Predictamancy

[mantimeforgot]

The only thing that Predictamancers CANNOT be wrong about is Fate; it is set in stone and they always see it with absolute clarity. Everything else is subject to error, but the error belongs to them (unless you are trying to claim that all Predictamancers in Erfworld are also perfect reasoners). Perception is not perfect; when you view something which is indistinct or perhaps having multiple overlapping views you will inevitably perceive something which is not true because of internal bias.

Consider this: (Excerpted from Book 0)

Yes! To Goodminton! It was the only way Goodminton could survive you," said Delphie, tears flowing freely down her face.

"You don't know that," Wanda said, pointing at her. "You never Predicted that."

Delphie kept sobbing into her lap. Her words were muffled by her hands. "No. I can't. Fate doesn't care about us. That's the terror of it; we have no Fate. The world doesn't care if we live or not. Only about you."

Wanda paced around. "It doesn't work that way, it doesn't work that way, it can't work that way, Delphie!" Tommy should be alive? She was trapped, while they were lost? Father was lost? No. "I could...buy some poison and drink it! What would Fate do, then? Huh? I could jump off this tower right now!"

Delphie looked at Wanda and shook her head. "Yes, you could. But you won't."


Predictamancy obviously gives them access to information germaine to the future; it has nothing to do with observing probabilities (vis-a-vis Mathamancy or noting trends vis-a-vis Lookamancy), or else she should would not be able to state with absolute certainty that Wanda would survive irrespective of whatever events occur (Fate clearly supersedes the normal flow and interpretation of time as evident to a Predictamancer).


I don't remember Marie specifically predicting that Haffaton would be the downfall of FAQ (and would appreciate a link to the particular page), but even if that were the case that still doesn't make "guessing in the dark" a superior hypothesis. Predictamancers need to have access to information that is outside the normal 5 sense faculties or Marie couldn't possibly know when Sizemore would return to the Magic Kingdom or that his return to would be a signal of his having an important mission.

Educated guesses based on What is what you need to be asking yourself because it clearly isn't societal factors nor can it possibly be a function of stats (either demonstrable like attack or movement stats nor derived stats like success rates for given actions in a situation like what Parson can calculate with his mathamancy gauntlet). Another interesting fact is that predictions about things which are not set in stone (like the fall of Goodminton) become more clear as time passes and the decisions of various actors are enacted. The fall of Goodminton was not guaranteed, but highly likely until Wanda took her troops out and as soon as that decision was reached the Predictamancer knew it would doom them all. Inferences based upon an assessment invoke probabilities and would never gain the startling degree of clarity that Predictamancers can achieve when certain actions occur or as the time draws near (as evidenced by how certain Marie becomes of Parson's going through the portal and that one more actor had something to contribute to his making it through Before it happened).

MTF

[Nnelg]

Educated guesses based on What is what you need to be asking yourself because it clearly isn't societal factors nor can it possibly be a function of stats

For example: Marie Predicts "Wanda Firebaugh will cause the downfall of Faq". She learns that Wanda Firebaugh is currently in the service of a side that would crush Faq at a moment's notice, should they ever discover it (something that could happen any turn). Pretty easy to put two and two together there.
(Yes, I know we aren't told exactly what Marie predicted. But this is just an example, and given the context it's undoubtedly not far from the truth.)

The fall of Goodminton was not guaranteed, but highly likely until Wanda took her troops out and as soon as that decision was reached the Predictamancer knew it would doom them all.

Incorrect. Delphie herself said it didn't matter what happened to Goodminton. The only thing she knew was that Wanda would enter Haffaton's service. But if the only way for that to happen is for Goodminton to fall, simple logic is enough to reach the conclusion that it will.

Inferences based upon an assessment invoke probabilities and would never gain the startling degree of clarity that Predictamancers can achieve when certain actions occur or as the time draws near (as evidenced by how certain Marie becomes of Parson's going through the portal and that one more actor had something to contribute to his making it through Before it happened).

And how do you know that wasn't part of the Prediction all along? There's no reason to believe that the Prediction got stronger over time, only that it was a particularly strong and clear prediction (as evidenced by fact that so many Predictamancers had it).

