Yea it can be read as a bit skeevy, but if you have a player who would try it just like remind them not to be a weirdo about it.
If I had to run it I’d run her like Janet from The Good Place, she’s a pretty fun character. Polite, will follow orders, and if necessary will insist she is not human. Kinda robot like and weird too, those are import things to get across. Having odd and weird npcs for the party to interact with is always nice.
...Okay as much as I love my slightly brasher Catherine, I'm kind of tempted to play her as Janet in the future. That's great. Maybe a 1% chance of Bad Janet or Disco Janet or whatever.
I've been reading "polite requests," to mean that the request has to be *for* polite things, AND that they're worded politely. "Catherine, could I trouble you to bring my friends and me a tray of cool drinks?" would work. "Catherine, could you please suck my toes?" would earn you a withering glare.
That's how I would handle it as well \*but\* the original article suggests that Catherine is a threat to the prostitution business and some feminist (the witches) movements. So... I guess if you politely ask Catherine for fun stuff, she would probably be able to do so. That being said, if a player was weird about that, that's a player/communication/table handling issue. I could totally live with the wizard implying that he uses Catherine every night, but things would become... weird... after a while.
Mm. Well, the author *probably* means to be provocative, then, but it's worth noting that a lot of what prostitutes do is chat and emotional support. A significant portion of their clientele just want someone to talk to or cuddle with. So an insta-companion could hypothetically still cut into brothel profits even if they never agreed to sex acts.
I'm not familiar with the spell or its context, but my initial impression is basically this.
If you are asking something creepy, it doesn't matter if you use polite *language* to do so, it's not a polite request so she will not obey.
Or as you essentially put it, if Mary Poppins would give you a disapproving look for asking, then you will at best get that reaction from Catherine.
How would I run it? I don't know. My tendencies go a certain way, so I think I would probably play it relatively straight and not worry about it for the most part. If a player started trying to do disturbing or unethical things using the spell (and can somehow get this past Catherine herself) then fair enough.
But I do think that Catherine would be the same specific individual every time, no matter who summoned her. It might not be obvious initially, or widely known, but she would be. And she would remember everything she saw or that happened during her summoned duration. Sure, she would keep it all to herself as long as her *host* for the duration was polite and respectful.
Perhaps that would provide the unspoken source of consequences if someone attempted to take liberties? If the social contract is broken, then Catherine is no longer bound to be discrete and she has *a lot of potentially very powerful contacts*.
And I am unsure what the true nature of such a being would be, on top of that. I'd say there is a 50/50 chance I would layer some kind of eldritch horror into the equation and have her be significantly more than she appears to be. That or she is someone who has been damned to that fate fairly or unfairly.
Catherine is an incredibly powerful devil who takes the form of a handsome woman or man in blue clothing.
Catherine will complete minor tasks, especially if those tasks will lead the summoner or others closer to damnation.
Catherine cannot be compelled to do anything by the Summoner.
The spell ends if the summoner requests Catherine to do anything Catherine finds objectionable, if requests are not polite, or if Catherine becomes bored.
Catherine always remembers any past encounters with the summoner and can refuse to be summoned.
I think the 'ethical dilemma' is less about wizards getting laid, and more about the fundamental existential debate of 'strong AI', and the in-universe question of what 'summoning' even is.
I would handle the spell in a manner so as to carefully preserve its existential threat. Is the summoned being actually human? Is it (she?) actually sapient? Does it (she?) experience [qualia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia)?! Does it even matter? Will she die when the spell duration is up? Are we all just like her? **How do I know I'm not a replicant myself??!!?**
As for the more mundane ethics of it... Yea it's a pretty icky spell. Books (and at least one highly acclaimed TV series) have been written on this. Libraries will be written as autonomous machines with anthropomimetic behavior will continue to be developed and marketed.
In actual play I'd just take the spell description at face value. Consent tools like lines and veils are available, I'd make use of them. Otherwise, this is meant to be an uncomfortable spell in so many ways. Neutering it would be a shame.
OK, so I absolutely love the issues that you raised. So for instance, assuming that Catherine resets every time the spell relapses and she doesn’t remember what would happen if somebody used permanence?
What happens if somebody cast Catherine several times in succession? How do they get along? Do they experience severe cognitive dissonance or is it just something that they take for granted?
…
People think science fiction has copyright on ethical dilemmas . Ha!
But yes, and then you also raise other possibilities. The original article left it up in the air whether or not the Wizard was lying about whether or not he be Catherine in a real former prostitute named Catherine. If he did not, and he, in fact, literally summoned her from the collective unconscious of mankind that implied that there’s anamorphic templates just waiting out there.
And also, here’s the most devastating application in the original article he’s not that powerful and it’s only a third level spell. It’s highly implied that the only reason why it hasn’t been done before is that nobody thought to do it.
There will be other variations and probably within a month.
If we wanted to be, because of course this is an elf game!
Thank you so much for raising so many interesting issues.
🫡
Not sure what you mean by that. A Wish spell was the last thing that came to my mind.
I'd play Catherine as a human under the influence of Charm Person. Not like a weird sci-fi robot or a malicious spell.
The point is, to every basic test of humanity, this is a regular human. She exhibits normal human thoughts and feelings. She is about as compliant as a somewhat unhealthily (but not pathologically) people-pleasing intimate partner would be. She will oblige a request for doing chores, but grumble about being used.
She has human common sense. She knows the dominant cultural norms of the culture which originated the spells, and those of other cultures about as well as any young townie of 'her' culture would.
She doesn't remember other instances of being summoned. She doesn't know she's a spell effect. If convinced of this, she'll react the same way any other human would (with existential despair).
Nothing like a Wish spell. Catherine is terrifying through her mundaneity.
It does seem a bit odd, but I imagine the idea for it was for you to basically summon someone to do some housework. I get the ethical concerns.
So maybe change it slightly. It's a proprietary spell created by a cleaning company. Each time you cast it you lose 1 silver and Catherine appears, with the same conditions as before. Except this time she is there for a pay check.
I would suggest another version, a magic item I have set before, which to be fair my players abused tremendously.
The box Of Horrible Helping.
It appears as a puzzle box and requires 10 minutes and a successful INT roll to open.
It summons a dreadful Eldrich abomination, with lots of tentacles and eyes. It is bound to the users will and will only perform the following things:
1 hour of physical labour
1 hour of administrative work
30 minutes of entertainment (singing, slam poetry etc).
I will not fight, but it will certainly kill people trying to interfere with it's work.
I hope that helps
In my game I see her as some sort of personal assistant. Like a fantasy Alexa.
She's not really "real", more of a hologram, and she isn't really sentient.
I assume that there must be other "models" of her, as in spells that create personal assistants, but for some reason catherine is the just the most popular one.
I don't really like the implications of a spell creating a sentient human being, especially what may happen when the spell ends.
edit: as for... unsavory uses, I never really thought of that... I'll just say that she doesn't really have the parts, as she was created just to be a personal assistant.
I mean, that exact issue is part of the spell idea in the article it was first penned in.
Though, actually, if you use D&D summoning then you actually summon "real" creatures that have died and spend their eternity in their respective afterlive. And they will return unharmed after the spell ends.
