ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: william722w on November 23, 2012, 04:11:27 AM
-
Working out how to use Greater Glamours. Is playing a pure Fae possible. And if so what would be some balanced stats.
I was looking at the Catch +2 cold iron / inhuman recovery/toughness -2 to show the fae side or in lower powerd games use wizard constitution with the catch +1
Then use Aspects for the no lie. Any ideas or help or even if this has been posted before would help thanks.
-
I don't see why it wouldn't be possible with some house rules or allowances. As for balance, that depends on powers chosen. Take casting abilities and you're just as powerful as other casters.
Greater Glamours isn't really any more 'broken' than Glamours...it just gives you a bonus and a 'utility item'.
The real issue is in deciding how close to the Dresden narrative you want to stay and how much freedom an individual fae might have from her court.
-
Here's how I did it for my fae trickster that's sitting in my bag of character ideas:
Play as a fae servant bound to the party's wizard (sort of like Bob, only not stuck in a skull). Say the wizard's great-grandfather did a big favor for Titania a while back, and she granted a vassal for him and his descendants. Work out the specifics with the other player; give them a decent working relationship, the fae gets days off, allowances for danger, etc.
As for the whole "free will" thing, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck. Give him a contract clause allowing him to ignore the wizard's commands in certain cases, give him stuff he likes to do on his days off, give him some basic personality traits, and it'll be close enough.
Since this setup relies on there being a wizard in the party, fae magic would probably be redundant. Instead, I suggest maxing out Deceit (since Greater Glamours can be done with Deceit or Discipline), and assuming the role of "face" and/or illusion support. Add a stunt that boosts Deceit when you're not lying directly to represent the fae's whole lying-while-telling-the-truth thing.
In essence, this setup could leave you rolling +7 Deceit in a lot of social situations, plus rolling +7 on veils and glamours, while still leaving plenty of refresh and skill points for balancing your role.
"no-lying" thing: treat those as compels on your High Concept. This could also apply to things like thresholds.
Cold Iron: With a cold iron Catch, Supernatural Recovery would only cost -1 Refresh, and it's a really useful power.
-
I always figured the stunt Honest Lies made sense for Fae.
-
cool. Thank you for the help. I will post the charactor when i get it worked up.
-
I agree with the above - with house rules everything is possible.
That said, make sure that the table is comfortable with those rules before you start.
Richard
-
Dunno if I'd call playing a true fae house rules. It's more like house setting.
That aside, remember that The Catch's rebate must be smaller than the cost of the Powers it applies to.
Greater Glamours can work as a PC Power, but only if the GM is willing to improvise. You basically have to make up your own rules for it.
-
Keep in mind also that one may also simply create an excuse for your fey character to have gained some sort of free will. The books certainly imply that it is possible for a fey to alter their relationship with their court (though it doesn't say anything about altering their nature). It's not too tough to believe that one may find a way to give themselves a bit of mortalness.
-
That, and if it wasn't for a certain cannonical WCV sibling, that template probably wouldn't be listed as being viable for PCs. The vast majority of WCVs, after all, are not exactly exemplary when it comes to exercising free will over the demands of their demons.
One example was enough to get WCVs OK'd.
I see no reason to believe that a similar example does not exist for Fae, but was simply not included in the novels because they haven't interacted with our beloved narrator.
-
Can I ask, out of curiousity, what the intent is in wanting to play a True Fae instead of say, a Changeling? Is it just because you want to play in the Sandbox of Greater Glamours or is there something specific you're going for?
Good question to have an answer to anyway depending on the GM you'd play with. Personally I'd be a little leery of it, if only because I've had one too many groups with a player who really only gained enjoyment out of making the group miserable and constantly backstabbing them.
-
Is playing a pure Fae possible.
Just clarifying for my own info (I've only seen the "beta" books)--the base rules in the Beta books explicitly disallowed playing pure Fae. Did the "final" bookschange that, or areyou discussing house rules?