[mantimeforgot]

So why would Marie have made a Prediction that Wanda would be the downfall of FAQ; she obviously recognized Wanda as an agent of Faq's downfall the first time they met, and yet to the best of our knowledge Wanda and Marie have had no prior contact; Marie knows nothing of Wanda (not even that she is a Croakamancer at that point); and Wanda has not done anything to attack other cities at this point (only fight against Haffaton). Another interesting side question: If Marie was so certain that Wanda specifically would be the main cause of Faq's downfall, then why would she countenance Wanda's service later on when Wanda went to work for Faq alongside Jillian.

Incorrect on Goodminton's account; Delphie specifically told Lord Firebaugh that Goodminton could survive, but that the chances were remote (this strongly implies she is privy to the probabilities of metatopics and those are by their very nature beyond the bounds of derived statistics, unless you now wish to contend that Predictamancers are super computers capable of processing), then as soon as Wanda makes her decision to go out and combat enemy forces directly she becomes super distraught (or something I admit I don't remember the specific words used).

Marie was able to predict that Sizemore would return with an important mission, but as time progresses she is eventually able to identify which actors will contribute towards success of this mission.

In order to do this she would either need to A) Hack the system to gain access to information she should not have (Carnymancy perhaps?); B) Use Thinkamancy to read people's intentions before they act; or perhaps C) Use a combination of Lookmancy, Foolamancy, and Turnmancy to gain access to information after the fact but convince people that they were acting in real time and make predictions based on what they know has already occurred or what the actor has already shown a propensity towards doing in the exact circumstance (though one that was a phantom produced by the Predictamancer with the specific intent of tricking them into revealing how they would react to a given situation). There might very well be more ways to do this; I don't pretend like this is an exhaustive list, but they are the one's that I recognize as not venturing into the realm of the absurd (I guess Charlie could be manipulating everyone and allowing trickles of data to leak out to Predictamancers...) And the problem with each of this is that they are one and all Highly improbable.

The fact that you recognize other Predictamancers as being able to predict Sizemore's appearance and mission (and Parson's eventual appearance in the Magic Kingdom) should have clued you in to the fact that Guessing cannot possibly be going on. You cannot make predictions about things with zero evidence, and yet many, many Predictamancers which have had zero contact (to our knowledge) with Parson or Sizemore and could not reasonably have acquired sufficient data to all reach the same accurate conclusion regarding time, place, and activity (barring the supercomputer + crazy spy network hypothesis).

MTF

[Nnelg]

Marie knows nothing of Wanda

Except for what she saw in her Prediction.

Another interesting side question: If Marie was so certain that Wanda specifically would be the main cause of Faq's downfall, then why would she countenance Wanda's service later on when Wanda went to work for Faq alongside Jillian.

A good question. But it's pretty obvious that Marie's prediction was about Wanda, so we'll find out the reason eventually.

Incorrect on Goodminton's account; Delphie specifically told Lord Firebaugh that Goodminton could survive, but that the chances were remote (this strongly implies she is privy to the probabilities of metatopics and those are by their very nature beyond the bounds of derived statistics, unless you now wish to contend that Predictamancers are super computers capable of processing),

Or, she knew that Goodminton was surrounded by many enemies more powerful than itself. It was blatantly obvious that Goodminton had tough times ahead; anyone could have told you the odds were slim.

then as soon as Wanda makes her decision to go out and combat enemy forces directly she becomes super distraught (or something I admit I don't remember the specific words used).

Because she knew what the eventual outcome would be, she could logically deduce the intermediate steps. No need for magic there.

Marie was able to predict that Sizemore would return with an important mission, but as time progresses she is eventually able to identify which actors will contribute towards success of this mission.

That's because she sees that someone important is there; it's not hard to put two and two together and conclude that the important person will be the one doing the important thing.

There might very well be more ways to do this;

Yes, logical deductions and educated guesses!

I have yet to see any of this "additional data" that couldn't be explained that way.

The fact that you recognize other Predictamancers as being able to predict Sizemore's appearance and mission (and Parson's eventual appearance in the Magic Kingdom) should have clued you in to the fact that Guessing cannot possibly be going on.

Of course, because that was an actual Prediction. They Predicted something would happen, but not all of the details. What I'm arguing is that those details which get "filled in" along the way are not done so by magic, but by simple reasoning.

[mantimeforgot]

Except for what she saw in her Prediction.

