Domus and Rules

cenobyte wrote:Okay. Here are some nearly definitive answers (which begin with: all of this is being worked on for the final edition):

1) You cannot maintain a Domus unless you live in it. You cannot visit your Domus X times a week to 'strengthen' it; but it is intended that your Domus is the place you live. If you have a Domus but live elsewhere, the bond gradually deteriorates.

2) Doves don't go to a Fallen first; they go to the Domus, and so if you don't have a Domus, it takes *even longer* for a Dove to find you (this is cool, and is
something I didn't know at all).

3) For the same reason you can have a Chosen Weapon and an additional weapon that is also made an Affection, it is possible to have a Domus as well as another place that is an Affection (which cannot be strengthened and which will not give the benefits of a Domus). This Affection could be used *only* as an
Affection under the Codex. I don't like the idea, and neither does Trent, but strictly speaking, there's nothing that says it isn't possible.

So. Here is the ruling we will use in Providence:
1) If you have a Domus, you must live there. You cannot maintain a Domus you do not live in. Remember, it is possible for more than one person to make a single location a Domus.

2) For now, I will continue to consider the multiple place-Affections conundrum. By the November game, I will have an answer for you about this issue. Until then, as stated previously, we will assume you cannot have a Domus and another
location Affection.

Okay Jill, that was a great summary, as others have noted.

I must say though that we are not done with the idea of a Domus and the rules and flavour surrounding it. I'm not only asking Jill what she thinks here, folks -- although that is clearly important as she is the final arbiter of the rules.

I want to try to keep organised with this post, so I'm going to assign names to the questions. If you reply, please make it clear which question you are contributing to the discussion of.

I) Shared Domus: We know that you can make a shared Domus by everyone Hallowing the same place. It's a great way for communal safety.
-A) New Member: When you want to add someone new to the Domus does everyone have to reHallow the Domus simultaneously? I always understood it that you did have to reHallow because once an Affection was bonded the only way to share it was with the Avarice technique Appropriation.
-B) Cross Congregation: Up until now, the Infernal have all been living together. Is there anything in the books that say that only members of a Congregation can share a Domus? I cannot find anything to say that they can't. This is an important point because it will dictate the living arrangements of the Courts with respect to Domus.
-C) Cross Conviction: Right now there are members of the Deistical and Divine living at the Infernal Housing Complex. I likewise cannot find anything that says all members of a Shared Domus must be of the same Conviction.
-D) Cross Morality: Because Hallowing is either Desecration or Sanctification, can Moral and Immoral Fallen share a Domus? I had always assumed that the Hallowing for a Domus was channelled in a special way, because otherwise the buildings that the Immoral are in would always be on the verge of collapse.

II) Destruction: Something that we've touched on but it got mixed up the Hallow argument and need clarification.
-A) Fading: I believe that you've already said that the rate of fading due to separation is variable based on character and story.
-B) Razing: If you destroy the building that makes up the Domus of a Fallen (since you have to live in something), does that destroy the link from Hallow? If not, then is there any known way for someone to destroy Another Fallen's Domus, e.g., Unholy Aura Preeminence?
-C) Investiture: In the past you said that if you Hallowed a new Domus in place of an existing old Domus, then you could transfer the Zeal invested to the new Domus. Further, you said that if an old Domus is destroyed you need to invest new Zeal into the New Domus because the old Zeal was lost with the old Domus. I will assume that a Fallen can sense their own degree of investiture in a Domus and thus you will immediately tell the Player, but I want to know what type of destruction would cause the loss of Zeal as compared to a transfer. As we've established, this is important in case of Hollow Death.

Test, test. Is this thing on? Anyone? No one has thoughts? I don't believe it.

Sorry. Didn't see this post.

I)
-A) A more potent question for me becomes: are you really sharing the Affection? It's not like you're passing around the latest Potent Human...I'd like your (the collective 'your') feedback here.
-B) Cross Congregation: No, there is nothing in the book that says that only the members of a Congregation can occupy the same Domus.
-C) Cross Conviction: Conviction does not matter when it comes to occupying the same Domus.
-D) Cross Morality: Actually, a distinction is drawn here. Desecration and Sanctification are specific terms used to mean "Making things Stronger" and "Making things weaker". These are two very different uses of Hallow. You can Desecrate or Sanctify a thing without making it an Affection. And you can make an Affection without Sanctifying or Desecrating it.

