Permanence Ward - Who what when where and how.

[kiralon]

I take that to mean that alchemists don't need the spell to create magic scrolls.

Would you class your ruling a house ruling or canon? Because house ruling is the way I take it but I think I'm applying my bias to what I think the author was aiming for and not what he wrote, so to me it's a house ruling.

We canonically know that isn't the case though since we have actual uses of the ward... and they are on things bigger than that area.
So... yeah.
It is pretty clear that as long as the permeance ward is within the spells area of effect or its Area ward area overlaps part of the spell that it works.

Are those fluff pieces (fluff = not a rule but a blurb in a story or adventure) in palladium or rifts or elsewhere. Are we sure the ward caster wasn't level 100, are we sure the ward caster wasn't using say another magic from the time of a thousand magics to boost the level or area. Because there are so unknown variables in the things written in the book (not to mention things in the book that you just plain can't do) that I think using the fluff in adventures and character blurbs etc as a rough guide is fine, but as a ruling no, the npc's mostly aren't rolled up and have just been given stats and bonuses (for example, add the number of attacks a lot of npc's have by hth and they often have 1 or more attacks then they should), so what is given as the rule should be the main counting factor just because of the unknown variables of the bits that aren't in the rules.

We can also pretty definitively say that you don't have to have Area wards for all permeance functions since you can use permeance on people, and you can't place an area ward on a person.

You can put an area effect ward on a person, it just has no effect, so no area effect, it still has to be there.
(However contiguity of substance that you are writing on hasn't been established as a thing as far as I can tell as you can do ward phrases over different boards of a door, or over different bricks of a wall, so the permanence ward goes on the flesh, and the others go on a medallion, or a bit of wood, or metal plate. Nothing mentions the wards have to stay together that I can remember.


Note: Wards do not work when placed on cloth, fur. and most fabrics.
Area affect wards do not work when placed on living beings (So obviously can be put on living beings, but it just doesn't work which is different to)
Area affect ward magic cannot be used on living beings
Area affect wards cannot be placed on living beings. (So obviously cannot be put on living beings, does this mean can't be energised or literally can't be drawn on someone)

As these are the statements in the books about placing area effect wards on someone. Which one is true?

all of which is getting pretty off topic here and probably should move to another thread.

I agree

[kiralon]

so what happens when you come across a warded up the kazoo golem with a permanence ward it, that makes the wards indestructible, so how hard to take down would the golem be.

[eliakon]

so what happens when you come across a warded up the kazoo golem with a permanence ward it, that makes the wards indestructible, so how hard to take down would the golem be.

Technically... it can't be done.
"A permanence ward can not be attached to creatures of magic or supernatural beings"
And since you have to place the ward on the spell area (the golem itself) you can't make the golem effect permanent. Nor can you place wards on the golem because that violates the "no moving wards" and "no wards on living creatures" rules.

[eliakon]

We canonically know that isn't the case though since we have actual uses of the ward... and they are on things bigger than that area.
So... yeah.
It is pretty clear that as long as the permeance ward is within the spells area of effect or its Area ward area overlaps part of the spell that it works.

Are those fluff pieces (fluff = not a rule but a blurb in a story or adventure) in palladium or rifts or elsewhere. Are we sure the ward caster wasn't level 100, are we sure the ward caster wasn't using say another magic from the time of a thousand magics to boost the level or area. Because there are so unknown variables in the things written in the book (not to mention things in the book that you just plain can't do) that I think using the fluff in adventures and character blurbs etc as a rough guide is fine, but as a ruling no, the npc's mostly aren't rolled up and have just been given stats and bonuses (for example, add the number of attacks a lot of npc's have by hth and they often have 1 or more attacks then they should), so what is given as the rule should be the main counting factor just because of the unknown variables of the bits that aren't in the rules.

I suppose it is possible that every random diabolist, ever to place a ward, anywhere... are all more powerful than the mightiest of gods and able to perform feats of magic that surpass even those of Thoth and the Old ones.
Or we could assume that the magic works as written and the ward merely needs to intersect the spell.
Now I don't know about you... but I know which one is plausible.

We can also pretty definitively say that you don't have to have Area wards for all permeance functions since you can use permeance on people, and you can't place an area ward on a person.

You can put an area effect ward on a person, it just has no effect, so no area effect, it still has to be there.