Stop! What are you talking about? If Predictamancy is ONLY educated guesses and logic, then WHAT can she possibly be seeing? She does not have Lookamancy (She cannot see elsewhere; it would probably require conjunctive casting with a Turnamancer to see elsewhen...); She does not have Thinkamancy so she cannot see "thoughts" nor manipulate Grandiocosmic strings; She does not have Carnamancy so she cannot game the system or trick it into giving her information she isn't supposed to have. So WHAT is she seeing when she gets a Prediction?

Where is the genesis of a Prediction? Your arguments seem to amount to "There's Predictamancy" and then there's "Educated guesses to fill in the details," which I might be fine with if you could tell me what it is you seem to think a "Prediction" is in the first place. Using your own words it is practically impossible for it to be faculties native to the Predictamancer (You admit that Marie knows nothing of Wanda except for "The Prediction."), and yet you keep clinging to this notion that Predictamancers are little better than fortune cookies.

Why the heck would anyone dedicate a school of magic and study to something without empirically verifiable activity and results? You might be able to duplicate the results with a powerful enough information source and Charlie's processing ability (thought link multiple people to help), but a Thinkamancer would be able to observe one's "magic" rather directly and if they realized that nothing out of the ordinary was going on in a Predictamancer other than advanced form of reasoning, then there is pretty much no reason to believe that the world of Erf would recognize Predictamancy as a school of magic.

MTF

[Nnelg]

Stop! What are you talking about? If Predictamancy is ONLY educated guesses and logic, then WHAT can she possibly be seeing?

I never said that.

The only thing I claimed was guesses and logic were the "additional details" that emerge between the original Prediction and the Predicted event actually happening.

Where is the genesis of a Prediction? Your arguments seem to amount to "There's Predictamancy" and then there's "Educated guesses to fill in the details," which I might be fine with if you could tell me what it is you seem to think a "Prediction" is in the first place.

Unknown. And frankly, irrelevant to my argument.

Using your own words it is practically impossible for it to be faculties native to the Predictamancer (You admit that Marie knows nothing of Wanda except for "The Prediction."), and yet you keep clinging to this notion that Predictamancers are little better than fortune cookies.

I don't see how you have reached this conclusion. I certainly haven't reached the conclusion you seem to think I've reached.

Why the heck would anyone dedicate a school of magic and study to something without empirically verifiable activity and results?

Because then it'd be science.

(But seriously, several real-life "sciences" are no more substantial that that.)

if they realized that nothing out of the ordinary was going on in a Predictamancer other than advanced form of reasoning, then there is pretty much no reason to believe that the world of Erf would recognize Predictamancy as a school of magic.

How do you think the soothsayers of old operated? (When they weren't just charlatans, that is.)

[mantimeforgot]

Alright so we have had something of a miscommunication here; I was operating under the impression you thought nothing "supernatural" was going on with Predictamancy at all. And it was never your intent to advance an alternative hypothesis on the origin of Predictamancy, only to gainsay my "vision of the future" hypothesis?


The reason why I inferred as I did was because you have not addressed my original point on Fate: Fate grants crystal clear impressions with absolute accuracy to a Predictamancer; Normal Erfly living does not. When an event is certain then a Predictamancer gains absolute clarity and the less certain the event the less certainty or ability to generate predictions a Predictamancer has. The correlation between certainty of event and certainty of prediction (regardless of the available information or capability of the reasoner) has held true throughout the stories. And while it is certainly true that Erfly beings come into being understanding the particulars of their discipline (thus it is possible that all Predictamancers are popped with advanced reasoning and inference abilities) this is undermined by Wanda's comment on "Why aren't the only winning sides those with Predictamancers..." and the fact that every nation on Erf doesn't use a Predictamancer as their Chief Warlord (or perhaps adjunct to Chief Warlord the one who makes all the decisions and the Chief Warlord only exists to give the statistical leadership bonus to the side).

MTF

[Nnelg]

Ah, that's where the difference lies then. I do not believe any "prediction" that is uncertain to be a true Prediction. It is my belief that only the things which are known with %100 certainty were actually Predicted with magic; everything else is an educated guess.


And the reason why the why the winning sides aren't always the ones with Predictamancers is precisely because every Prediction they make with magic is 100% guaranteed to happen. They can only tell you what the future will be, despite any efforts you make to change it. So when your Predictamancer Predicts doom, you're doomed.