II) Destruction: Something that we've touched on but it got mixed up the Hallow argument and need clarification.
-A) Fading: Yes, the rate of fading due to separation is variable based on character and story.
-B) Razing: Yes, if you destroy the building that makes up the Domus of a Fallen, that destroys the link.
-C) Investiture: I've thought about this quite a lot. Here's my thinking: if you have strengthened a Domus with Zeal and choose to release it, it will cost you more Zeal to strenthen a new Domus. If your Domus is destroyed, you'll have to spend more Zeal to strengthen a new one. I was trying to compare a Domus to other Affections, and I can't make a case for allowing the Zeal to transfer from one Domus to another. I just can't. I mean, it seems like a nice idea - invest in a Domus once and move it around as you like. But it really doesn't make sense with what is metaphysically involved in making a Domus. So I've changed my mind on this, which I think is also more consistent (the ruling, not the changing of my mind...although I do change my mind fairly consistently. Or maybe just regularly). Every time you strengthen a new Domus, you have to spend Zeal.

And you can make an Affection without Sanctifying or
Desecrating it.

By which I mean that, regardless of your Morality, you *can* Sanctify or Desecrate, so if you're Immoral, you can Sanctify a weapon to make it your Affection (making it your Chosen Weapon). If you're Moral, you can Desecrate someone else's Affection.

Sanctification is *instinctual* to Moral characters, and Desecration is *instinctual* to Immoral characters. But it doesn't mean that an Immoral character *cannot* create a Chosen Weapon or Affection using Sanctify.

Meaning, there isn't a "Neutral" use of Hallow.

Jill, are you going with the BRB on what it means to use Hallow in a non-instinctual way? A Medium Trauma test per Rank used? Of what I can only assume is Forced Trauma?

Absolutely.

so if you're Immoral, you can Sanctify a weapon to make it your Affection (making it your Chosen Weapon)...

Sanctification is *instinctual* to Moral characters, and Desecration is *instinctual* to Immoral characters. But it doesn't mean that an Immoral character *cannot* create a Chosen Weapon or Affection using Sanctify.

So my understanding from the BRB (which may very well be tainted by past play experience) is that Immoral characters use desecration to create their affections not sanctify. While not physically weaker, an immoral Fallen's affection is darker and more "corrupt", desecrated in a spiritual not physical sense.
Am I incorrect in this, and if so am I supposed to be explicitely wrong as per the book, or just wrong as per this game's interpretation (if the former the book needs to be clearer).

My understanding is that the item, when desecrated, is held in a state of decay of some sort that does not cause an overall weakening to the object. A chosen weapon might always be rusted or slightly warped, an object tarnished or faded, and a person might have a constant rash or a cough... or impotence. That sort of thing.

If you do not live in your Domus, you do not have a Domus. You have an affection (for all intents and purposes). Your connection with your Domus fades at a specific rate (for those of you who require numbers) of one rank of Hallow per month.

So if you have 1 Rank of Hallow, your Domus will not be your Domus if you do not live there each month.

And by 'live there each month', I mean live there each month. Every month. All the time. It's as simple as this: if you do not live in your Domus, you lose your connexion with your Domus. So if you live with your boyfriend in his bar on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and in your own Domus on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and weekends, your Domus will deteriorate within a month.

If you live in a hotel room with your manservant Hektor 3% of the time during the month, your Domus will deteriorate within a month. If you want to create a new Domus, then create a new Domus. Otherwise, your connexion with it fades at the rate of 1 Hallow per month.

That is the current rule, as it appears in the rulebook. I myself prefer a different mechanic, but I'm not sure it's going to be helpful or useful. To that end, I expect you are living in your Domus, if you have paid points *for* a Domus. If you are NOT living in your Domus, I expect you to include that in your downtime submission. If it isn't included in your downtime submission, I will assume you're living in your Domus and will construct scenes accordingly.

So, from an in-character perspective, how long does it take a Fallen to realize that this is happening?

If a Fallen decides to move in with someone else, realizes this is happening, and moves back (either for a short period, or a longer period if they haven't known OOC that they should have realized this IC) do they lose the points they put into domus altogether, or can they "earn it back", and how long would this take?

I think that perhaps in the scenario where the Fallen is "away" for just long enough to realize this is happening (a day? a week?) and then moves back, they perhaps shouldn't actually lose the domus at all, because lots of characters won't know this IC and it allows them to learn it naturally without a big penalty for staying in character. If however, they stay away for more than that, then my opinion would be that 1 month of living there full-time should get them back to where they were.

As I've said before (though not in this thread), I'm not a big fan of taking away things characters have put Zeal into. Fallen know that when they use Hallow on a location, it feels better for them. They know that if they don't live in that place, it won't feel as comfortable. That's why they create a Domus. That's why they choose to live in a Domus.

MOST Fallen, if they choose to move out of their Domus, will create a Domus in the new place. They don't have one place and live in another. They just don't. So, IC, a character who does that is doing something weird. Even homeless Fallen will consecrate/desecrate the dumpster they're living in.

Mechanically, if you've spent Zeal on your Domus, and you want to have a new Domus, you tell me where your new Domus is, and those points remain spent on Domus. If you release your old Domus and don't want to create a new Domus, those points are lost (so you can't put three Zeal into Domus, then decide to release your Domus to buy a Transgression or an OM for your weapon).