-
Just clarifying for my own info (I've only seen the "beta" books)--the base rules in the Beta books explicitly disallowed playing pure Fae. Did the "final" bookschange that, or areyou discussing house rules?
If you have a page reference, I can compare the text with the current version. I have not seen anything explicitly disallowing it so far.
-
The only thing I could find was a reference to requiring 'Free will'. Something Fae explicitly don't have. Similar rules prevent you from playing say, pure Red Court. So while it's not out and out said 'No pure fae' (That I could find) by their very nature Fae seem excluded (unless you house rule it, natch).
-
A quick readthrough, it looks pretty much the same way in the current version.
-
If you have a page reference, I can compare the text with the current version. I have not seen anything explicitly disallowing it so far.
I don't, unfortunately, but the distinction that was made was (iirc) whether a character could act out of will, or only out of their nature. Humans act as they choose--Fae, angels, Red Court vampires, and other creatures only act as they must act, according to their nature. I think it was in the Character Creation section that talked about Changelings.
I think it has to do with having no "refresh"--Fae's power costs are too high to have free will.
-
Yeah, straight RAW is that pure Fey are a no-no. We've passed into house rule territory (or perhaps house setting) long ago.
-
Acronym check: RAW?
-
Acronym check: RAW?
Rules-As-Written.
-
Again, I wouldn't call this a violation of RAW. It's more like a violation of SAW - Setting As Written. That is, it works only if you go beyond the default setting. But no numbers-jiggering is required.
-
No, it's against the RAW as the restriction is mentioned in Your World several times.
Richard
-
The main reason for looking into playing a true or pure fae was to beable to have a Pc with greater glamor. the rules i have say you must be pure fae to have this power. which suchs mainly the power looks fun but does not really look to over the top on power scale.
-
It's not necessarily overpowered, it just requires a lot of GM fiat (which is why it's primarily a NPC thing). Which is why you should definitely make sure your GM is up to it.
-
No, it's against the RAW as the restriction is mentioned in Your World several times.
Not everything in Your Story and Our World is a rule, you know. Both books are full of stories and setting bits.
(Incidentally, which one did you mean?)
The main reason for looking into playing a true or pure fae was to beable to have a Pc with greater glamor. the rules i have say you must be pure fae to have this power. which suchs mainly the power looks fun but does not really look to over the top on power scale.
Pretty sure that's backwards reasoning.
I strongly suspect that the Power was restricted to true fae purely to prevent PCs from having it. If you want to take it, make it suitable for PC use and forget about the restriction.
Powers can only be taken by characters with suitable High Concepts anyway, so if you believe that Greater Glamours isn't suitable for dream spirits or whatever then the restriction is redundant.
Making the Power suitable for PC use pretty much just requires a ten minute chat with your GM on the topic of what exactly Greater Glamours does. (Can I make a super-tough True Seeming and have it beat you up? Should I roll dice to see?) The solution you come up with will probably be vague and in no way suitable for mass use, but at your table that doesn't have to matter.
-
The main reason for looking into playing a true or pure fae was to beable to have a Pc with greater glamor. the rules i have say you must be pure fae to have this power. which suchs mainly the power looks fun but does not really look to over the top on power scale.
I'd ask your GM to make an exception before I'd ask to play Pure Fae. You're paying for either a lot more limitations or stretching the definition of a Pure Fae for an ability that is really trickier. (Alternatively, you could just ask for a more limited custom version of Greater Glamours, since the ability technically lets you make nearly anything--unless you want to summon motor vehicles (or horse and carriages if you're feeling classical, I guess). In some ways playing a Pure Fae would be pretty limiting and fairly complicated to pull off 'well'. But yeah--RAW, you can't. If you want to, or want something like it, talk to your GM.
-
Not everything in Your Story and Our World is a rule, you know. Both books are full of stories and setting bits.