No. It says you can not place it on a person.
Period.
You can not place the ward as an active part of a magical phrase on a person.
And that means that you can't have it as part of the equation for the sewn wards.
Because if it is in the phrase then the phrase can not be energized and thus it will never turn into an actual ward.

(However contiguity of substance that you are writing on hasn't been established as a thing as far as I can tell as you can do ward phrases over different boards of a door, or over different bricks of a wall, so the permanence ward goes on the flesh, and the others go on a medallion, or a bit of wood, or metal plate. Nothing mentions the wards have to stay together that I can remember.

No, it is pretty established. "The specific item or person". Not "items" not "person and other items" "item or person"
You can't put part of a ward on a person and part of a phrase on a medallion because that is not "an item" or "a person".
It has to be one specific item.

Note: Wards do not work when placed on cloth, fur. and most fabrics.
Area affect wards do not work when placed on living beings (So obviously can be put on living beings, but it just doesn't work which is different to)

And if it doesn't work its not a ward.
Seriously, that is like definitional.
The entire thing that changes something from "Doodle" to "ward" is that it is energized into a magical construct.
If you can't energize it, then it was not ever a ward.

Area affect ward magic cannot be used on living beings
Area affect wards cannot be placed on living beings. (So obviously cannot be put on living beings, does this mean can't be energised or literally can't be drawn on someone)

They can not be placed on a person. They can be drawn, but not energized. Because until it is energized it is explicitly not a ward.

As these are the statements in the books about placing area effect wards on someone. Which one is true?

All of them. Seriously. None of these are contradictory in any way

[kiralon]

so what happens when you come across a warded up the kazoo golem with a permanence ward it, that makes the wards indestructible, so how hard to take down would the golem be.

Technically... it can't be done.
"A permanence ward can not be attached to creatures of magic or supernatural beings"
And since you have to place the ward on the spell area (the golem itself) you can't make the golem effect permanent. Nor can you place wards on the golem because that violates the "no moving wards" and "no wards on living creatures" rules.

No wards on living/moving/creatures of magic, so where does that leave the permanence ward.
That's you do the wards first and animate the golem.

Is a wizard a creature of magic?

[kiralon]

I suppose it is possible that every random diabolist, ever to place a ward, anywhere... are all more powerful than the mightiest of gods and able to perform feats of magic that surpass even those of Thoth and the Old ones.
Or we could assume that the magic works as written and the ward merely needs to intersect the spell.
Now I don't know about you... but I know which one is plausible.

I'm not sure who these random diabolists are as there aren't many npc diabolists in the books, so if you could show in the fluff where this has happened I would level an argument against it, but if I had to believe a writer for palladium followed the rules or just made stuff up without checking the rules I believe the latter, which means there ARE unknowns that aren't written down that we are missing, and yes if the mistakes make them more powerful then gods i'd believe that too. That is a lot more plausible than the writers follow all the rules as they are laid out, because there is proof they don't (Just check number of attacks on npc's for example).

No. It says you can not place it on a person.
Period.
You can not place the ward as an active part of a magical phrase on a person.
And that means that you can't have it as part of the equation for the sewn wards.
Because if it is in the phrase then the phrase can not be energized and thus it will never turn into an actual ward.

And it also says that a permanence ward has to go with an area effect ward
Period. (This bit here seems to get ignored a bit from your side of the argument, I know its probably not supposed to say it, but it does, which I believe makes it canon)
So if you can't put an area effect ward with it, it makes sewing permanence on someone pointless.

No, it is pretty established. "The specific item or person". Not "items" not "person and other items" "item or person"
You can't put part of a ward on a person and part of a phrase on a medallion because that is not "an item" or "a person".
It has to be one specific item.

Then how does it work on walls with multiple bricks/bits of paper that are made up of multiple fibres/doors with multiple timber slats, or floors that are tiles and aren't all one piece. The item then is the person with his clothes and medallion on. Everything can always be broken down to components.

And if it doesn't work its not a ward.
Seriously, that is like definitional.
The entire thing that changes something from "Doodle" to "ward" is that it is energized into a magical construct.
If you can't energize it, then it was not ever a ward.

