Cheval: Animals or no?

High Quabalist and I were chatting on A_S's thread, and realized we had read an aspect of Cheval very differently. Namely, whether the powers were intended to be used on animals or not.

I am not particularly interested in debating who is "right" given it comes down largely to interpretations of the word "mortal."  What I am interested in is are folks by and large using the power this way?  And who is right aside, is there something either/both of us are missing in the description?

Given that there are Animal boons specifically for possessing animals (and just one type of animal, at that), I wouldn't let Cheval possess both Humans and animals.

BlaineTog:

Given that there are Animal boons specifically for possessing animals (and just one type of animal, at that), I wouldn't let Cheval possess both Humans and animals.

right, animal 4 (ride animal, scion demigod) but our reasoning why cheval should allow this beside the obvious caveat that Cheval is all about possessing mortal level beings is that the Companion in the manifestations of Ichor chapter allows one to boost mortals with ichor through the use of blood with faithful companions similar to the Jotenblut purview.

This tells us there is a precedent for 2 different powers allowing the same thing. Just like chow certain boons can allow very similar effects. And besides, it allows for creative uses of cheval that are fun at our table and it certainly isn't disbalancing all things considered since animals are mortal level creatures anyway.

It's not a problem at our table so far.

Its not a problem on its own, but it makes the animal boon incredibly disappointing.  Animal allows you only to ride one type of animal, and it does so at a higher xp cost. 


In the description of ride animal, it specifically states that you ride animals as cheval rides humans.  This infers that cheval does not ride animals. 

The word mortal is confusing, but I'm pretty sure it means human mortals, otherwise "animal" is incredibly restrictive and kinda sad in comparison. 

High Quabalist:

right, animal 4 (ride animal, scion demigod) but our reasoning why cheval should allow this beside the obvious caveat that Cheval is all about possessing mortal level beings is that the Companion in the manifestations of Ichor chapter allows one to boost mortals with ichor through the use of blood with faithful companions similar to the Jotenblut purview.

My objection isn't "Animal can already do that" but that if you allow Cheval to do that, it does it so very much better than Animal, which is terribly unfair to Animal.

Why not do the same thing with Cheval and animals that the Ragnarok p. 35 sidebar does with Jotunblut and animals?

Biggest issue is Ride Animal would have been already made redundant by Horse.

[]

Stix:

Why not do the same thing with Cheval and animals that the Ragnarok p. 35 sidebar does with Jotunblut and animals?

Because then Cheval 3 does for animals what Animal 4 does for animals, except with hella more range.  Cheval 3 would cost an actions and 1L+1W more, but would also be able to be used from any range as long as the Scion had some of the animal's fur or something.

BlaineTog:

"This Boon functions exactly as that one does,with the same limitations and effects on the Scion’s body. The only differenceis that Horse applies to possession of a human’s body, while Ride Animalapplies to specimens of the Scion’s chosen animal or to his Birthrightcreature."

Which implies with padlock-certainty that Horse doesn't work on animals.  Also, from Horse:

"She must be using Rada’s Eyes to share thevictim’s perceptions..."

And from Rada's Eyes:

"The Scion can experience another person’sperceptions as if they were her own." It later goes on to specify the differences between using the boon on "a mortal human being" and "a fellow Scion," but says nothing whatsoever about animals.)

That's the smoking gun I was looking for. Good work BlaineTog.

Baron Samedi:

The only differenceis that Horse applies to possession of a human’s body

fair enough, I concede that I was wrong. The PC in my current game has not used Cheval yet so it won't prove a problem...

We did allow it in 2 one shots where loa characters were present. But since the PSP hadn't been used yet in my current game so it won't affect the story the least bit, particularly since the Loa PC wants to devellop cheval as a religious tool mostly.

I'd always assumed that Cheval Horse/Rada's Eyes applied to anything that was not a full-blooded, Legend 9+ God.

If a player asked this question to me, I would base my ruling on whether or not an animal has a soul.  If animals have souls, then the Cheval ritual that traps and manipulates human souls could certainly apply to them.  And since animal sacrifices have significance in rituals, magics and religions outside of Loa, I'd say there's ground to say they do.

However, I would ultimately make the decision on a case-by-case basis.  If no one in the group was actively pursing the Animal Purview, and a Scion wanted to use Cheval to ride an animal to further the story, then I'd allow it, no problem.  Otherwise, I'd leave it in the domain of the "Animal" Scion (who would be very deserving of the spotlight indeed).

firstedition:

I'd always assumed that Cheval Horse/Rada's Eyes applied to anything that was not a full-blooded, Legend 9+ God.

Well, powers like Ugly Horse and the description in the beginning made it clear it does not work on Lesser Immortals and Titanspawn. Indeed, if it did work on Titanspawn UH would not do anything.

Rules?!  Humbug!

While I wouldn't allow Cheval to automatically work on animals, I would allow a relic that permits any Cheval boon to be used on any animal that the user can Ride.

Or if someone wants to be a bit more giving, perhaps the benefit might be given to anyone with Ride Animal and Cheval.