We differ on that. I believe that when the rule book explicitly says something then it's in the rules - but you differ. And I don't think another huge exchange of posts on that issue will change anyone's opinions.
But if you want a cite:
Monsters have Nature, Mortals have Choice - that's a good place to start.
Richard
-
Again, which book were you referring to?
PS: Remember, if your name is Bob the rules say you have to shut up.
-
We differ on that. I believe that when the rule book explicitly says something then it's in the rules - but you differ. And I don't think another huge exchange of posts on that issue will change anyone's opinions.
But if you want a cite:
Monsters have Nature, Mortals have Choice - that's a good place to start.
Richard
The same book has Harry going, "So I could play a ghoul?" and Billy going, "Sure!" with the only caveat being that he'd enforce Hunger rules.
As for dealing with Greater Glamours, my game has a pixie with such a power. Mostly I balance it by having the pixie still roll different skills depending on what the player wants to do with it--if it's just to fool something into thinking the Seeming is real, then it's with Deceit. But if the player wants to, say, make a seeming of confetti to distract someone, then they have to roll Weapons as a maneuver. Making a seeming of a weapon might require a Craftsmanship roll to determine its quality.
-
Again, which book were you referring to?
No, it's against the RAW as the restriction is mentioned in Your World several times.
"Monsters have Nature, Mortals have Choice" is one of the section headings.
Richard
-
Um, guys? It really is fairly irrelevant what term you use to describe it, and this argument has nothing to do with the original question. Do you have anything more to say to the original poster?
-
@sinker: No, I can't add anything meaningful to what's already been said on the actual topic.
@Richard_Chilton: When you say Your World, do you mean Your Story or Our World? I'm guessing Your Story, from your last post.
Also, did you post a new thread to the Spoiler board? The "newest post" function of that board shows a new thread, but clicking it leads nowhere.
@Mr. Death: Sounds like a good way to manage Greater Glamours to me.
-
Working out how to use Greater Glamours. Is playing a pure Fae possible. And if so what would be some balanced stats.
I was looking at the Catch +2 cold iron / inhuman recovery/toughness -2 to show the fae side or in lower powerd games use wizard constitution with the catch +1
Then use Aspects for the no lie. Any ideas or help or even if this has been posted before would help thanks.
Playing a Pure Fae is possible using house rules - as long as the table signs on to it.
The "no lies" bit would be an element of the high concept - just as speaking Russian was Toot-Toot part of his high concept.
If you up the recovery/toughness over inhuman increasing the catch would be justified - iron is fairly common and well known. Just as long as the catch is under the cost of the power (all recovery/toughness powers cost a minimum of 1).
Wizard's Constitution doesn't get a catch.
As for the type of Fae - pick something from folklore and try to recreate it.
Max out your Deceit for Greater Glamor. Sure you can use Discipline, but Deceit is very useful for a Fae. If you're going to play one of the Shide then think of taking "Deceives with the truth" (or something like that) as an Aspect.
Since Shide PCs can't lie, practice giving misleading answers.
Example:
Q) Did you kidnap Tom Bower?
A) Tom Bower is a great man and the world needs more men like him. He's a loving father, a pillar of the community, and if he's in trouble then someone had better rescue him. In fact, tell me where he is and I'll lead the rescue mission myself.
Notice that the question wasn't answered? The answer could be "No" or "Yeah, he's in the trunk of my car" and either could be true because nothing in the A) bit actually answered the question.
There will be times when your PC will be forced to give a truthful answer. Even if he's not a Shide and can lie, when asked the third time all Fae have to give the correct answer. When you're forced to tell the truth, remember to point out that you're being compelled and ask for a FATE chip.
And again, make sure that the table is on side before playing a True Fae.
Richard
-
@Richard_Chilton: When you say Your World, do you mean Your Story or Our World? I'm guessing Your Story, from your last post.
Also, did you post a new thread to the Spoiler board? The "newest post" function of that board shows a new thread, but clicking it leads nowhere.