The time period of a Fallen being away from their Domus is, to me, and this may sound short-tempered but isn't intended to, is inconsequential. If you're not living in your Domus for a week, the question becomes why are you not living in your Domus and why haven't you created a new one? Based on those answers, your bond to your Domus might have weakened, and you'll have to make a new one. It's not...it's not a scale, right? It's not like every time you step outside your Domus, the bond mystically weakens and only renews the moment you step back in, and that the rate at which that bond weakens is inversely proportional to the time you spend at your boyfriend's house. It's not like that.

Fallen will know this happens, because it is instinctual. When the bond with your Domus (or any of your Affections) breaks, you know. You probably don't feel it weaken, unless it's doing so because of a Technique. But ...damn...this is a difficult question to answer because we're coming at this from different places, Laura.

Short answer:
1) You don't lose the Zeal you put into your Domus, unless you decide not to create a new Domus.
2) It takes at most one month per point of Hallow that your bond with your Domus deteriorates. In certain situations, the SG may decide it happens faster. But normally, it's one month per point of Hallow.
3) Fallen know this happens.
4) In light of this stuff, I don't think it makes sense to have a 'sliding scale' of how long it takes for a Fallen's bond with her Domus to deteriorate. If a Fallen chooses not to live in her Domus, the bond breaks at the rate of 1 Rank per rank of Hallow (unless otherwise discussed with the SG) per month the Fallen is not there.

As a corollary to this, I assume that characters are living in their Domus unless they state otherwise *to me* in their downtime submission. So that if there is a scene wherein a character is being hunted or contacted or whatever, that could very well happen at their Domus.

Fair enough.

I think that the reason I'm concerned about this at a different level than you is that there have been players who haven't been aware of this (or of the extent to which it matters), and I'm just trying to figure out 1) if they can just go back to their domus without mechanical consequences and 2) how to explain in character why they are doing this, and why they didn't do it sooner.

What I'm hearing is 1) yes and 2) we could just fudge it and say they've only just now started noticing this effect, or maybe it even only just now started happening.

So your answer is sufficient, thank you.

PS. Given that we're still playtesting and feedback about this may be important, I should probably share this opinion, but please keep in mind that's all it is:

I think that these rules discourage players who aren't in congregations from sharing living quarters in an informal and changing manner, and I think that that's unfortunate. A lot of Malicia's story thoughout this game was in sharing a domus with Cheriour; living with Arc for a month before he appointed her his Rook; living with Mihr and Cat because Cat was fragile from having lost her congregation and needed protecting in the face of the threat from the devil; (EDIT: living in Sophiel's backyard in a tent to protect her after Lockwood went away;) wanting everyone to keep themselves safe by not living alone; getting to know Eddie and Dorian better when they came to stay with her for a while.

Actually, I'd prefer the answer to 2) be: it's always been this way, but you only just now started to care? If that makes sense? Because to say it hasn't always been this way has HUGE (IMO) in-game consequences (or could) for all of those players who *did* know this, and for all of the other characters.

I disagree that this discourages players....first of all, new characters have always been really strongly encouraged TO be part of a congregation...both in the book, and by the storyguide. Characters who don't join a congregation are usually considered 'odd'. I thought this was clear in the BRB.

Secondly, there's nothing saying a character without a congregation CAN'T share a living space with other characters. The understanding is that when that happens, the character would create a Domus in the new living space. As it says in the BRB, a Domus can be an entire house, a single apartment, an entire apartment block, a single room within a house, or maybe even just a couch. That's up to you and the Storyguide. So IMO, there's no reason why a character *couldn't* do exactly what Malicia did, within the rules as they currently exist.

You can choose to either have your character have no Domus (which is a little weird), have no Congregation (which is slightly less weird, but still a bit odd), or to have both, or any combination of the above. I'm not sure where this feeling came from that you *can't* share a Domus with someone, whether or not they're part of your Congregation. A Congregation can create a *shared* Domus, but that's different from creating a Domus-within-a-Domus.

cenobyte wrote:....first of all, new characters have always been really strongly encouraged TO be part of a congregation...both in the book, and by the storyguide. Characters who don't join a congregation are usually considered 'odd'. I thought this was clear in the BRB.

Not if you're part of the court. (Which is an awful lot of people).

cenobyte wrote:I'm not sure where this feeling came from that you *can't* share a Domus with someone, whether or not they're part of your Congregation

Not so much can't, as that it would be weird to change your domus up every few months...? Maybe it's a wrong impression. It just seems like your domus is supposed to mean something special to you, like your affection weapon, and someone who moves around as much as Malicia has in the past would probably not have a domus at all, rather than move it around with her. If I'm wrong in that, then I guess that changes my opinion.