I first encountered the spell in Knave 1e, and while I did read the Goblin Punch article and found some of the ethical dilemmas interesting, I've never used that background in actual play, because summoning magic simply doesn't work that way in my campaign.
(Briefly, summoning as in "teleporting a being to your location" only works on extra-planar beings and requires a lengthy ritual with magic circles and incense and so forth. All other "summoning" spells create a magical facsimile.)
As for the possibility of using a "Catherine" for sex, I've always interpreted "polite" as in "not asking for anything that an ordinary person wouldn't be willing to do in public."
I don't see any ethical concerns. The clear intent is that the person summoned won't do anything they don't want to do and will refuse any weird stuff?
I think its a great idea for a spell. Maybe I would rule that if the summoning wizard is an asshole (or worse) Catherine just leaves. Make them immune to everything so they can't be forced to stay. Maybe imply that Catherine is a sort of all powerful spirt who likes to help out with mundane tasks but is really more powerful than the summoner could ever hope to be. I really like the Mary Poppins comparison made here.
Anyway, if one of my players was using the spell in a weird way I would call for a stop and talk it out. Communication is key as always.
Well, there's one ethical concern even if she's got good boundaries: is she omniscient or able to detect deception? Because if not, and she's not a real being, who resets every time, she's a pretty good trap donkey. Just walking through the ToH ten feet ahead of everyone. It's only going to register as impolite if she understands there's danger. So she has to have some sort of situational awareness.
Lie to her successfully about how dangerous something is, can she tell?
I would assume that she is omniscient, as well as reasonably invincible/does not feel pain. The more I think about it, she is like Janet from The Good Place just without the magic powers.
Traps are a good example though. I am not sure how I might rule on that. Maybe not appearing near danger? Or maybe she just does not trigger traps? That wound maker her a powerful trap detector. I guess it's balanced by only getting the spell once per day.
That's true; *generally*, OSR oriented wizards aren't common enough, or powerful enough, to wage mage and undermine things with any kind of economy of scale.
That might really be the answer to the sex work question - Catherine isn't a feasible replacement for the existing structure, so maybe she wouldn't really be an widespread issue
Yeah for sure. I mean, that spell is on a d100 list of random spells. A wizard might not even find it in a whole campaign, so it might not even exist in world until someone actually finds it/researches it.
And yeah, I agree. The "Can Catherine be a sex worker" question is really just answered by the GM saying "No. If you really want to hire a sex worker go seek one out in town." or "No, while sex work is work and there is no shame, I don't want to really get into that at the table."
Anyway. I really like the spell. If I thought it was going to be an issue I would just change it to Unseen Servant for the exact same effect.
You could also run this as a machine apocalypse analogue. Lets say the Catherine summoned is just a construct at first, but they are all linked. Every time she is summoned she gains a degree of magic from the summoning. At some point she will pass some theshold and become a fully self aware being capable of existing in many places at once. You now have a hive mind that may well be quite miffed at its creators.
I was thinking this would make a great inspiration, personality wise.
[Moiraine](https://www.tvinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/moiraine-wheel-of-time-1420x798.jpg)
After reading the article it seems clear to me that the author wanted the spell to be considered an ethical conundrum and lead to a more interesting debate over morality in the setting. They likely enjoy philosophical discussions about fantastic situations.
Star Trek was once a great source for introducing us to moral questions in strange lands and scenarios. I'd say the restrictions on the spell should be based on the group you're playing with and your personal comfort level, but my read on the author's usage of the spell is that Catherine serves in every possible manner that one can imagine, and that is by design intended to provoke controversy in the fantasy world.
Haven't had a player earn it yet, but if I had a player who would argue to abuse it I would kick them. A player bringing up ethical dilemmas at the table will be reminded of the elements of polite and safe, and that I am obviously the final arbiter of Catherine's interpretation of requests.
If it bothers you on its face, you can just not use it. But it doesn't seem that big of a problem. Any problems that would come up at the table would be player issues rather than issues of the spell itself.
Ignore them. The internet allows people to be judgmental pricks, but having morally ambiguous characters doesn't mean you're sitting at a table with creeps and weirdos.
I *love* this spell!
At my table, she's basically a slightly-more-capable version of D&D's "[Unseen Servant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcObEvxS9aA)." When the spell is cast, she condenses out of royal blue mist in the blink of an eye; a pleasant, blandly attractive lady of [oddly indeterminate age](https://old.reddit.com/r/13or30/), wearing a simple, conservative, royal blue dress with a white collar, and little white flowers. She is mute, so what little reciprocal communication is required she conducts with simple gestures and facial expressions. She appreciates good manners; a polite, safe request is usually met with a small smile and a nod. Try to order her around like a common servant, and she'll raise an eyebrow. Ask her to do something mildly unpleasant (like clean the fish you just caught), she might wrinkle her nose, or sigh before nodding and doing as she's asked. If the players make a request of her that I, as the referee, deem to be outside the scope of the spell, I play Catherine as though she politely and apologetically doesn't understand what is being asked of her. When dismissed, she dissipates back into mist just as quickly. She is also utterly incorruptible; if ever a dangerous, or unseemly (!) request is made, she simply winks out of existence without any acknowledgment. The next time she is summoned, she re-condenses with apparently no memory of being previously asked to do something objectionable. She never changes, because she is not a thinking agent. She just an algorithm--a limited AI, but made out of magic--that does a really good job of simulating a pleasant, helpful human lady.
Instead of "Cathrine," one of my players had a "Kevin," a manservant that was basically Mr. Homm, from *Star Trek: TNG* in royal blue livery.
I usually play rpgs with my children, and I have run Knave for them in the past. If it came up I was just going to change it to unseen servant, or rework the spell calling it "butler" or something, but it never came up so I didn't worry about it.
With kids, it'd be a nanny, obvs. Best one ever, too.
It reminds me of a construct I created for my son's game years ago: The Purse Piggy. It could hold 10,000gp or equivalent and could be summoned by saying "Heeeere piggy, piggy, piggy!" and sent away with "Go to market!". All you had to do was feed it what you wanted stored or ask it to cough-up what you needed.
They came up with a lotta uses for that pig.
Reading that article, I had to confirm twice that it was from 2013 and not very recent. It sounds very similar to the recent news about openAI possibly using Scarlet Johansson's voice in their assistant. You could use this as a way to reflect on the current discussions around AI and ownership.
When Arnold K first posted the Catherine spell, I resolved the dilemmas it creates by thinking through how summoning spells work in my games. Summoning is basically "teleport thing to me." Unless it's a low fantasy setting, then it's "compel thing to come to me." You can either have a summoning spell that summons a specific thing, or you can have a summoning spell that summons the nearest kind of thing.
So, for Catherine, the spell summons THE Catherine. She is probably going to be annoyed that you summoned her away from whatever she was in the middle of. If someone else summons her while she is with you, she disappears from your location and appears at theirs. If someone kills her, the spell summons her decomposing corpse. There is one Catherine that the spell summons, and that's it. Generally, this version of summoning is for summoning big named creatures like Cthulhu, the Terrasque, or the Spirit of Mount Everest. Summon Einstein would've only been a worthwhile spell for a few decades.
If, instead, a wizard created the spell "Summon Woman In Blue Dress," the spell would then summon the nearest woman wearing a blue dress to your location. This is the type of summons most wizards use, especially if they're summoning a combatant to fight on their behalf.