I can't believe I got the name of the book wrong. Your Story.
As for the post, posts to the Spoiler Board seem to need to be verified. I don't know why.
It's a post that has now been approved and touches on 4 - 5 topics from Jim Butcher's last interview that could apply to the game - especially with respect to Mouse.
Richard
-
Sounds interesting, I hope it gets approved promptly.
On further thought...if I couldn't lie I'd get offended by direct questions. All direct questions, even stuff like "are you hungry?". That'd give me an excuse to get huffy and not answer questions about kidnappings and the like.
-
That'd actually be supported canonically as well--asking a direct question to a Fae is a form of verbal assault, really, and usually there's an underlying attempt to force information out of them. That's why they're good at being vague in response in the first place.
Also, remember technicalities! "Did you kidnap Tom Baker?"
"No, I didn't." (I did however, plant the idea that a second party who happens to owe me a favor should kidnap Tom and hold him for ransom for another interested party and that it would be advantageous to him. I mean, I didn't TELL him to go Kidnap the guy, I just gave him an opportunity. No siree, no abduction here.)
-
Steven Brust had a great exchange in one his novels. The "hero" was being questioned under a magical device that could detect lies.
To quote:
I was asked things like, "When did you last see him alive?" and I'd say, "Oh, I don't know; he was always pretty dead," and they'd rebuke me sternly. They asked my opinion as to who killed him and I said that I believed he had killed himself. The Orb showed that I was telling the truth, and I was; messing with me the way he'd been doing was like asking to die.
Richard
-
I used to have a player with a Scion of Morpheus as his character. The character started with Glamours (drawing things from the dream world and projecting them).
Later, after an adventure that gained his patron some significant advantages (some great RP and pursuing options I hadn't considered!), Morpheus granted him access to the raw stuff of dreams.
In-game, that meant that he could essentially reach into his own (or other people's dreams) and pull items, create real dreamscapes, and overlay reality to a limited extent. That worked out as the Greater Glamors power. It's not a particularly well-defined power, but it took remarkably few house rules to make it work. It really worked out well at our table. So that particular chunk of playing a True Fae wouldn't be all that difficult to arbitrate, as long as the DM thinks about it ahead of time and is prepared to house-rule the unclear areas.
-
Not being able to lie doesn't imply that you have to answer. "I'm not going to answer that question" is perfectly truthful, after all. Also, I've found that answering every question with another question drives players NUTS!
-
Not being able to lie doesn't imply that you have to answer. "I'm not going to answer that question" is perfectly truthful, after all. Also, I've found that answering every question with another question drives players NUTS!
I suspect that continuing the practice in daily life would quickly show that the principle is quite transferable beyond the set known as 'players'.
-
Not being able to lie doesn't imply that you have to answer. "I'm not going to answer that question" is perfectly truthful, after all. Also, I've found that answering every question with another question drives players NUTS!
Alas, that doesn't work for the Fae, at least not if they ask three times:
Q) Did you kill Tom Goodfellow?
A) I'm not going to answer that question
Q) Did you kill Tom Goodfellow?
A) I'm not going to answer that question
Q) Did you kill Tom Goodfellow?
A) Yes dammit I did.
Much better to go:
Q) Did you kill Tom Goodfellow?
A) Tom's dead? What? But I was just talking to him the other day. How did he die?
Q) Did you kill Tom Goodfellow?
A) You moron! Tom was... We were close dammit! I need time to deal with this. To process!
(leaves)
Richard
-
Alternatively, if the Fae is sufficiently powerful and capricious...
[Q]
I'm not going to answer that question.
[Q]
I'm not going to answer that question.
[Q]
*fatally wounds the asker* Yes, I did, and then later, I killed you. *asker dies*
-
Alas, that doesn't work for the Fae, at least not if they ask three times:
Q) Did you kill Tom Goodfellow?
A) I'm not going to answer that question
Q) Did you kill Tom Goodfellow?