It's my understanding that the Domus is where the Hallow is, so to speak, so that Fallen who choose to have a Domus, choose to have that Domus where they are living.

As for the being part of the Court thing, that's a special case, which is why I said "NEW characters have always been really strongly encouraged..." The Court is a separate, different entity. And when you're part of the Court, while you do have to give up your old Congregation, that doesn't mean you have to move out and stop talking to them.

cenobyte wrote:And when you're part of the Court, while you do have to give up your old
Congregation, that doesn't mean you have to move out and stop talking to them.

Unless they go ahead and die on you... *is sad*

cenobyte wrote:It's my understanding that the Domus is where the Hallow is, so to speak, so that Fallen who choose to have a Domus, choose to have that Domus where they are living.

So in your opinion, it wouldn't be odd, say, that when Arc wants to get to know Malicia and assess her capability as a Rook, Malicia might move her domus to a bedroom in his place for a little while, and then back again afterward? (Or leave her old domus as a simple affection so that it's still protected under the codex). If that's a perfectly normal, oft-occurring sort of thing, then that's cool with me.

I've always been of the opinion that when you have a position you are in a Congregation that is called the Court. :)

I don't find it unusual to move a Domus. What I, in my interpretation of Fallen, find odd is that Malicia is constantly moving, period. I've always extrapolated that Travel Bad includes Moving Bad. I image Fallen picking a home and then staying there until they are forced to move, be it by threat of attack or need for more rooms for the expanding congregation. Easy Traveller is the exception, although, come to think of it, I've always treated characters with that preeminence as being a bit "off". That is, however, only my interpretation, though you will likely see it shine through in my characters should the topic come up.

Actually, my interpretation is very similar to Alan's.

What I find odd shouldn't have any bearing on what your character decides is normal, unless it does, in which case, we'll Talk about it.

Well maybe that's the thing. I didn't figure Travel Bad meant we couldn't walk around the city with relative ease - just not any faster, and when we do, we have to stop and rest more than a human might. Malicia has only big-m Moved twice in all her time here - once when Cat's congregation was killed sometime after Cheriour disappeared, and once when we discovered OOC that domuses fade, and she moved back home. The other times were just living out of a suitcase for a while, so no extensive travel required.

I do think that what you find odd is important, because you know the setting better than I do, and I'm trying to ask what you find odd in the context of this setting. What I'm hearing now is that the response itself (moving the domus) isn't odd so much as the situation that warrants it would probably be rare. (Except that it seems from my point of view to have come up an awful lot for us), and if neither the system itself nor the setting really discourages it, than I don't have any concerns.

Well, IMO, this particular issue has come up quite a lot for maybe two characters in the game, but not at all for most of the characters. Just sayin'.

Corral wrote:Well maybe that's the thing. I didn't figure Travel Bad meant we couldn't walk around the city with relative ease - just not any faster, and when we do, we have to stop and rest more than a human might. Malicia has only big-m Moved twice in all her time here - once when Cat's congregation was killed sometime after Cheriour disappeared, and once when we discovered OOC that domuses fade, and she moved back home. The other times were just living out of a suitcase for a while, so no extensive travel required.

Whoa, Laura, I think you are confusing the issue. Walking around the city is fine and always have been -- in fact, many Fallen choose to walk everywhere. Let's not bring day-to-day movement into the idea of moving where you live, please.

I would also like to point out that we discovered OOC that our Domus fades when we read our Core Technique, Hallow. It's always been there. Jill made other changes regarding levels of investiture, but that aspect shouldn't have been a surprise. Then again, maybe it was. I guess I just assumed that everyone reads through the techniques that they have.

And that everyone interpolates the information they read in the same way...

OK, so to be 100% clear on this:

Jill, November 19 wrote:... if you have strengthened a Domus with Zeal and choose to release it, it will cost you more Zeal to strenthen a new Domus. If your Domus is destroyed, you'll have to spend more Zeal to strengthen a new one.

Jill, May 26 wrote:Mechanically, if you've spent Zeal on your Domus, and you want to have a new Domus, you tell me where your new Domus is, and those points remain spent on Domus. If you release your old Domus and don't want to create a new Domus, those points are lost....

Those two seem contradictory to me. We are going with the more recent ruling?

And the question I came here to ask: Does it take any time for a new domus to have an effect?

They're not contradictory.
If you create a Domus and then release it, you lose the Zeal.
If you create a Domus and then relocate, you don't lose the Zeal; you'll just have to tell me where your new Domus is.
If your Domus is destroyed, you'll have to spend Zeal to create a new one.

Ah, okay. My problem was that I was figuring you had to release a domus in order to relocate it.

Hey, does it (or can it) remain an Affection? Would you need to spend devotion for that?