It doesn't say can't power it, just that area effect won't work, so you do your ward and power it and it doesn't have an area of effect is a possible, if unlikely interpretation, the fact that it says can't on a living thing is a little more specific, but then where does that leave the permanence ward, especially when the permanence ward says it HAS to have area effect, and area effect says it HAS to have a condition or trigger. It basically means that permanence won't work on someone, because of the previous conditions. It's obvious its not what they meant, but it is what they have said.

They can not be placed on a person. They can be drawn, but not energized. Because until it is energized it is explicitly not a ward.

Well the skill recognise energised wards doesn't agree with you here because the skill specifically states they can tell whether a ward is energised or not, so you can recognise a ward that isn't energised, which means its a ward.

As these are the statements in the books about placing area effect wards on someone. Which one is true?

All of them. Seriously. None of these are contradictory in any way

Putting something on someone and it not working is not the same as can't put on someone.
If I put a truck on you and it doesn't work, and I can't put a truck on you mean the same thing to you, I'd say one day you could be very flat and you might want to avoid trucks.



Like I said, I think I have a feeling of what they were aiming for, but its certainly not what was written.

And as far as I can tell the logic behind not putting on living/moving things is that it goes off immediately.
But in some cases that could be the whole point, especially when permanence is involved.
And what actually stops you from putting wards on a on say a small boulder, a nice static item, with permanence, aoe, inflict, blind, death, death and the true names of a couple of stout fellows who then load the rock into a trebuchet and fire it at a castle that is being sieged. Does an angel come down and smite you (hide next to the rock). Saying can't with a slightly ridiculous reason why that doesn't actually stop you from doing it is silly.
Pretty much every player I know would love armour, inscribed with protection from wards and permanence. It would cost, but so do scrolls and other magic items.
Get a summoner and a diabolist in the party, summon 1 lesser demon, have friends murder it in the circle, make 2 permanence wards a month (could be 3 with a 12 hour workday), inscribe in armour with other wards, profit. Diabolists don't have a chance of inscribing ward failure so its just a matter of time. Add mystic energy drain to the list of wards added and it makes the party immune to magic pretty much, but as all the wards are from the same diabolist the warded items still work.

[eliakon]

so what happens when you come across a warded up the kazoo golem with a permanence ward it, that makes the wards indestructible, so how hard to take down would the golem be.

Technically... it can't be done.
"A permanence ward can not be attached to creatures of magic or supernatural beings"
And since you have to place the ward on the spell area (the golem itself) you can't make the golem effect permanent. Nor can you place wards on the golem because that violates the "no moving wards" and "no wards on living creatures" rules.

No wards on living/moving/creatures of magic, so where does that leave the permanence ward.

In their special "these wards are the sole and unique exception to the no wards on living beings rule, but under the following limitations" spot that they always have been?
Its not hard.

That's you do the wards first and animate the golem.

That won't work.
In the most likely outcome the modifications to the statue would make the spell fail. Otherwise we would simply have a ward that is now on an illegal target and it would deactivate.

Is a wizard a creature of magic?

nope.

[eliakon]

I suppose it is possible that every random diabolist, ever to place a ward, anywhere... are all more powerful than the mightiest of gods and able to perform feats of magic that surpass even those of Thoth and the Old ones.
Or we could assume that the magic works as written and the ward merely needs to intersect the spell.
Now I don't know about you... but I know which one is plausible.

I'm not sure who these random diabolists are as there aren't many npc diabolists in the books, so if you could show in the fluff where this has happened I would level an argument against it, but if I had to believe a writer for palladium followed the rules or just made stuff up without checking the rules I believe the latter, which means there ARE unknowns that aren't written down that we are missing, and yes if the mistakes make them more powerful then gods i'd believe that too. That is a lot more plausible than the writers follow all the rules as they are laid out, because there is proof they don't (Just check number of attacks on npc's for example).

There are two issues here.
1) issue one is that your contention is that you are claiming that the area effect wards area must encompass the entire spell effect...
even though there is nothing in the description to add that limitation in at all and that
2) we have multiple examples of permeant walls, of permanent circles of vast size, and of other similar effects.

