing opinions here. I have no strong opinions on this topic... just thought I'd make the suggestion.

PS. Shiny!! *puts the fork in a bear-hug*

I'm not sure we need a compromise, but if we do, I will certainly consider it!

*yanks fork away* MINE.