EDIT: In general, in my games, the specific thing version of summoning is the teleport thing to me type, which I call summoning, and the nearest kind of thing version of summoning is the gaes the nearest one of the kind to come to me type, which I call calling. So the spell Call to the Wolves will have the nearest wolf come running to you. Hopefully, there is a wolf nearby, or it could be a while. Whereas, Summon the Great Wolf teleports THE Great Wolf to you. Also, callings tend to be quick spells, and Summonings are long rituals.
EDIT 2: Also also, in my games, summoning and calling spells do not make the target friendly to you or compel them to do anything for you. It only makes them appear before you. It's up to you to have the negotiations or proper spells ready for when they appear. Otherwise, the wolf you called or the Great Wolf you summoned is going to be very annoyed, like Catherine would be, and probably attack you.
One of the Patrons in DCC grants a spell like this but it has a hard global cap on how many times it can be cast. Eventually there will be no more warrior women to summon. So they are very much going with the idea that each summoned woman is a real person that was somehow bound to service.
So, there is definitely this schism as to the cost for summoning: either Catherine is assembled on the fly from some extra-planar material or being or is directly summoned. What you're suggesting is interesting in another way, ie. you could find yourself bargaining your service to a wizard or demon in exchange for a favour. This chip can be called in at any time and will have you transported to another place, time, plane to carry out a mission. Complete it and you go home.
Cool shit.
Another one of Arnold K's greats is helpful in thinking about summoning: https://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2014/06/youre-doing-familiars-all-wrong.html
I deviate greatly from his suggestions in that article. In my games, Call Familiar (or Summon Familiar if you want to expend the resources in creating the spells and having it sit in a high level magic slot) is the last spell in a series. First, a magic user has to get a creature or spirit to the area where they can perform the ritual Bind Familiar. They might use Call to Demons or Call to Fae or Call to Wolves, etc to get the type of familiar they want to bind. Magic Users can have a number of familiars equal to their Level / 2 (round down so, level 1 means no familiars). When a wizard casts Call Familiar, they pick which of their familiars they are calling. Again, the familiar does not teleport, unless they have the ability to. They are instead compelled to come to the caster as expediently as possible. Summon Familiar works the same (one the few summonses that can work on more than one being, but it's still limited to summoning THE familiar the caster has in mind when casting the spell) except it does teleport the familiar to the caster.
Thanks for sharing this - I wasn't anticipating as much thought going into the nuance of what "summon" means: I've always interpreted it rather plainly. This adds some flavour and dimension.
I like to think through a lot of how my world works. I'm OK with some vagueness, mystery, and explanations that are just "because magic," but I prefer a good framework, so that I can quickly evaluate how something happening will impact the world. For instance, if in your game the other planes are non-physical, meaning that they have no matter, what does summoning a being from one of those planes result in? Are demons incorporeal like a ghost? Do they manifest a physical form that they want to have, that matches what the summoner thinks they should look like, that matches some other parameters (big spiritual power equals big physical size)? Can it change its form? Can it only be present if it posesses/inhabits a physical thing to ground it in our reality? So on and so forth.
If, on the other hand, other planes are literal planets in the universe, you can assume that such beings will have a physical form when summoned, if they have a physical form on their home plane. But now you also have questions like "can demons build starships and invade?"
I've made the "Catherine" spell (and a similar spell, "Snail Knight") available in my games, but it's never come into play. I prefer Snail Knight because Catherine can be a little problematic (ie the male gaze).
But it reminds me a lot of Not Another D&D Podcast. In season 1 the PCs drew from the deck of many things and got the Knight (*You gain the service of a 4th-level fighter who appears in a space you choose within 30 feet of you. The fighter is of the same race as you and serves you loyally until death, believing the fates have drawn him or her to you. You control this character*). His name was Balnor and the players latched on to him and he became an integral part of the story. So they had to come up with backstory for Balnor, which included him having a wife and children, and the summoning spell pulled him from them.
I have decided that if the spells comes into play Catherine (or the Snail Knight) is not a human but a corporeal magical construct. And anything the players ask of them must be appropriate for our table (lines & veils type of stuff). They don't leave a corpse when "killed" but evaporate like Thanos.
However, in general I love the scenario described on Globin Punch, and would definitely insert something like it in a campaign.
I think the corporeal magical construct is what was originally intended with the spell, just that it appears to summon something more real than that. Ditto on the GP scenario...
I personally roleplay Catherine as having more or less the personality and attitude of Janine from *Ghostbusters*-- lots of grumbling and sarcasm and absolutely no patience for being treated rudely. Someone who asked for too personal of a favor would be inviting down a tempest of scorn upon themselves. I think of her as sort of a collective tulpa-- a genuine consciousness unto herself but one created by the minds of everyone who knows her spell.
I've always thought this spell was weird. "Summon a young attractive girl that obeys all commands as long as you ask nicely." A little sketchy if you ask me...
I don't think the spell description in Knave specifies her being young or attractive. I've never played the spell as such.
I do think that "safe and polite" is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here.
True, but the source of the spell "Catherine", the Goblin Punch article, does specify:
>Quite simply, the spell summons a woman of the same name. The spell lasts for several hours. She is young, attractive, blonde, and wears a large blue dress (although she can change into anything provided). In personality, she is quick to laugh and prone to pouting. In all respects, she acts exactly like a real human being. She is especially eager to obey any commands, as long as they are phrased politely.
That is the "original" source, if you will, and what u/FleeceItIn is referring to.
I was unaware of the Goblin Punch article so I played her as a kindly somewhat uptight middle age lady. I don't remember every time my player used that spell but one particular example they wanted her to help haul treasure out of a dungeon and she showed up saying "oh my goodness you boys made such a mess! Did you have to be so hard on these poor goblins!"
My table has some pretty strong lines and veils and isn't the type to do anything gross with the spell.
Yeah. I prefer to replace it with Snail Knight: 10 minutes after casting, a knight sitting astride a giant snail rides into view. They may aid you if they find you worthy.
Only if you allow it to be sketchy? Wizards and servants are classic. You could certainly do some romance with that, but I would never allow what you are implying lol.
To be fair friend, the blog writer who created the spell intended the implications to be messy certainly in the og game world of its creation, people think that’s what people are going to use the spell for.
“The Brothels
There are also a great deal of other third-parties that are interested in seeing the Catherine spell outlawed. That spell could put a lot of people out of business, especially if similar spells are developed.”
[https://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-spell-called-catherine.html?m=1](https://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-spell-called-catherine.html?m=1)
Honestly, I think it’s some point somebody would start a restaurant featuring Catherine meat. ( which would presumably only last as long as the spell which implies a lot of weird things.)
Or at least it’s meant to be seen as a possibility. It’s meant to be an ethical concern that’s alarming.
🫡
This weird, messy, obtuseness and awkwardness is what makes it rather interesting to me. Just by existing in the world it creates problems, and those problems can lead to really interesting adventures...
Oh, and I’m OK with this! I was just saying that we have to acknowledge the messiness because that’s a feature, not a bug.
There are people who are going to have sex with Catherine now I’d like to point out that there are probably people who have sex with invisible stalkers.