The logic here is that the presumption is that if something is supposed to be banned by the rules, but is the most common use of the rule... then one would presume that there would be some specific text on it.
If one of the most common use of wards in the books is to make walls permanent, or to make sanctuary spells or anti-magic clouds or other huge AOE spells permanent... then the presumption is not "Oh, this was done by a 50,000th level caster duh" nor is the normal presumption "Oh obviously all these people used some sort of secret technique that amplifies their wards range by several orders of magnitude... but is totally unmentioned, undescribed and not even in the write up of the NPCs who are placing these wards"
The normal presumption at that point is "oh, this is exactly like the book says... if part of the spell is in the AoE it becomes permanent."

No. It says you can not place it on a person.
Period.
You can not place the ward as an active part of a magical phrase on a person.
And that means that you can't have it as part of the equation for the sewn wards.
Because if it is in the phrase then the phrase can not be energized and thus it will never turn into an actual ward.

And it also says that a permanence ward has to go with an area effect ward
Period. (This bit here seems to get ignored a bit from your side of the argument, I know its probably not supposed to say it, but it does, which I believe makes it canon)
So if you can't put an area effect ward with it, it makes sewing permanence on someone pointless.

We get a different set of rules on the sewing wards on a person.
In that situation we are told that you sew the permanence ward... nothing about the area ward.
Since special situation rules trump general rules there is still no problem here.

No, it is pretty established. "The specific item or person". Not "items" not "person and other items" "item or person"
You can't put part of a ward on a person and part of a phrase on a medallion because that is not "an item" or "a person".
It has to be one specific item.

Then how does it work on walls with multiple bricks/bits of paper that are made up of multiple fibres/doors with multiple timber slats, or floors that are tiles and aren't all one piece. The item then is the person with his clothes and medallion on. Everything can always be broken down to components.

Trying to pull a xeno's paradox rules lawyering doesn't do you any credit, nor does it make your argument any less absurd.
You very well know what 'one object' is. An object that can not be separated into smaller objects with out destroying the original object.
A piece of paper is one object because it can not be separated into sub-objects.
As for the wall? There isn't any evidence that you don't have to place the entire sequence on one brick of the wall.
The person is not 'an object' under any scenario other than the most absurd rules lawyering stance.

And if it doesn't work its not a ward.
Seriously, that is like definitional.
The entire thing that changes something from "Doodle" to "ward" is that it is energized into a magical construct.
If you can't energize it, then it was not ever a ward.

It doesn't say can't power it, just that area effect won't work, so you do your ward and power it and it doesn't have an area of effect is a possible, if unlikely interpretation, the fact that it says can't on a living thing is a little more specific, but then where does that leave the permanence ward, especially when the permanence ward says it HAS to have area effect, and area effect says it HAS to have a condition or trigger. It basically means that permanence won't work on someone, because of the previous conditions. It's obvious its not what they meant, but it is what they have said.

again you are ignoring that the discussion on living beings has its own rules.
Specific rules trump general rules.
This is especially hilarious since you are the one that is trying to play rules lawyering word games here by arguing that "well if this says that you must do X, even if X doesn't do anything... then you must do all the things that make X work"
Pick one.
Either you are advocating that all wards must follow all rules slavishly
OR
You are advocating that the rules are selective
You don't get to pick the interpretation that supports your case best for any given argument.

They can not be placed on a person. They can be drawn, but not energized. Because until it is energized it is explicitly not a ward.

Well the skill recognise energised wards doesn't agree with you here because the skill specifically states they can tell whether a ward is energised or not, so you can recognise a ward that isn't energised, which means its a ward.

Ward symbol yes
Actual ward no
You can not have a part of a ward phrase that is not energized.
Thus either the entire phrase is energized or none of it is.
Thus all symbols in a phrase must be ones that can be energized...

As these are the statements in the books about placing area effect wards on someone. Which one is true?

All of them. Seriously. None of these are contradictory in any way

Putting something on someone and it not working is not the same as can't put on someone.
If I put a truck on you and it doesn't work, and I can't put a truck on you mean the same thing to you, I'd say one day you could be very flat and you might want to avoid trucks.

Again your logic only works if you are allowed to have partial wards.
I would like to see the rule supporting the claim that you can have only part of a ward phrase be energized
because otherwise your argument fails entirely... because
1)you can't put this particular active ward on a person
2) you can't have a ward phrase that is made up of a mix of inactive and active wards
3) therefor no ward phrase containing this ward symbol can be activated on a person.
Like I said.
Its not hard.

Like I said, I think I have a feeling of what they were aiming for, but its certainly not what was written.[/quote]

[The Beast]

I take that to mean that alchemists don't need the spell to create magic scrolls.