A) I'm not going to answer that question
Q) Did you kill Tom Goodfellow?
A) Yes dammit I did.
No, the thing with the fae is that anything they say three times has to be true, in terms of promises made. It's not that if you ask them something three times, they have to answer. You're thinking of Mustafa from Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me.
-
I played a water wyldfae as I mentioned before, just using RAW for a few months. I had no problem with lying, since I was looking forward to the challenge of avoiding the truth without lying. My vodnik was considered odd by the rest of the characters, none too happy with his hobby of collecting human souls in porcelain cups. I didn't take iron as my weakness since my watery home was near the waste discharge of some steel mills. Which again, we used as a reason the Courts left me alone (mostly).
-
"Did you kidnap Tom Baker?"
1) No, I didn't. (did not specify which Tom Baker. The fae answers about one of the Tom Bakers she has not kidnapped)
2) No, I didn't. (The fae used winter magic to summon a servitor that did the kidnapping for her)
3) No, I didn't. (The fae did not kidnap Tom Baker. She contrived a situation where Tom Baker would die - and then she saved him by sequestering him in a very secure little sanctuary.
4) No, I didn't. (The fae transformed Tom Baker into a dog. Then she kidnapped the dog.)
5) No, I didn't. (The fae mind-controlled Tom Baker to go with her willingly.)
6) No, I didn't. (The fae abducted Tom Baker. She's old enough to have learned English before the word "kidnap" was in use and chooses to use the older form of the language that did not contain the word.)
7) No, I didn't. (The fae abducted Tom Baker. By taking the literal, original meaning of the word kidnap, the question would not apply to Tom Baker because he isn't a kid.)
8) No, I didn't. (Legally, kidnapping is taking against one's will without legal authority. The fae, being a sidhe knight, does have her queen's authority to arrest a mortal if it would serve the purpose of Winter)
9) No, I didn't. (The fae cast a spell on herself that would temporarily suppress her memory of the kidnapping if someone asked her if she did it - so she could answer truthfully to her knowledge)
Fae can slip through a vague question, answer in the literal truth or the figurative truth if one of those can be misleading, answer in the partial truth, purposefully misunderstand the question itself, purposefully interpret the question to their favor, purposefully misunderstand the context or the situation the question applies to, or even change the meaning of the question/context/situation through their own action.
And all of the above can be done when speaking the direct truth without evasion or refusing to answer. Not the Fae's fault that language is so very flawed, limited and imprecise, is it?
-
Alas, that doesn't work for the Fae, at least not if they ask three times:
Q) Did you kill Tom Goodfellow?
A) I'm not going to answer that question
Q) Did you kill Tom Goodfellow?
A) I'm not going to answer that question
Q) Did you kill Tom Goodfellow?
A) Yes dammit I did.
Much better to go:
Q) Did you kill Tom Goodfellow?
A) Tom's dead? What? But I was just talking to him the other day. How did he die?
Q) Did you kill Tom Goodfellow?
A) You moron! Tom was... We were close dammit! I need time to deal with this. To process!
(leaves)
Richard
So they have to answer the question if asked three times? And yeah the second option is definitely tricksier, but I think there are all flavors of Fae. The one I was trying for was the honorable Seelie Knight, kinda lawful neutral-ish, who knows the game but doesn't like trickery.
Is it possible for this kind of Fae to answer "I'm not going to answer that question and now I never will" because of saying it thrice?
-
You always have the option of never answering a question. The weird thing is you could tell the straight truth every time and people would still want you to answer three times because of the reputation garnered by all the other fairies. Although trust can be built up, Harry never bothers to ask Toot to say anything more than once anymore.
-
Meh. Always speaking truth is never a guarantee of honesty anyway. Just read Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time. :o
-
So they have to answer the question if asked three times?
No. As I said before, there's nothing in the books or anything that implies so.