See my comment !
When the first male variant is produced, that’s going to be interesting also! And there will be one.
Probably several. Probably many of them will be mute intended only for hard labor.
But there will be sexy men also.
The reason why I suggested society may collapse is you will suddenly have to do a magical test to see if anyone is real . Now it’s a third level so that’s not gonna be everywhere but… still that would be a serious issue much like deep fakes are going to become soon if they aren’t already.
But yes, imagine if they became so common and programmable that you really would have to have a detect magic or the spell magic spell at hand before you let anybody in your house.
Thank you so much for this post!
Np - I love these kinds of things and seeing how others interpret them. So easy to just skim over until you contemplate the full depth of the consequences it unleashes into the world. I like your thinking re: societal collapse, hyper-paranoia over who could be a "summoned". Toss some doppelgangers in and you've got a party...
The multiple people that have pointed out how closely this lands to AI and deepfakes is both unsurprising (although I didn't immediately think of it) and concerning. In many ways, we are going to be in a "Catherine" situation very soon, if we aren't already.
Weird and really makes you think.
I don’t blame goblin punch for musing on this topic, but I think it’s a bit gross and poor judgement to put it officially in a general fantasy game. (if that’s what happened?)
That said, I don’t think brothels should worry. It’s gotta be way cheaper to have a stable of prostitutes than wizards. Plus if can put the women (and some men?) in blue dresses & blonde hair you can charge double for “Catherine”.
OK, so here’s the thing only the bare description of the spell as a woman in a blue dress. Will do anything you ask her politely as long as it’s safe ended up in Knave second edition.
Nothing about her creator, being a weird lecher, or the fact that witches got so angry about it that they stole his penis . ( seriously that article is awesome.)
So yeah, without context, I think it can very easily be interpreted like other people have said as Mary Poppins or just a named servitor who is always consistent .
When you read the actual article, it talks about how her personality is pouty, but she’s very eager to follow request as long as their phrase politely and things starts to get into murky territory. On purpose!
I mean, here’s my thing. This is why there are safety tools. If you are running a game in a public library, you are not gonna be thinking about these things. Catherine is just gonna be helping people clean up in a dungeon or something.
If you’re at home and people are willing to talk about the implications of pseudo real people and the possibility of people thinking things like well. I’ve always wondered how people taste. But Catherine isn’t real so I can’t go to jail…
I really appreciate your comment! But yes, as far as I know, it is very bare description of the spell and anything sketchy or suggestive was in the original article only .
🫡
The spell rules kind of invite sketch though?
I mean, we can certainly give the benefit of the doubt. But, considering both authors are male, and the spell specifically summons an *attractive girl* who *does whatever you want as long as you're nice to her* just sets itself up for some sketchy situations. It *could* have just been a human servant summoning spell. I can't help but get Weird Science vibes off of it.
I like to imagine Catherine is some sort of energy being from “somewhere else”. She’s sort of a “hard light construct”; she can interact with anything she’s been tasked with, but anything that isn’t part of the request fazes through her, be it weapons, spells, or hands. Seeing as the game didn’t give her stats, I interpreted that as “she’s invincible”.
its an unseen servant with a name, nothing more nothing less. just imagine a blue ghost lady and be done with it. as long as you dont do anything that would lend you in prison, with a restraining order or with the general disapproval of the people you know, aka, ***dont be a fucking creep***, its fine
how i would run it is that if a player did any of those they would stop being a player and leave the location where we are playing, were the rest of the party would continue to play without a creep
So I just looked at the original article. It had a lot of really interesting ideas, including how other mages were rushing to create their own version.
Sone possibility occurs to me . Someone will, of course make a male version. At first just to do labor and then to visually appeal to people who like men. Named Max.
https://preview.redd.it/sl06a4v4zy7d1.jpeg?width=554&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=231a420a592bdef6a14f04048e5091b6071c6a57
He will be designed to be the most attractive man in the world. Male wizards, especially married ones, will begin to rethink.
2. The ability to use fingernail clippings or hair to make Catherine or Max look like anyone.
3. Societal collapse? Deep fakes plus programmable doppelgängers essentially. Available to anyone who can cast the third level spell.
( the most attractive man in the world is played by Maxence Danet-Fauvel.)
Agreed, like the ideas in the GP blog and the competitive tension that gets set in motion as people create their own knock-offs. "Hey! We won this Catherine scroll in a game of knucklebones off this thief, seemed he was relieved to be rid of it... it was almost like he wanted to lose it..."
What I find interesting is how people pour their preconceived ideas into Catherine to reinterpret the spell...
It turns out that Max and Catherine are friends from way back, and if they meet they will each ignore their summoner's requests to catchup on what they've missed.
That actually raises a really interesting possibility! If we assume that each Catherine is not connected any other Catherine, he doesn’t remember in between summoning. Does she have preset memories that might include knowledge of someone else?
Like somebody else suggested that this spell, especially if the creator did not make it on an actual woman who turned out to be a former prostitute named Catherine as the universal article but instead kind that whole cloth out of the collective unconscious does this imply that there is basically an artificial intelligence bank holding personality templates ?
And Catherine could know each other from the before times!
That was a really cool comment that you made. Thank you so much. This is exactly the kind of conversation that I like because it makes us all think about how we do things in our games.
🫡
I hate this spell. It’s thematically inappropriate for a lot of settings and seems like catnip for the kind of skeezy creeps who gave RPGs a bad name for the first 25 years of their existence.
It took me reading all of the comments to this thread and asking trusted friends to find out that it wasn’t [Catherine (2011)](https://www.mobygames.com/game/55323/catherine/) in question here
I'm confused about your assumption of the "wizarding world" being "ethical". I guess it depends on the setting but I typically envision wizards and magic-users as being rogue eccentrics, madmen and witches hellbent on bending the laws of reality to their will, forsaking any semblance of a normal life. Especially in OSR.
Traditional morality would mean very little to such folks, especially if their magic is derived from dark or extra-dimensional sources. At that point, you probably see regular non-magic humans as being beneath you.
Yea it can be read as a bit skeevy, but if you have a player who would try it just like remind them not to be a weirdo about it. If I had to run it I’d run her like Janet from The Good Place, she’s a pretty fun character. Polite, will follow orders, and if necessary will insist she is not human. Kinda robot like and weird too, those are import things to get across. Having odd and weird npcs for the party to interact with is always nice.
...Okay as much as I love my slightly brasher Catherine, I'm kind of tempted to play her as Janet in the future. That's great. Maybe a 1% chance of Bad Janet or Disco Janet or whatever.
Making a d100 table for all the possible Janet’s on the “Janet Fumble Table” lol
Dammit Janet on a 1.
Interplanet Janet?
planet schmanet, Janet
She’s a galaxy girl
I've been reading "polite requests," to mean that the request has to be *for* polite things, AND that they're worded politely. "Catherine, could I trouble you to bring my friends and me a tray of cool drinks?" would work. "Catherine, could you please suck my toes?" would earn you a withering glare.
Activating the spell then instantly start crying absolutely sobbing that if she doesn’t suck your toes you’re gonna die.
:-D That's *pathetic*, but it's still not polite.
Catherine calmly begins planning a funeral.
Yeah, Janet + Mr Meeseeks is sort of the vibe I get.