Would you class your ruling a house ruling or canon? Because house ruling is the way I take it but I think I'm applying my bias to what I think the author was aiming for and not what he wrote, so to me it's a house ruling.

Well unless someone from Palladium can come here and answer one way or another on that, I'll go with "House rule that could plausibly be a correct interpretation." The reason I'm answering that way is because the OCC isn't laid out like a one a player can normally take (because it's not meant for players), which makes it hard to tell if they can make magic scrolls because of a special OCC ability (which is what I'm going with) or because they have the spell. All it says is that they can create magic scrolls, and in typical PB fashion what that exactly entails is open for debate.

[kiralon]

You might want to read the bottom bit first as I think your house rules make sense, but I think they are house rules because they don't follow what the book says. Canon doesn't mean the rules make sense. Canon means the rules come straight out of the book even if they don't make sense.
except I would still love to see where all these permanent circles and walls are, and where it describes them as being made permanent by the permanence ward. The only circle I can think of like that is the circle of elemental power, and it isn't made permanent with a permanence ward, it just is.

There are two issues here.
1) issue one is that your contention is that you are claiming that the area effect wards area must encompass the entire spell effect...
even though there is nothing in the description to add that limitation in at all and that
2) we have multiple examples of permeant walls, of permanent circles of vast size, and of other similar effects.

Well, the first thing I would like to check is if the permanent circles that you keep talking about were made permanent by the permanence ward. Usually not enough information about those things is presented to say whether they are permanent from the ward, or from another source.
But yes, I think that permanence having to have area effect is good cause to believe that the area effect has to encompass the magical effect being made permanent, because the area effect ward is also what describes the magical effect radius of the other wards, so that is the way it works for wards (It might not be meant that way but that is the way it works, and the way it works for wards is the only thing we have to build on for the other items because it doesn't give enough information for the other uses). The fact that it doesn't give different rules for spells and wards and circles doesn't mean that the rules for it change (but they could I admit, but presuming something else is more of a stretch than following the rules you do have)

The logic here is that the presumption is that if something is supposed to be banned by the rules, but is the most common use of the rule... then one would presume that there would be some specific text on it.
If one of the most common use of wards in the books is to make walls permanent, or to make sanctuary spells or anti-magic clouds or other huge AOE spells permanent... then the presumption is not "Oh, this was done by a 50,000th level caster duh" nor is the normal presumption "Oh obviously all these people used some sort of secret technique that amplifies their wards range by several orders of magnitude... but is totally unmentioned, undescribed and not even in the write up of the NPCs who are placing these wards"
The normal presumption at that point is "oh, this is exactly like the book says... if part of the spell is in the AoE it becomes permanent."

That's just it, you keep saying its the most common use of the rule, but not where I have seen. Can you please tell me where you are reading that these circles and walls and such have permanence wards on them and they are larger then normal. If you show them, I could then possibly believe you (but as seen palladium writing isn't usually that straight forward).
And to be canon i'm pretty sure it has to be what is laid out in the rules for pc's, not npc's

We get a different set of rules on the sewing wards on a person.
In that situation we are told that you sew the permanence ward... nothing about the area ward.
Since special situation rules trump general rules there is still no problem here.

Ahh, so you believe that the extra blurb of discounts all the previous rules about permanence, well then it doesn't mention that it needs to be made out of demons bone, doesn't have a cost so free usage, doesn't say it has to be activated by a diabolist so anyone can do it and it doesn't say it won't turn you into a toad when you use it. A note has to give specific notation about the rules that it breaks, and all it says it can be sewn on someone, that doesn't nullify any of the prerequisites. It should say sewing the permanence ward one someone removes the need for having an area effect ward, as that statement is very emphatic. The fact that we have to add that bit means its a house rule and not canon. It not making sense isn't a good enough reason, because as you have seen, different people interpret things different ways, and if you give leeway on important use details you will end up with different outcomes with different people, which makes it a house ruling.

Which mind you is all i'm arguing here, that all your supposition is a house ruling. It makes sense that permanence doesn't need aoe. Im just saying that's not what is written.