-
Funniest things a Fae can do when speaking the truth;
1) Cast a spell on herself to prevent her from hearing the question. Then in any situation she more or less knows what the other guy is going to ask she can say anything she wants since she wouldn't be lying to a question she didn't actually hear but the questioner would assume she was answering his questions.
2) Cast a spell/glamour on herself that changes her words after she speaks but before others hear them, specifically into various lies/deceptions each time she speaks the truth. Just because she has to speak the truth doesn't mean she has to allow others to hear it now, does it?
-
For what it's worth, I think that Cold Days probably answers the questions regarding the Free Will vs Nature for Fae. Can't say more, though, since this isn't a spoiler board.
-
You always have the option of never answering a question. The weird thing is you could tell the straight truth every time and people would still want you to answer three times because of the reputation garnered by all the other fairies. Although trust can be built up, Harry never bothers to ask Toot to say anything more than once anymore.
Actually I kinda like the 'Three Times' rule since it would prevent a Fae from just not answering your question. But doing so is considered a hostile act, so using it against a ally (like Harry and Toot) or a neutral (a fae who doesn't care either way if you live or die) would only bring about feelings of enmity. So its a double edge sword, which fits the setting.
-
Actually I kinda like the 'Three Times' rule since it would prevent a Fae from just not answering your question.
I'm curious, why do you think they should have to answer?
I suspect such a requirement would simply escalate the situation. Any fae with experience would interject a bargain prior to the third question. "If you really wish to know, ask again and pay my price."
-
I'm curious, why do you think they should have to answer?
I suspect such a requirement would simply escalate the situation. Any fae with experience would interject a bargain prior to the third question. "If you really wish to know, ask again and pay my price."
With a google search, I got "Why does Jesus ask Peter 'do you love me?' three times? And their answer was in the Bible, three is a 'good' number. Then it gives some examples why, even talking about how Peter denied knowing Jesus three times before Jesus' crucifixion. Then found a page on the Rule of Three "Good things come in 3s. So do bad things. And even things that are neither good nor bad." which talks about trebling, and how the Rule of 3 is a pattern used in stories and jokes, where part of the story is repeated 3 times, with minor variations. The first 2 instances build tension, and the 3rd releases it by incorporation a twist.
Ok cool, so now we could suppose this rule apply to the Fae with this evidences. We have both a biblical, and a story telling reason. Both having some influence on the Seelie/Unseelie Court nature, even if it was long ago. And to my "Why?", its because it brings a unfamiliarity to the world of the Courts. I like that, because most people don't understand how truth can also do you great harm. And if we add the rule that by asking a fae three times, you also get their hostile for such a social faux pas... Well, that makes it even better in my opinion. So I guess one could consider it the 'nuclear option' when dealing with a Fae. So by doing so you will get your answer but maybe more then you care to know, plus you just made a powerful enemy. I mean, what isn't there to love?
-
I mean, what isn't there to love?
Not sure if you misunderstood my question or if I'm missing your response. My question wasn't "What is interesting about the number three?" it was "Why do you want answers handed out just for asking?" In other words, why should an NPC 'have' to answer just because he's asked? Perhaps I should have continued with "How will it affect the game?"
Seems the game might devolve into "beat up a fae for the answer". Sounds like it would get old fast.
I'm all for using numerology along with our myths and games. You can already do so without drawing hard lines of "must answer" in the ground. Just declare you've asked three times, tag it, and add it to your social roll. Gives you a benefit but not a certainty.
-
I'd more suggest an invoke-for-effect triggering a compel against the Fae's High Concept. They can refuse and buy it off, but given the Fae's typical (negative) refresh values, it'd be rather expensive. If they DO buy it off, represent that not as them speaking falsehood, they're Fae after all and these are the rules of their existence, but as the speaking of plain truth not substantially negatively impacting their plans.
-
That works as well. Point is that the mechanics to use it are there. No need to add a narrative 'must answer'.
