Cherubim

[JCD]

Working on the 4e thread, I suddenly had a question regarding Cherubs.

Cherubs get Forces attunements. Djinn get Celestial Forces attunements. The official handwave about this is due to Cherubs being 'pure' and 'undamaged'; while Djinn...they are broken.

From a game handwave, it's because Cherubs have to care for and defend their attunements, while a Djinn only has to not harm it.


But who is insane enough to give a Cherub more then a couple of attunements? How many can they actually look after or care for? Yes, if you have 6 Faberge Eggs in a vault, one cherub is what you need, but who really assigns Cherubs to inanimate objects particularly often? Most frequently it's people and people go in different directions, facing different dangers.

If we did a redesign, wouldn't it make more sense for a Cherub to have fewer, but much more devoted attunements? Essentially, reverse the Djinn and Cherub numbers.

Thoughts?

[Azel]

Well, 6 Faberge Eggs in a vault would make things simpler, wouldn't it? And I agree, only a foolish superior/Superior would make a basic 9 Force Cherub attune to 9 different things deliberately scattered all across the globe. However, most Cherub/Djinn tend to be nice 'walls' so Celestial forces do not go above 4 on a basic 9 force that often. Actually, it is not that common for 9 force celestials go above 4 on any of the three spheres because it leaves you at human strengths on the other two (IME).

The question becomes when is it appropriate for a Cherub to start to collect charges over 4. That's a good question. Normally I see it that Cherubs would like to gather their charges like a hen clutching her brood. So 6 Faber Eggs in a vault isn't too far fetched.

For animated objects they would like to keep them within relatively easy access -- but for such strong beings this can be as large as a few states, a whole country, or even half a continent. But I would imagine they would consolidate if they could. Being a janitor at a museum watching 2-3 artifacts and then watching over two human charges within the same city is not overwhelming to a being that needs no sleep, maintenance, can use tethers to cross vast distances in moments, etc. Further, schools, orphanages, a key family member that gets all the gossip, etc. wold be a good way to keep tabs on large numbers of humans.

What I think the big issue is is how neurotic your GM dings characters for dissonance. Dinging a Cherub because a human charge stubbed its toe while walking to the bathroom at the middle of the night is ridiculous. As would be saying a Faberge egg was exposed to 20 minutes of sunlight (bleaching) while the museum display was being updated for the item's protection. The cherub should feel it, and should feel a heartrending obligation to make sure the end result is good, but such overprotectiveness is a sign of discord. Any GM who rules so tightly just scratched off a really good discord (Obsessive) and any role playing associated with it.

And further, any stifling overprotection becomes smothering, which can be just as bad ethereal/celestial damage as overt corporeal damage. Cherubs should be like protective mothers or boyfriends -- but they should be loving enough that they give enough space for personal growth. Yes, that means they will gasp when their charges tumble into the grass the first time after taking off their training wheels. But instead of preventing the (potentially) dissonant action, they will watch it and be prepared with bactine and band-aids. Now if they let them go off unattended or practice by a busy street, then yes that's negligence and definitely ding-able by the GM.

However, I always like the idea of brainstorming additional abilities. So please, don't let my comments stop you.

[Rocket Man]

One other thing to consider is that in an angel-centered IN campaign, it's not unusual for a Cherub to attune to one or more of the other PCs. So in practice, the number of NPCs and objects attuned to tends to be lower than their potential would suggest.

[JCD]

Well, recall that it isn't dissonant if something gets damaged, it's if it gets destroyed. Now a GM can rule that damage is 'betrayal of Superior (the one who assigned the charge), friends (for charges with relationships with the Cherub) and self (for allowing something like that to happen to a charge).'

I think a better metric for the above area of dissonance is 'negligence'. A cherub who acts in a fashion which can easily and foreseeably damage a charge should be liable for Dissonance under the 'betrayal' rubric.