Trying to pull a xeno's paradox rules lawyering doesn't do you any credit, nor does it make your argument any less absurd.
You very well know what 'one object' is. An object that can not be separated into smaller objects with out destroying the original object.
A piece of paper is one object because it can not be separated into sub-objects.
As for the wall? There isn't any evidence that you don't have to place the entire sequence on one brick of the wall.
The person is not 'an object' under any scenario other than the most absurd rules lawyering stance.

Well I don't believe it's a zeno's paradox as such, just taking the rule to an absurd length (which is a way to see the ridiculousness of something). What happens if you have a titanium skull implant, its not living and is an object in its own right, but would also be classed as part of the person or would it, so put the wards on a dead dragons claw and necromancer attach them to your self, or get a psi healer to etch your bones with psychic surgery, but this was just a supposition anyway to try and get around an absurd limitation. The main issue was and still is that aoe has to follow permanence. The rules should be clear and concise and not start philosophical discussions.

again you are ignoring that the discussion on living beings has its own rules.
Specific rules trump general rules.

But the specific rules do not state that any of the previous rules are defunct, otherwise all the previous rules are defunct and you don't need to be a diabolist to do a permanence ward.

This is especially hilarious since you are the one that is trying to play rules lawyering word games here by arguing that "well if this says that you must do X, even if X doesn't do anything... then you must do all the things that make X work"
Pick one.
Either you are advocating that all wards must follow all rules slavishly
OR
You are advocating that the rules are selective
You don't get to pick the interpretation that supports your case best for any given argument.

Yes, im saying that to be canon you follow the rules as written, not what you make up to fit badly written rules. One is canon, the other is house ruling.
But I also like putting different sides of an argument too. Even if i'm arguing another way.

Ward symbol yes
Actual ward no
You can not have a part of a ward phrase that is not energized.
Thus either the entire phrase is energized or none of it is.
Thus all symbols in a phrase must be ones that can be energized...

You missed a bit, it says ward or ward phrase.
6. Identify Energized Wards: The character is so attuned to wards
that he can sense magic energy radiating from them. This enables the
Diabolist to tell whether or not a ward or ward phrase is active and
waiting to be triggered or powerless. Base Skill: 25% +5% per level of
experience; half when trying to sense which wards in a ward sequence
are still potent and dangerous. The character gets only one try. A failed
roll means he's not sure whether or not the ward is energized.
But the important bit here is
lf when trying to sense which wards in a ward sequence are still potent and dangerous
That does seem to point out that some wards in a ward phrase could be inactive (which should be impossible)
but the statement is there. What diabolist would believe only part of a ward phrase is active, and only diabolists get the skill.

Again your logic only works if you are allowed to have partial wards.
I would like to see the rule supporting the claim that you can have only part of a ward phrase be energized
because otherwise your argument fails entirely... because
1)you can't put this particular active ward on a person
2) you can't have a ward phrase that is made up of a mix of inactive and active wards
3) therefor no ward phrase containing this ward symbol can be activated on a person.
Like I said.
Its not hard.

Its not a partial ward, its a full ward phrase where one of the wards doesn't work so no area effect. And as there are no rules saying that all of an energised ward phrase has to work (Its a good assumption mind you, but only an assumption). Not work doesn't mean not energised (but can) it means it doesn't do an area effect, and if that is because the ward doesn't energise and the ward set fails, well nothing happens, but what also could happen is it gets to the aoe ward, which energises but doesn't work and then the next part of the ward goes off, as there is nothing to say it can't happen that way.
But above shows what makes me think a partial ward can work (and I cant remember anywhere reading that they do or don't)
But on the other side of things permanence is just a ward and not a ward phrase (which makes it a partial), and you are arguing that it works.

TL:DR
The fact that the rules make it automatically fail doesn't make any way you try to make it work canon. It means you have made a house rule to make a stupid rule work. That's what I am saying here.

If you believe that your interpretations are house rules we actually have no issues. People can make (and have to make is the point im making) house rules to get some of the more basic level stuff in palladium work.

[Axelmania]

PF2p126 has a confusing description about area effect wards...

bottom of left column: "To unleash magic on everyone in a particular area, the object or person must bear an area effect ward symbol"
top of right column: "an area effect ward cannot be placed on living people"
next paragraph: "Area affect wards will not work if placed on a living being or cloth/fabric"

So basically, a "person" can "bear" an AE ward, but the person cannot be living...