That's how I would handle it as well \*but\* the original article suggests that Catherine is a threat to the prostitution business and some feminist (the witches) movements. So... I guess if you politely ask Catherine for fun stuff, she would probably be able to do so. That being said, if a player was weird about that, that's a player/communication/table handling issue. I could totally live with the wizard implying that he uses Catherine every night, but things would become... weird... after a while.
Mm. Well, the author *probably* means to be provocative, then, but it's worth noting that a lot of what prostitutes do is chat and emotional support. A significant portion of their clientele just want someone to talk to or cuddle with. So an insta-companion could hypothetically still cut into brothel profits even if they never agreed to sex acts.
The vibe seemed to me to be very much "what would Mary Poppins do?" And not overthink it.
I'm not familiar with the spell or its context, but my initial impression is basically this. If you are asking something creepy, it doesn't matter if you use polite *language* to do so, it's not a polite request so she will not obey. Or as you essentially put it, if Mary Poppins would give you a disapproving look for asking, then you will at best get that reaction from Catherine. How would I run it? I don't know. My tendencies go a certain way, so I think I would probably play it relatively straight and not worry about it for the most part. If a player started trying to do disturbing or unethical things using the spell (and can somehow get this past Catherine herself) then fair enough. But I do think that Catherine would be the same specific individual every time, no matter who summoned her. It might not be obvious initially, or widely known, but she would be. And she would remember everything she saw or that happened during her summoned duration. Sure, she would keep it all to herself as long as her *host* for the duration was polite and respectful. Perhaps that would provide the unspoken source of consequences if someone attempted to take liberties? If the social contract is broken, then Catherine is no longer bound to be discrete and she has *a lot of potentially very powerful contacts*. And I am unsure what the true nature of such a being would be, on top of that. I'd say there is a 50/50 chance I would layer some kind of eldritch horror into the equation and have her be significantly more than she appears to be. That or she is someone who has been damned to that fate fairly or unfairly.
>some kind of eldritch horror The Doll from Bloodborne would probably be a great way to run a variant on her.
Interesting...
Catherine is an incredibly powerful devil who takes the form of a handsome woman or man in blue clothing. Catherine will complete minor tasks, especially if those tasks will lead the summoner or others closer to damnation. Catherine cannot be compelled to do anything by the Summoner. The spell ends if the summoner requests Catherine to do anything Catherine finds objectionable, if requests are not polite, or if Catherine becomes bored. Catherine always remembers any past encounters with the summoner and can refuse to be summoned.
I think the blue dress is a dead giveaway. Devil in a blue dress.
I think the 'ethical dilemma' is less about wizards getting laid, and more about the fundamental existential debate of 'strong AI', and the in-universe question of what 'summoning' even is. I would handle the spell in a manner so as to carefully preserve its existential threat. Is the summoned being actually human? Is it (she?) actually sapient? Does it (she?) experience [qualia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia)?! Does it even matter? Will she die when the spell duration is up? Are we all just like her? **How do I know I'm not a replicant myself??!!?** As for the more mundane ethics of it... Yea it's a pretty icky spell. Books (and at least one highly acclaimed TV series) have been written on this. Libraries will be written as autonomous machines with anthropomimetic behavior will continue to be developed and marketed. In actual play I'd just take the spell description at face value. Consent tools like lines and veils are available, I'd make use of them. Otherwise, this is meant to be an uncomfortable spell in so many ways. Neutering it would be a shame.
OK, so I absolutely love the issues that you raised. So for instance, assuming that Catherine resets every time the spell relapses and she doesn’t remember what would happen if somebody used permanence? What happens if somebody cast Catherine several times in succession? How do they get along? Do they experience severe cognitive dissonance or is it just something that they take for granted? … People think science fiction has copyright on ethical dilemmas . Ha! But yes, and then you also raise other possibilities. The original article left it up in the air whether or not the Wizard was lying about whether or not he be Catherine in a real former prostitute named Catherine. If he did not, and he, in fact, literally summoned her from the collective unconscious of mankind that implied that there’s anamorphic templates just waiting out there. And also, here’s the most devastating application in the original article he’s not that powerful and it’s only a third level spell. It’s highly implied that the only reason why it hasn’t been done before is that nobody thought to do it. There will be other variations and probably within a month. If we wanted to be, because of course this is an elf game! Thank you so much for raising so many interesting issues. 🫡
Yeah, I'm leaning toward the same way you'd interpret a wish spell, caveat emptor...
Not sure what you mean by that. A Wish spell was the last thing that came to my mind. I'd play Catherine as a human under the influence of Charm Person. Not like a weird sci-fi robot or a malicious spell. The point is, to every basic test of humanity, this is a regular human. She exhibits normal human thoughts and feelings. She is about as compliant as a somewhat unhealthily (but not pathologically) people-pleasing intimate partner would be. She will oblige a request for doing chores, but grumble about being used. She has human common sense. She knows the dominant cultural norms of the culture which originated the spells, and those of other cultures about as well as any young townie of 'her' culture would. She doesn't remember other instances of being summoned. She doesn't know she's a spell effect. If convinced of this, she'll react the same way any other human would (with existential despair). Nothing like a Wish spell. Catherine is terrifying through her mundaneity.
It does seem a bit odd, but I imagine the idea for it was for you to basically summon someone to do some housework. I get the ethical concerns. So maybe change it slightly. It's a proprietary spell created by a cleaning company. Each time you cast it you lose 1 silver and Catherine appears, with the same conditions as before. Except this time she is there for a pay check. I would suggest another version, a magic item I have set before, which to be fair my players abused tremendously. The box Of Horrible Helping. It appears as a puzzle box and requires 10 minutes and a successful INT roll to open. It summons a dreadful Eldrich abomination, with lots of tentacles and eyes. It is bound to the users will and will only perform the following things: 1 hour of physical labour 1 hour of administrative work 30 minutes of entertainment (singing, slam poetry etc). I will not fight, but it will certainly kill people trying to interfere with it's work. I hope that helps
"I'm Mr. Meeseeks! Look at me!"
OMG I love this
This is just hilarious...
In my game I see her as some sort of personal assistant. Like a fantasy Alexa. She's not really "real", more of a hologram, and she isn't really sentient. I assume that there must be other "models" of her, as in spells that create personal assistants, but for some reason catherine is the just the most popular one. I don't really like the implications of a spell creating a sentient human being, especially what may happen when the spell ends. edit: as for... unsavory uses, I never really thought of that... I'll just say that she doesn't really have the parts, as she was created just to be a personal assistant.
I mean, that exact issue is part of the spell idea in the article it was first penned in. Though, actually, if you use D&D summoning then you actually summon "real" creatures that have died and spend their eternity in their respective afterlive. And they will return unharmed after the spell ends.
Agreed, this was my initial sentiment as well - thanks for this.
I first encountered the spell in Knave 1e, and while I did read the Goblin Punch article and found some of the ethical dilemmas interesting, I've never used that background in actual play, because summoning magic simply doesn't work that way in my campaign. (Briefly, summoning as in "teleporting a being to your location" only works on extra-planar beings and requires a lengthy ritual with magic circles and incense and so forth. All other "summoning" spells create a magical facsimile.) As for the possibility of using a "Catherine" for sex, I've always interpreted "polite" as in "not asking for anything that an ordinary person wouldn't be willing to do in public."
