1224.2b: The Trials of Duncan and Faileas

The Tribunal votes on Duncan, and it's almost unanimous: 65 magi call for his death, 3 vote that he should be spared.

The Tribunal then moves on to the question of Faileas's culpability in Duncan's fall from grace.

"If Faileas is alive, he's an infernalist who took the form of apprentice. If he's enduring a Twilight episode, with his body out of existence, he clearly didn't leave adequate instructions to the magi on what to do should he disappear. In my opinion, we cannot vote to convict until and if at some point Faileas returns. I would support a resolution that Faileas, should he reappear be remanded to a Hoplite and a Tribunal convened immediately, but a vote to March him, certainly not without the right to defend himself. Duncan has no rights under the code, and being an infernalist isn't eligible for the Join or Die alternative."
Code of Hermes roll of 6.

Aodhan looks a bit confused at Talia's explanation. "Why can't they just kill him? Plenty of Marches are done in absentia...after all what magus would attend a Tribunal that they thought they could be Marched in?"

"You mean as we just did for Duncan? But I ask you, what is the evidence that Faileas is a diabolist? That his apprentice was one? What if Faileas is having a Twilight episode, and his body disappeared and Duncan took the opportunity to study the infernal? No, the only evidence that Faileas might be a diabolist is Duncan. And what better way to hide his genesis than to implicate a magus who cannot defend himself. I don't believe any matters of fact have been entered into the record."

What evidence? His Apprentice is a convicted diabolist. Faileas is responsible for his apprentice's actions. Everyone can play the what if game. What if Faileas, wanting to get his last apprentice past gauntlet, took a shortcut and turned to the infernal? It sounds as plausible as the other.

Thank you for proving my point. All we can do is ask what if. What we know is that Duncan is an infernalist, and we know that there was a period of a few years where neither Duncan and Faileas were seen together, it was always one or the other. And we know, that Duncan did something infernal. We can infer, based on the testimony of the elders of Insula Canaria that the period of time where Duncan and Faileas where never seen together began after some lab accident. That is a strong circumstantial case for what, exactly? My point, is all we can do is convict Faileas on conjecture and what if. If Faileas is in Twilight and returns, it will be noticeable that he was in Twilight. But whoa be to any magus who votes to convict, lest their sodales get the idea that they might neutralize enemies in twilight with accusations of diabolism on flimsy evidence. What I am not saying is to give Faileas a free pass, if he returns, his involvement needs to be further investigated, but if he doesn't, this is moot.

So a master in twilight has no responsibility for his apprentice's actions? Donnchadh turns to Whitburh for conformation.

"I did not say that, and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. Talia thinks to herself, other things, I don't have a problem with, and leers at Donnchadh for a moment, before returning to the task at hand. "Again, I'm not saying give him a free pass, but I daresay he should have a chance to defend himself before we vote to March him. It may very well be that Faileas can tell us something about Duncan. Keep in mind that Faileas was a reputed Creo Vim specialist. If people just start shooting or chasing him down, he'll just send himself into Final Twilight, and we'll lose whatever information we could acquire about Duncan. But if Faileas were to attempt to engage in defeating Duncan, I would be inclined to levy a vis fine against him, not coming from Insula Canaria, but from his own salary, rather than death on sight."

Donnchadh ignores Talia and waits on Whitburh's answer.

Whitburh ponders for a couple of minutes before she finally answers. [color=red]"The Code has been interpreted that a master has full responsibility for his apprentice's actions, since the apprentice is generally considered in some ways to be an extension of the Magus. However, I cannot recall an example where a master has entered Twilight, during which time the apprentice initiated actions which would bring ruin on his master if not the Order. This would be something for the Tribunal to rule on, if it comes to that."

Yet if Faileas came out of Twilight, we do know he would be fully responsible for his apprentice's actions even though they happened while the master was in twilight. Is that right or not? ((Directed to Whitburh.))

"I would stipulate to that. But, and of course there is a but! I would have to say that the actions he undertakes afterwards would mitigate his responsibility. If he began hunting Duncan upon his return from Twilight that would mitigate his responsibility and might leave him with a fine of vis, rather than being Marched. The Master is always responsible, but when he is unavailable due to Twilight, he has no way to stop his apprentice, so the only way we can measure whether he should die or not is based on what Faileas does upon his return."

The debate on the question of Faileas takes longer than most people anticipated. It eventually gets tabled until the next Meeting of the Loch Leglean Tribunal in 1231 when there is no clear majority vote (41 voting to absolve him of responsibility for Duncan's crimes, 20 voting to condemn him, and 32 voting to defer judgment until such time as Faileas's fate can be determined, with five abstentions or not present).