[ftl]

They're a particularly tricky band of magic to use, it seems; because when they tell you something, you have to remember never to fight it and to try to prevent it from happening, and just plan around it.

And that's hard to do when the prediction is something like "you will abandon everyone you love and work for your enemy" or "you're all going to die".

[mantimeforgot]

While I can understand that particular viewpoint: it makes Predictmancy as a discipline so limited as to be utterly worthless. I would never pop a Predictamancer if I could and if I did I would either trade them to another nation or make a mercenary out of them with their selling services in the magic kingdom. If Predictamancy's ONLY purview is to be aware of what is Fated (which is limited to like 3 or 4 things in all of existence at this point to the best of our knowledge), then Predictamancy is a waste of a population slot/caster.

Fated things are immune to Luckamancy, and a Mathamancer's probing of a situation would reveal odd probabilities surrounding anything which is fated (Like your chances of croaking a given unit being 0%), and so I don't need a Predictamancer to tell me what things are Fated (Yes, having a specific language is mildly useful, but ultimately far less useful than any other caster's discipline).

If you can replace Predictamancers with a fortune cookie and casual mathamantic/luckamantic access to a situation, then Predictamancy shouldn't exist.

MTF

[TazTheTerrible]

I personally would think predictamancy probably has more things going for it than only being able to see Fated events, mostly because of Delphie's shooting in that air-battle over Goodminton. Now I might be remembering this wrong and I'm not going link-hunting for it just now, but I seem to recall her landing all her shots, deciding not to take the ones she wouldn't hit.

By a large margin, the most likely explanation for that is a type of short-term prediction where the immediate potential future can be altered by acting on the information received. Given how Fate supposedly doesn't care about the details, it's also unlikely every shot taken would be Fated.

This makes sense narratively as well, as we've seen most other caster types being able to do different things that were simply thematically in line and clearly not all the same singular ability.

[Nnelg]

then Predictamancy is a waste of a population slot/caster.

And now do you understand why Jillian and Lord Firebaugh think so little of them?

If you can replace Predictamancers with a fortune cookie and casual mathamantic/luckamantic access to a situation, then Predictamancy shouldn't exist.

None of that will tell you what will happen; at best only what is likely to happen. Unless it's a magic fortune cookie.
(Although, the magic that would have to be applied to it would still be Predictamancy...)

I personally would think predictamancy probably has more things going for it than only being able to see Fated events, mostly because of Delphie's shooting in that air-battle over Goodminton.

That was probably a Hoboken, which is a spell all casters know at level 1, regardless of discipline. And I don't remember exactly where, but I believe there was mention of being able to make extremely accurate short-term predictions of the enemy's next move somewhere. (Ironically enough, this happens so fast that it can theoretically contain what the results of said move will be. As long as the Predictamancer's reflexes cause her to act in the way her vision shows her acting, it's still a stable time loop. In a way this is changing the future, since loops which involve the Predictamancer being caught unawares are unstable.)

[ftl]

Might make sense to go back to the basics - here are some things that we have seen, in-comic, Predictamancers Predicting.

1) "Fated" events. Wanda attuning to an Arkentool, Wanda serving under Olive, Wanda destroying FAQ... ok, boop it, maybe instead of "Fated events" this bullet point should be called "Wanda's life".
2) Predictions in the very near short-term, such as for accurate aim of Hobokens.
3) Predictions about various useful events, such as "you will be ambushed" or "there will be units over Kibo next turn".

I think all can be useful, but they all require different responses, some of them tough.

1) Fated events - you have to force yourself to take the easy way instead of the hard way. Wanda should have turned to Haffaton when she hand the chance, and so on. These are the least useful, since you can't ever really expect people to act on them.
2) Useful for immeidate combat. Where to aim, etc. Something like telling Parson to wait just another 10 seconds for Jojo to do his thing and call off his troops - that's a useful immediate application.
3) Well, we already know that this can be very useful via what FAQ did with it - veiling cities that are about to be seen. But you could also use it more conventionally, and just beef up the defenses on whatever the next city is that's going to be attacked. If you're going to be ambushed, bring extra forces to crush the ambush, etc. Or use it to ambush the enemy, if you know where they'll be!

[Nnelg]

I think the distinction between these three is a bit arbitrary, since the only real difference is how far in advance the Prediction is and the granularity of the Predicted details. But regardless, I guess it's an okay way to help explain Predictamancy.