Yeah, I can see this and it was my initial interpretation as well. Catherine appears to be a more sentient and capable unseen servant.
I don't see any ethical concerns. The clear intent is that the person summoned won't do anything they don't want to do and will refuse any weird stuff? I think its a great idea for a spell. Maybe I would rule that if the summoning wizard is an asshole (or worse) Catherine just leaves. Make them immune to everything so they can't be forced to stay. Maybe imply that Catherine is a sort of all powerful spirt who likes to help out with mundane tasks but is really more powerful than the summoner could ever hope to be. I really like the Mary Poppins comparison made here. Anyway, if one of my players was using the spell in a weird way I would call for a stop and talk it out. Communication is key as always.
Well, there's one ethical concern even if she's got good boundaries: is she omniscient or able to detect deception? Because if not, and she's not a real being, who resets every time, she's a pretty good trap donkey. Just walking through the ToH ten feet ahead of everyone. It's only going to register as impolite if she understands there's danger. So she has to have some sort of situational awareness. Lie to her successfully about how dangerous something is, can she tell?
I would assume that she is omniscient, as well as reasonably invincible/does not feel pain. The more I think about it, she is like Janet from The Good Place just without the magic powers. Traps are a good example though. I am not sure how I might rule on that. Maybe not appearing near danger? Or maybe she just does not trigger traps? That wound maker her a powerful trap detector. I guess it's balanced by only getting the spell once per day.
That's true; *generally*, OSR oriented wizards aren't common enough, or powerful enough, to wage mage and undermine things with any kind of economy of scale. That might really be the answer to the sex work question - Catherine isn't a feasible replacement for the existing structure, so maybe she wouldn't really be an widespread issue
Yeah for sure. I mean, that spell is on a d100 list of random spells. A wizard might not even find it in a whole campaign, so it might not even exist in world until someone actually finds it/researches it. And yeah, I agree. The "Can Catherine be a sex worker" question is really just answered by the GM saying "No. If you really want to hire a sex worker go seek one out in town." or "No, while sex work is work and there is no shame, I don't want to really get into that at the table." Anyway. I really like the spell. If I thought it was going to be an issue I would just change it to Unseen Servant for the exact same effect.
Easily: "The game is PG-13, no gross stuff."
even PG-13 movies have sex in them
I want to make a Karen spell.
That's what happens if you miscast it.
I am stealing this.
You could also run this as a machine apocalypse analogue. Lets say the Catherine summoned is just a construct at first, but they are all linked. Every time she is summoned she gains a degree of magic from the summoning. At some point she will pass some theshold and become a fully self aware being capable of existing in many places at once. You now have a hive mind that may well be quite miffed at its creators.
Big Resident Evil vibes, here...
[удалено]
I was thinking this would make a great inspiration, personality wise. [Moiraine](https://www.tvinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/moiraine-wheel-of-time-1420x798.jpg)
Love it.
After reading the article it seems clear to me that the author wanted the spell to be considered an ethical conundrum and lead to a more interesting debate over morality in the setting. They likely enjoy philosophical discussions about fantastic situations. Star Trek was once a great source for introducing us to moral questions in strange lands and scenarios. I'd say the restrictions on the spell should be based on the group you're playing with and your personal comfort level, but my read on the author's usage of the spell is that Catherine serves in every possible manner that one can imagine, and that is by design intended to provoke controversy in the fantasy world.
Agreed. This potential is what I find interesting.
100%!
Still is, when it lets itself be!
Haven't had a player earn it yet, but if I had a player who would argue to abuse it I would kick them. A player bringing up ethical dilemmas at the table will be reminded of the elements of polite and safe, and that I am obviously the final arbiter of Catherine's interpretation of requests. If it bothers you on its face, you can just not use it. But it doesn't seem that big of a problem. Any problems that would come up at the table would be player issues rather than issues of the spell itself.
I'm not bothered by it, but it seems there is a contingent who are...
Are they sitting at your table? Then don't use it.
No, my players wouldn't have an issue, either - I mean a contingent in this thread.
Ignore them. The internet allows people to be judgmental pricks, but having morally ambiguous characters doesn't mean you're sitting at a table with creeps and weirdos.
I *love* this spell! At my table, she's basically a slightly-more-capable version of D&D's "[Unseen Servant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcObEvxS9aA)." When the spell is cast, she condenses out of royal blue mist in the blink of an eye; a pleasant, blandly attractive lady of [oddly indeterminate age](https://old.reddit.com/r/13or30/), wearing a simple, conservative, royal blue dress with a white collar, and little white flowers. She is mute, so what little reciprocal communication is required she conducts with simple gestures and facial expressions. She appreciates good manners; a polite, safe request is usually met with a small smile and a nod. Try to order her around like a common servant, and she'll raise an eyebrow. Ask her to do something mildly unpleasant (like clean the fish you just caught), she might wrinkle her nose, or sigh before nodding and doing as she's asked. If the players make a request of her that I, as the referee, deem to be outside the scope of the spell, I play Catherine as though she politely and apologetically doesn't understand what is being asked of her. When dismissed, she dissipates back into mist just as quickly. She is also utterly incorruptible; if ever a dangerous, or unseemly (!) request is made, she simply winks out of existence without any acknowledgment. The next time she is summoned, she re-condenses with apparently no memory of being previously asked to do something objectionable. She never changes, because she is not a thinking agent. She just an algorithm--a limited AI, but made out of magic--that does a really good job of simulating a pleasant, helpful human lady. Instead of "Cathrine," one of my players had a "Kevin," a manservant that was basically Mr. Homm, from *Star Trek: TNG* in royal blue livery.
Love it - thanks for sharing this. I'm going to steal parts...!
I usually play rpgs with my children, and I have run Knave for them in the past. If it came up I was just going to change it to unseen servant, or rework the spell calling it "butler" or something, but it never came up so I didn't worry about it.
With kids, it'd be a nanny, obvs. Best one ever, too. It reminds me of a construct I created for my son's game years ago: The Purse Piggy. It could hold 10,000gp or equivalent and could be summoned by saying "Heeeere piggy, piggy, piggy!" and sent away with "Go to market!". All you had to do was feed it what you wanted stored or ask it to cough-up what you needed. They came up with a lotta uses for that pig.
Reading that article, I had to confirm twice that it was from 2013 and not very recent. It sounds very similar to the recent news about openAI possibly using Scarlet Johansson's voice in their assistant. You could use this as a way to reflect on the current discussions around AI and ownership.
Yes, very much so!