There is a clear way around this: kill a person, put the AE on them, then resurrect them. The "living" ban is only for PLACING a ward, not bearing/activating it, so once it's placed, you can become alive again.

Since page 132 specifies Permanence Wards MUST be comined with an Area Effect ward, yet we know that AE wards cannot be placed on living people, this means when it talks about placing Permanence Wards on living people, they MUST be using this "kill, inscribe, resurrect" trick to prep the bodies.

This would help LOADS in explaining why we don't see way more people walking around with permanence wards: it's not just the rarity of getting demon bones, the time it takes Diabolists to make the wards, but also the difficulty of resurrection and risking being a corpse to get these benefits!

Re the final "not work if placed on", well, when you PLACED it, a being was dead: that's okay. Placing on corpses = success.

If the corpse is then resurrected : too bad, placing already happened under correct conditions!

Sort of like, if you placed a ward on a piece of metal armor, and then had some spell to turn that armor into a cloth cape, that should skirt the problem caused by PLACING it on cape, because this is a post-placing alteration of the target.

so what happens when you come across a warded up the kazoo golem with a permanence ward it, that makes the wards indestructible, so how hard to take down would the golem be.

Technically... it can't be done.
"A permanence ward can not be attached to creatures of magic or supernatural beings"

We probably should reiterate where golems are explicitly called CoMs/SBs... I think I do recall seeing that somewhere but I forget where, I don't remember it being in an obvious place.

Same Q for alternatives like mummies/zombies. Are animated dead in general considered Supernatural Beings?

And since you have to place the ward on the spell area (the golem itself) you can't make the golem effect permanent. Nor can you place wards on the golem because that violates the "no moving wards" and "no wards on living creatures" rules.

By "no moving wards" are you referring to "if the warded object is moved, it goes off instantly" ?

The problem with golems is more the "area affected becomes magically centered on the spot where the ward is first activated, not the ward or the object itself". If it was something like "AE Protection from Fire" the Golem would be protected as long as he stayed in range of wherever it was when he first moved and set it off.

Permanence though, has an overriding condition "always activate in the immediate area around the ward" so I think that replaces the "where the ward is first activated" condition.

In their special "these wards are the sole and unique exception to the no wards on living beings rule, but under the following limitations" spot that they always have been?

There's no need to house-rule they are an exception given that we have a "become a corpse and we will upgrade you" strategy explaining how 132left follows 126right, or the contrast of 126left.

[kiralon]

good explanation
But with the golem just do the resurrect thing. Before activating the golem, Cover it in big wards and cover as much of it as possible, make them permanent, then cast the magic that makes the golem.

[Whiskeyjack]

Going with Axelmanias interpretation, you could make some scary cult whos warriors all had to go through death to receive their wards and become the enforcers.

[Axelmania]

Why do they have to be warriors?

[Whiskeyjack]

I never said the HAD to be warriors.

[Axelmania]

I take that to mean that alchemists don't need the spell to create magic scrolls.

Would you class your ruling a house ruling or canon?
Because house ruling is the way I take it
but I think I'm applying my bias to what I think the author was aiming for
and not what he wrote,
so to me it's a house ruling.

This part that kiralon quoted at the top, is it from a previous thread? Can't seem to find where Beast wrote this...

In the original Palladium RPG, page 135 the Alchemist notes to "See wizard for details" for their "Creating Scrolls" ability.

The Wizard OCC covered them on page 55, you can see under the heading "mystic scroll" in the left column:

A mystic scroll is created by a dragon or high level magic-use (wizard, diabolist or alchemist; tenth level or higher).

The right column then continued:

Wizards and alchemists can create scrolls via the tenth level spell "scroll creation".

Presumably that's what the "high level magic use" on the left column refers to, as page 75 lists it as tenth level... it doesn't say anything about needing to BE tenth level to cast the spell... presumably a 1st level mage could cast it if someone taught them.

Left column's "high level" thing is thus very weird.

However, there is a note below the right column it saying Diabolists can create scrolls if they also know spell magic. There is no mention of them needing to know the "scroll creation" spell in this case. However the spell strength has a maximum of 6 or his level as a wizard, whichever is higher.

Alchemists are all Diabolists, so they could do this even without knowing the Scroll Creation spell. If you're also a diabolist, you basically have no need of learning that spell. The spell is for non-Diabolist wizards.