As for Fate and the easy way/hard way thing, it all comes down to being able to accept the fact that Predicted events are immutable, and working your plans around them. Wanda didn't, and it ended up happening in a way she didn't like. But Banhammer did, and I can't imagine how the Fall of Faq could have been more mercifully quick.

[mantimeforgot]

then Predictamancy is a waste of a population slot/caster.

And now do you understand why Jillian and Lord Firebaugh think so little of them?

Um... You don't see a problem with this in terms of natural selection? Societies which utilized Predictamancers would not only not win; they would be doomed to extinction. You literally would see a definite relationship between A) Societies which did not use Predictamancers at all and B) Societies that win all their conflicts. Given that Predictamancy would eventually become an extinct discipline. Societies which had cities likely to pop Predictamancers would cease using that City to pop casters; Societies which utilized Predictamancy for any kind of decision making large scale would very quickly be defeated and subjugated by those societies which did not; and no ruler would allow for Predictamancers to lead their troops or act as their main defense in a battle of any importance (Vis-a-vis Goodminton).

MTF

[Nnelg]

You literally would see a definite relationship between A) Societies which did not use Predictamancers at all and B) Societies that win all their conflicts.

Correlation does not imply causation. Besides, our sample size is to small to even prove the two are correlated.

Societies which had cities likely to pop Predictamancers would cease using that City to pop casters;

Popping casters isn't a choice, it's random. And Casters are so rare that finding a city that's popped more than one of the same type would be like winning the lottery (and therefore, it's impossible to establish any city as more likely to pop casters of a specific discipline). Besides, Warlords (which casters randomly replace) are so essential that ceasing to pop them isn't really an option.

Societies which utilized Predictamancy for any kind of decision making large scale would very quickly be defeated and subjugated by those societies which did not; and no ruler would allow for Predictamancers to lead their troops or act as their main defense in a battle of any importance (Vis-a-vis Goodminton).

Except, Goodminton is an example of a Side that didn't listen to its Preditamancer. The only example of a Side which actually did utilize Preditamancy is Faq, and we know how well they did despite knowing that they were doomed.

Societies which utilized Predictamancers would not only not win; they would be doomed to extinction.

Really, I don't see any way that having a Predictamancer could hurt. If something's Fated, it's going to happen whether you know about it or not. If you know about it, at least you can plan for it and make sure that it happens in the best (or least painful) way possible.

[mantimeforgot]

Our sample size has nothing to do with the fact that Predictamancers having zero actionable intelligence (According to you: The only thing Predictamancers have that isn't Fate awareness is the ability to make educated guesses; This is something which all intelligent people can do); You can't fight Fate so why does it matter if you know about it? Predictamancers would be a waste of a caster slot, and over the course of thousands of turns (i.e. history we are not privy to, but can extrapolate from current events and current powers, since people are popped with a more or less complete body of knowledge) that waste would lead to a correlation between sides that won and sides that did not have Predictamancers. Correlation may not be causation, but that doesn't mean that correlations cannot be causation (Causation in point of fact is one form of correlation, and in this case it is clear that when your side wastes its VALUABLE casting slots on a caster that can do nothing other than "try to be smart," then you are going to lose).


You would never pop warlords in cities likely to produce a Predictamancer if a caster popped, and if for some reason a Predictamancer did pop you would try everything to get rid of them.

You don't see how having a Predictamancer which can do nothing other than be smart would be at all inferior to having a Mathamancer which can also be smart and calculate the odds about a large number of problems? The fact that Faq listened to its Predictamancer (making predictions about things she had no way of knowing; like what times outsiders would be in a position to compromise one of Faq's cities) had any positive effect either implies: Predictamancers are supercomputers (your best case scenario) or they have the ability to tease out samples of the future.

Predictamancers have consistently shown that they can give you examples of what will happen, but start to have problems when you ask "What should I do about it?" So if they were really so smart as to predict things with multiple independent causal variables and who knows how many exigencies; why is it that they have problems winnowing down the exigencies to something actionable, and yet can very often predict the outcome (amidst a sea of causal factors) with startling accuracy?


Predictamancers can tell you what problems you have; Mathamancers can tell you what your chances of dealing with a problem are; everyone else provides solutions.