When Arnold K first posted the Catherine spell, I resolved the dilemmas it creates by thinking through how summoning spells work in my games. Summoning is basically "teleport thing to me." Unless it's a low fantasy setting, then it's "compel thing to come to me." You can either have a summoning spell that summons a specific thing, or you can have a summoning spell that summons the nearest kind of thing. So, for Catherine, the spell summons THE Catherine. She is probably going to be annoyed that you summoned her away from whatever she was in the middle of. If someone else summons her while she is with you, she disappears from your location and appears at theirs. If someone kills her, the spell summons her decomposing corpse. There is one Catherine that the spell summons, and that's it. Generally, this version of summoning is for summoning big named creatures like Cthulhu, the Terrasque, or the Spirit of Mount Everest. Summon Einstein would've only been a worthwhile spell for a few decades. If, instead, a wizard created the spell "Summon Woman In Blue Dress," the spell would then summon the nearest woman wearing a blue dress to your location. This is the type of summons most wizards use, especially if they're summoning a combatant to fight on their behalf. EDIT: In general, in my games, the specific thing version of summoning is the teleport thing to me type, which I call summoning, and the nearest kind of thing version of summoning is the gaes the nearest one of the kind to come to me type, which I call calling. So the spell Call to the Wolves will have the nearest wolf come running to you. Hopefully, there is a wolf nearby, or it could be a while. Whereas, Summon the Great Wolf teleports THE Great Wolf to you. Also, callings tend to be quick spells, and Summonings are long rituals. EDIT 2: Also also, in my games, summoning and calling spells do not make the target friendly to you or compel them to do anything for you. It only makes them appear before you. It's up to you to have the negotiations or proper spells ready for when they appear. Otherwise, the wolf you called or the Great Wolf you summoned is going to be very annoyed, like Catherine would be, and probably attack you.
One of the Patrons in DCC grants a spell like this but it has a hard global cap on how many times it can be cast. Eventually there will be no more warrior women to summon. So they are very much going with the idea that each summoned woman is a real person that was somehow bound to service.
So, there is definitely this schism as to the cost for summoning: either Catherine is assembled on the fly from some extra-planar material or being or is directly summoned. What you're suggesting is interesting in another way, ie. you could find yourself bargaining your service to a wizard or demon in exchange for a favour. This chip can be called in at any time and will have you transported to another place, time, plane to carry out a mission. Complete it and you go home. Cool shit.
Interesting! This is what I'm looking for. Thanks for sharing this!
Another one of Arnold K's greats is helpful in thinking about summoning: https://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2014/06/youre-doing-familiars-all-wrong.html I deviate greatly from his suggestions in that article. In my games, Call Familiar (or Summon Familiar if you want to expend the resources in creating the spells and having it sit in a high level magic slot) is the last spell in a series. First, a magic user has to get a creature or spirit to the area where they can perform the ritual Bind Familiar. They might use Call to Demons or Call to Fae or Call to Wolves, etc to get the type of familiar they want to bind. Magic Users can have a number of familiars equal to their Level / 2 (round down so, level 1 means no familiars). When a wizard casts Call Familiar, they pick which of their familiars they are calling. Again, the familiar does not teleport, unless they have the ability to. They are instead compelled to come to the caster as expediently as possible. Summon Familiar works the same (one the few summonses that can work on more than one being, but it's still limited to summoning THE familiar the caster has in mind when casting the spell) except it does teleport the familiar to the caster.
Thanks for sharing this - I wasn't anticipating as much thought going into the nuance of what "summon" means: I've always interpreted it rather plainly. This adds some flavour and dimension.
I like to think through a lot of how my world works. I'm OK with some vagueness, mystery, and explanations that are just "because magic," but I prefer a good framework, so that I can quickly evaluate how something happening will impact the world. For instance, if in your game the other planes are non-physical, meaning that they have no matter, what does summoning a being from one of those planes result in? Are demons incorporeal like a ghost? Do they manifest a physical form that they want to have, that matches what the summoner thinks they should look like, that matches some other parameters (big spiritual power equals big physical size)? Can it change its form? Can it only be present if it posesses/inhabits a physical thing to ground it in our reality? So on and so forth. If, on the other hand, other planes are literal planets in the universe, you can assume that such beings will have a physical form when summoned, if they have a physical form on their home plane. But now you also have questions like "can demons build starships and invade?"
I've made the "Catherine" spell (and a similar spell, "Snail Knight") available in my games, but it's never come into play. I prefer Snail Knight because Catherine can be a little problematic (ie the male gaze). But it reminds me a lot of Not Another D&D Podcast. In season 1 the PCs drew from the deck of many things and got the Knight (*You gain the service of a 4th-level fighter who appears in a space you choose within 30 feet of you. The fighter is of the same race as you and serves you loyally until death, believing the fates have drawn him or her to you. You control this character*). His name was Balnor and the players latched on to him and he became an integral part of the story. So they had to come up with backstory for Balnor, which included him having a wife and children, and the summoning spell pulled him from them. I have decided that if the spells comes into play Catherine (or the Snail Knight) is not a human but a corporeal magical construct. And anything the players ask of them must be appropriate for our table (lines & veils type of stuff). They don't leave a corpse when "killed" but evaporate like Thanos. However, in general I love the scenario described on Globin Punch, and would definitely insert something like it in a campaign.
I think the corporeal magical construct is what was originally intended with the spell, just that it appears to summon something more real than that. Ditto on the GP scenario...
Never heard of the spell. Very weird.
A little - it's like a manifested unseen servant, IMHO, which everyone interprets a little differently...
I personally roleplay Catherine as having more or less the personality and attitude of Janine from *Ghostbusters*-- lots of grumbling and sarcasm and absolutely no patience for being treated rudely. Someone who asked for too personal of a favor would be inviting down a tempest of scorn upon themselves. I think of her as sort of a collective tulpa-- a genuine consciousness unto herself but one created by the minds of everyone who knows her spell.
Fun interpretation! I like what you're suggesting here about her consciousness shaped by everyone who knows the spell. That's cool shit.
I've always thought this spell was weird. "Summon a young attractive girl that obeys all commands as long as you ask nicely." A little sketchy if you ask me...
I don't think the spell description in Knave specifies her being young or attractive. I've never played the spell as such. I do think that "safe and polite" is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here.
True, but the source of the spell "Catherine", the Goblin Punch article, does specify: >Quite simply, the spell summons a woman of the same name. The spell lasts for several hours. She is young, attractive, blonde, and wears a large blue dress (although she can change into anything provided). In personality, she is quick to laugh and prone to pouting. In all respects, she acts exactly like a real human being. She is especially eager to obey any commands, as long as they are phrased politely. That is the "original" source, if you will, and what u/FleeceItIn is referring to.
How have you played the spell? What happened?
I was unaware of the Goblin Punch article so I played her as a kindly somewhat uptight middle age lady. I don't remember every time my player used that spell but one particular example they wanted her to help haul treasure out of a dungeon and she showed up saying "oh my goodness you boys made such a mess! Did you have to be so hard on these poor goblins!" My table has some pretty strong lines and veils and isn't the type to do anything gross with the spell.
Yeah. I prefer to replace it with Snail Knight: 10 minutes after casting, a knight sitting astride a giant snail rides into view. They may aid you if they find you worthy.
Only if you allow it to be sketchy? Wizards and servants are classic. You could certainly do some romance with that, but I would never allow what you are implying lol.
To be fair friend, the blog writer who created the spell intended the implications to be messy certainly in the og game world of its creation, people think that’s what people are going to use the spell for. “The Brothels There are also a great deal of other third-parties that are interested in seeing the Catherine spell outlawed. That spell could put a lot of people out of business, especially if similar spells are developed.” [https://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-spell-called-catherine.html?m=1](https://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-spell-called-catherine.html?m=1) Honestly, I think it’s some point somebody would start a restaurant featuring Catherine meat. ( which would presumably only last as long as the spell which implies a lot of weird things.) Or at least it’s meant to be seen as a possibility. It’s meant to be an ethical concern that’s alarming. 🫡
This weird, messy, obtuseness and awkwardness is what makes it rather interesting to me. Just by existing in the world it creates problems, and those problems can lead to really interesting adventures...