-
Not sure if you misunderstood my question or if I'm missing your response. My question wasn't "What is interesting about the number three?" it was "Why do you want answers handed out just for asking?" In other words, why should an NPC 'have' to answer just because he's asked? Perhaps I should have continued with "How will it affect the game?"
Seems the game might devolve into "beat up a fae for the answer". Sounds like it would get old fast.
I'm all for using numerology along with our myths and games. You can already do so without drawing hard lines of "must answer" in the ground. Just declare you've asked three times, tag it, and add it to your social roll. Gives you a benefit but not a certainty.
You could argue that same points above with the how the game says a Fae always tell the truth.
But I'm not saying you shouldn't have some underlining game mechanics for either, nor it won't get abused in some instances. I just said I found the concept interesting enough to try adding it to my own campaign. As for 'beating-up a fae for answers', that's already a possibility. Hmm.. the skill 'Intimidation' has both a social attack (getting your answer by consequences) and one called 'Threat' ( but using the mental track instead), then we got Rapport:chit/chat to trick out info without the target knowing. None of that is 'beating-up your npcs", its just the favor the RAW and setting.
And personally, I see no more players abusing the Rule of Three then I see them mega-gaming Self Compelling, Declaration, or Scholarship-Declaring Minor Details. Yet then, I'm huge Amber DRPG GM from way back and were never worried about my players abusing my npcs. In fact, most of my players now I think would agree that it was high time that they got the chance to turn the tables. And if they wish to track down Lady Midday (the newest of my fae) to badger her about some answer they think is so damned important and invoking her nature and bypassing the more social norms... then they deserve her belligerence from that point on.
In fact, you could even award them a fate dice for that.
As for the minor fae, it sucks to be weak!
Yet thinking about it some more, I would set a certain rank within the Courts for that Rule of Three to come into effect. As in, you must be of the Courts and not just a average wyld like Toots. And with a little more thought, make the Queens immune to it. But I do understand, its a house rule for everyone's game. Heck, alot of the house rules I read here I would never use myself. But then, I've always been more interested in favor then simply game mechanics, even if it leads to the same place.
-
The Fae are specifically forbidden from offering ANYTHING freely, including information (Lea explains why in Ghost Story). That is in their nature as much (if not moreso) as speaking the truth.
So you just had the Fae tell you the truth. Excellent. In exchange, the Fae gets a link to you. It can call in that marker for a favor. Or, if you pissed her off sufficiently, she can sell that marker to somebody hostile to you and they can use that link to work thaumaturgy on you. Have fun.
-
In exchange, the Fae gets a link to you.
Not unless you agreed to that. And no, simply asking the question does not constitute such an agreement.
-
Not unless you agreed to that.
Evidence (and Lea's explanation plus her helping a 16-year-old harry) says otherwise. If you accept something they give you, you are beholden to them and they must take equal exchange - even if they themselves would wish otherwise. Information, verbal agreements, any gifts, even accepting hospitality. (you give them back equally in that you must act as a guest when they are acting as hosts)
And no, simply asking the question does not constitute such an agreement.
Getting an answer does. Lea specifically warns Harry that she can't give him information without exacting equal payment.
-
An proposed agreement can be delivered subtly, and consent doesn't need to be informed (thus you can agree to things you didn't know about or understand), but simply asking questions of the Fae does not give them power over you.
'Getting an answer' is an action taken by the Fae. The entire concept of the Fae gaining power over other is that that power must be GIVEN. A Fae gaining power over another based wholly on action taken BY that Fae is utterly inimical to this concept, and thus to one of the most fundamental pillars of the concept of the Fae themselves.
If all Lea had to do to gain yet more power over Harry was to answer his question, then she WOULD HAVE. She would not have bothered with that warning if his consent had already been given to the exchange. Despite having been phrased as a warning of an impending exchange, it was more likely the proposal for that exchange.
-
Not unless you agreed to that.
You may want to read Cold Days before committing to this stance. Just sayin'. ;)