MTF

[TazTheTerrible]

The thing is though that predictamancers can tell you about problems you're going to have, which you might not even be aware of yet. Even if certain future events are immutable, the fact that everything around them (supposedly) IS mutable makes knowledge of these events potentially very useful, to the point where you don't just have to account for certain events taking place, you can even reliable count on them happening if they really are Fated events.

I think we should take a bit of a step back here and consider for a moment what we're all arguing rather than try to simply attack other people's latest posts. I mean what are we still talking about here, fundamentally?

[Nnelg]

Our sample size has nothing to do with the fact that Predictamancers having zero actionable intelligence (According to you: The only thing Predictamancers have that isn't Fate awareness is the ability to make educated guesses; This is something which all intelligent people can do); You can't fight Fate so why does it matter if you know about it?

Instead of trying to avoid the ambush you are Fated to have, you can tell your troops to be ready for it. Instead of futilely trying to stop the fall of your side, you can pop an heir and take measures to make certain that she's not in the capitol when it falls. Instead of requiring your future employers to turn you forcefully, (when you know they will succeed) you can go willingly to possibly spare the lives of your friends and family.

Just because you can't change Fated events, doesn't mean that intelligence isn't actionable. Predictamancy usually doesn't specify the details, so you can still do whatever you can to change them. Besides, while anyone can make an educated guess, only with Predictamancy can you be educated about Fate.

Predictamancers have consistently shown that they can give you examples of what will happen, but start to have problems when you ask "What should I do about it?"

Not really. Both of our examples of Predictamancers (Delphie and Marie) also gave good advice about what to do. It's just that the advice took the form of "What should I do to make sure this happened in the best (or least painful) way possible?", rather than "What should I do to prevent this?".

Predictamancers can tell you what problems you have; Mathamancers can tell you what your chances of dealing with a problem are; everyone else provides solutions.

Yep. That's pretty much how it works, in a nutshell. All three of these are useful, but in different ways.

I think we should take a bit of a step back here and consider for a moment what we're all arguing rather than try to simply attack other people's latest posts. I mean what are we still talking about here, fundamentally?

Well, IIRC at the point mantimeforgot joined in, I was arguing against the notion that Predictamancers just had a 'feel' for what might happen in the future, which got stronger, more detailed, and more accurate as the Predicted event drew closer.

It was my position that a Prediction consisted of a single, infallible packet of data from the future, for instance "Croakamancer Wanda Firebaugh will enter the service of Olive Garden, Chief Caster of Haffaton". The simplest explanation for any details that emerge between the time of the original Prediction and the time of the Predicted event, such as "Haffaton is going to destroy Goodminton to get at Wanda", is (in my mind) logical deduction and educated guesses. For example:

• Wanda will enter Haffaton's service IF AND ONLY IF she will turn willingly OR Haffaton will destroy Goodminton to get at her.
• Wanda will enter Haffaton's service.
• Wanda will NOT turn willingly.
• THEREFORE Haffaton will destroy Goodminton to get at her.

Here, the only thing that was Predicted by magic is in bold. (The educated guess is in italics.) Since we already know that Predictamancers can do this, (anyone of decent intelligence can) but we didn't know if Predictions got stronger/more accurate over time, I invoked Occam's Razor to conclude that it's more likely that they don't.

But then mantimeforgot claimed my use of Occam's Razor was invalid, and I've been defending my argument ever since.


Now I'm pretty sure this is all one big misunderstanding. It seems like he thinks I think something I don't actually think at all, and I'm having a hard time explaining it to him...

[mantimeforgot]

Jillian already told us that Predictamancer's do not provide actionable intelligence; she has told us this on multiple occasions. If a Predictamancer tells you there is an ambush up ahead, then the chances are just as good you walk into it because you were told about it and went looking for it as it is you amble on blindly and stumble into an ambush. They don't tell you what to do about the ambush once it happens or where it would be best to suffer the ambush (on the road or out in the bush).

I can get useful advice on what to do about stuff from anyone. I don't need someone who can see immutable events to do that. I have already admitted that knowing the specific language of what immutable events are exactly would be somewhat useful, but that would not at all make up for the fact that they can do nothing else that anyone with intelligence can do.


If Predictamancers cannot get any sense of the future (at all) outside of Fated events, then they are a net detriment to any side they are on. You are far better off with a Mathamancer or Luckamancer who is smart, can deduce what events/people are fated, and can provide either actionable intelligence or solutions for problems.

MTF