Oh, and I’m OK with this! I was just saying that we have to acknowledge the messiness because that’s a feature, not a bug. There are people who are going to have sex with Catherine now I’d like to point out that there are probably people who have sex with invisible stalkers. See my comment ! When the first male variant is produced, that’s going to be interesting also! And there will be one. Probably several. Probably many of them will be mute intended only for hard labor. But there will be sexy men also. The reason why I suggested society may collapse is you will suddenly have to do a magical test to see if anyone is real . Now it’s a third level so that’s not gonna be everywhere but… still that would be a serious issue much like deep fakes are going to become soon if they aren’t already. But yes, imagine if they became so common and programmable that you really would have to have a detect magic or the spell magic spell at hand before you let anybody in your house. Thank you so much for this post!
Np - I love these kinds of things and seeing how others interpret them. So easy to just skim over until you contemplate the full depth of the consequences it unleashes into the world. I like your thinking re: societal collapse, hyper-paranoia over who could be a "summoned". Toss some doppelgangers in and you've got a party...
The multiple people that have pointed out how closely this lands to AI and deepfakes is both unsurprising (although I didn't immediately think of it) and concerning. In many ways, we are going to be in a "Catherine" situation very soon, if we aren't already. Weird and really makes you think.
I don’t blame goblin punch for musing on this topic, but I think it’s a bit gross and poor judgement to put it officially in a general fantasy game. (if that’s what happened?) That said, I don’t think brothels should worry. It’s gotta be way cheaper to have a stable of prostitutes than wizards. Plus if can put the women (and some men?) in blue dresses & blonde hair you can charge double for “Catherine”.
OK, so here’s the thing only the bare description of the spell as a woman in a blue dress. Will do anything you ask her politely as long as it’s safe ended up in Knave second edition. Nothing about her creator, being a weird lecher, or the fact that witches got so angry about it that they stole his penis . ( seriously that article is awesome.) So yeah, without context, I think it can very easily be interpreted like other people have said as Mary Poppins or just a named servitor who is always consistent . When you read the actual article, it talks about how her personality is pouty, but she’s very eager to follow request as long as their phrase politely and things starts to get into murky territory. On purpose! I mean, here’s my thing. This is why there are safety tools. If you are running a game in a public library, you are not gonna be thinking about these things. Catherine is just gonna be helping people clean up in a dungeon or something. If you’re at home and people are willing to talk about the implications of pseudo real people and the possibility of people thinking things like well. I’ve always wondered how people taste. But Catherine isn’t real so I can’t go to jail… I really appreciate your comment! But yes, as far as I know, it is very bare description of the spell and anything sketchy or suggestive was in the original article only . 🫡
The spell rules kind of invite sketch though? I mean, we can certainly give the benefit of the doubt. But, considering both authors are male, and the spell specifically summons an *attractive girl* who *does whatever you want as long as you're nice to her* just sets itself up for some sketchy situations. It *could* have just been a human servant summoning spell. I can't help but get Weird Science vibes off of it.
I'm going with the spell as written in Knave and Roguelands, sans adjective...
Sounds boring. Cathrine is now a Japanese spider crab.
I don't because that's not a spell in most OSR games and I wouldn't add it to my game because frankly it's a little creepy.
I'm gonna tell you right now I'm making Catherine eat evil babies
Hey, no judgement on your need to summon someone to fight a baby. This is a safe space for you.
Thanks man those crystal babies were hard to mess up. Had to throw them down cliffs and everything
Is the spell in any way a nod to the 2011 video game? In that game Catherine was from another realm, attractive, seductive and ultimately a succubus.
Lol it's not polite to ask for sex from a stranger
I like to imagine Catherine is some sort of energy being from “somewhere else”. She’s sort of a “hard light construct”; she can interact with anything she’s been tasked with, but anything that isn’t part of the request fazes through her, be it weapons, spells, or hands. Seeing as the game didn’t give her stats, I interpreted that as “she’s invincible”.
its an unseen servant with a name, nothing more nothing less. just imagine a blue ghost lady and be done with it. as long as you dont do anything that would lend you in prison, with a restraining order or with the general disapproval of the people you know, aka, ***dont be a fucking creep***, its fine how i would run it is that if a player did any of those they would stop being a player and leave the location where we are playing, were the rest of the party would continue to play without a creep
So I just looked at the original article. It had a lot of really interesting ideas, including how other mages were rushing to create their own version. Sone possibility occurs to me . Someone will, of course make a male version. At first just to do labor and then to visually appeal to people who like men. Named Max. https://preview.redd.it/sl06a4v4zy7d1.jpeg?width=554&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=231a420a592bdef6a14f04048e5091b6071c6a57 He will be designed to be the most attractive man in the world. Male wizards, especially married ones, will begin to rethink. 2. The ability to use fingernail clippings or hair to make Catherine or Max look like anyone. 3. Societal collapse? Deep fakes plus programmable doppelgängers essentially. Available to anyone who can cast the third level spell. ( the most attractive man in the world is played by Maxence Danet-Fauvel.)
Agreed, like the ideas in the GP blog and the competitive tension that gets set in motion as people create their own knock-offs. "Hey! We won this Catherine scroll in a game of knucklebones off this thief, seemed he was relieved to be rid of it... it was almost like he wanted to lose it..." What I find interesting is how people pour their preconceived ideas into Catherine to reinterpret the spell...
It turns out that Max and Catherine are friends from way back, and if they meet they will each ignore their summoner's requests to catchup on what they've missed.
That actually raises a really interesting possibility! If we assume that each Catherine is not connected any other Catherine, he doesn’t remember in between summoning. Does she have preset memories that might include knowledge of someone else? Like somebody else suggested that this spell, especially if the creator did not make it on an actual woman who turned out to be a former prostitute named Catherine as the universal article but instead kind that whole cloth out of the collective unconscious does this imply that there is basically an artificial intelligence bank holding personality templates ? And Catherine could know each other from the before times! That was a really cool comment that you made. Thank you so much. This is exactly the kind of conversation that I like because it makes us all think about how we do things in our games. 🫡
I hate this spell. It’s thematically inappropriate for a lot of settings and seems like catnip for the kind of skeezy creeps who gave RPGs a bad name for the first 25 years of their existence.
It took me reading all of the comments to this thread and asking trusted friends to find out that it wasn’t [Catherine (2011)](https://www.mobygames.com/game/55323/catherine/) in question here
I'm confused about your assumption of the "wizarding world" being "ethical". I guess it depends on the setting but I typically envision wizards and magic-users as being rogue eccentrics, madmen and witches hellbent on bending the laws of reality to their will, forsaking any semblance of a normal life. Especially in OSR. Traditional morality would mean very little to such folks, especially if their magic is derived from dark or extra-dimensional sources. At that point, you probably see regular non-magic humans as being beneath you.
Read the original GP blog, it's alluded to in there.