I guess he made a mistake (in fact, quite a few). From his point of view, he "bent the law" for the common good and for Alicia's own good. He wasn't expecting Alicia to notice, and when she did he tried to stall and wasn't expecting her to react as she did, nor to be able to pack that punch with the vis and a Clenching Grasp. That's the reason why House Quaesitor did not press for a harsher punishment. Their own man was not blameless, so any heavy handed punishment would be seen as abuse of their position and cronyism on their part.
I think these situations happen a lot in real life, and are a source of a fair number of deaths among the police and/or those that get shot by them and then turn out to be innocent. The survivor always gets a lot of flak from the public opinion as a murderer, when he's often just a scared and armed person in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Nothing helpful, I just wanted to say I really like the situation ezzelino had set up. It's really nice to see something where no one is clearly right nor clearly wrong in entirety, and also where the outcome could be quite severe. This would be fun to play. Bravo.
In what direct way does having an Arcane Connection deprive a magus of magical power?
It certainly goes to intent, but intent and action are not the same. You can use the AC to scry (a Marching offense itself that does not deprive of magic power), to heal, or simply as a threat against Wizard's War.
So already in your opening post you acknowledge, that the position you later express about the CoH-legality of claiming or collecting Arcane Connections to Hermetic magi is not shared in some ArM books. To show that their collecting is not seen universally as a High Crime (in the sense of HoH:TL p.46), I can add TMRE p.128 and A&A p.72.
Still, you do not accept other readings:
Despite your plea to ignore it, I wish to quote for once a really relevant text:
And that clarifies, that a decision on this topic is meant to be made per Tribunal and per campaign. No need to get all excited about it, even if you have a strong opinion here.
Thanks for the pointers, which, in fact, support my point: that collecting Arcane connections to a magus is deprivation of magical power. Of course, it's not a High Crime if it's done with the consent of the magus (all other posters understood this implicit assumption, I'm sorry it wasn't clear to you).
In TMRE p.128 we read that, as part of an Initiation in the Fraternity of Samos the fraternity collects a lock of hair from him and a signature. It seems fairly obvious that this is done with his full knowledge and consent, and indeed it counts as an Ordeal: " This is similar to the various Flaws relating to Flawed Parma Magica and Limited Magic Resistance, and constitutes an Ordeal for Initiation."
As for A&A p.72, I searched the page for "Arcane" but could not find a single instance. We do find a note about collecting sympathetic connections (which are a very different beast, since they are useless without Arcane Connections), and in particular nativity horoscopes: collecting the information necessary to create one is "tantamount to declaring Wizard’s War, since there is no honest reason for needing this information without the consent of the target."
Because it effectively creates a breach in his Parma: his (defensive) magical puissance is reduced, just as if you had stolen from him a protective amulet.
Declaring Wizard's War is certainly very rude, but it isn't a violation of the Code.
The whole 'arcane connection = deprivation' is definitely where this case enters shaky grounds. The fact that she attacked a quaesitor who was discharging his duties, and the fact that the case has diabolism involved (even if she's not the prime suspect) is going to make a lot of magi jumpy. Personally I'd expect this one to end in a marching.
Note that it is entirely true that a quaesitor doesn't have special protection from the law, but it is equally true that the outcome of tribunal isn't determined by a computer, but by the politicking of magi. The fact that he was conducting his duty is going to influence peoples' decisions, even if it's not technically relevant to the case as Alicia claims.
It also comes down to how expendable Alicia is. Does she have strong allies? Is she doing something important? If no, marching her suddenly seems much more likely; examples have to be made, after all.
So you agree that it wasn't a High Crime, which is also corroborated by the explanation of Deprivation of Magical Power on HoH:TL p. 46.
In that case your Tribunal would not let pass Alicia's High Crime (killing a Quaesitor), perpetrated to retrieve the AC, with some light punishment (a few seasons of work and some vis). Reread
Even the case against Gravis AD 884 (HoH:TL p.47, punished by the death of his familiar) shows a ruling, which at least attempts to keep the Tribunal from plunging into vigilante justice.
Alicia definitely should have been Marched; taking an Arcane Connection is in no way a deprivation of magical power, and even if it were, killing the Quaesitor over it when she could have just destroyed the connection is blatantly excessive. She definitely owes somebody a favor for getting her off the hook like that.
A better defense for Alicia's position would be that taking an Arcane Connection by magic is tantamount to scrying. I might agree with that at Tribunal, but I wouldn't mitigate Alicia's punishment for it because the Quaesitor has investigation immunity while checking her out for crimes, and again, her actions were so blatantly excessive that no reasonable maga would condone such an act on the spot.
I don't really accept that collecting arcane connections to you is depriving you of your arcane power, but even if it did the Quaesitor presented her with a legal reasoning saying he had a right to take the Arcane Connection. If she doesn't accept that reasoning (and she may be right), the place to argue that is at tribunal. Instead she acted rashly, and took the life of a Quaesitor in good standing. She should be Marched.
I also question the interpretation that taking an arcane connection without the consent of the magus = "an immediate and deadly threat". While the threat is certainly present, it is neither "immediate" nor necessarily deadly. The analogy of someone putting a gun to your head is very much overstating the threat. My previous analogy of stealing someone's house keys was not strong enough, but the gun analogy is simply too strong.
I searched for a better analogy and finally found one. It is akin to me having a wifi-enabled pace maker and finding out that someone stole the access information to it. That person could use that info to track me, obtain information about my health, and potentially even cause my death by messing with its settings. It is certainly a threat to my privacy and health. I would certainly feel threathened and violated. Would it justify my murdering him? I think not. I sure would inform the authorities and my friends, so that if I suddenly die of a heart attack they pursue this as a potential murder. I would also try to retrieve the information (or render it unusable) by almost any mean, but that does not include murdering the thief.
Because, in the end, that's what Alicia did. Her response was disproportional to the threat. Yes, the taking of the arcane connection is tantamount (i.e. almost equal to) declaring Wizard's War. But what happens when someone declares Wizard's War? Is the magus justified in immediately killing the declaring magus? Nope, there is a one-month period during which neither of the parties can injure the other without breaking the Code.
So I stand by my opinion that Alicia should have been Marched. She commited a High Crime (killing another magus, the ultimate crime) in answer to something that is not specifically defined as a crime (taking an AC without consent), but rather something seen as a declaration of Wizard's War (which in itself is not a crime).
Let me try to put it plainly.
If you take vis from me without my consent, it's a High Crime. If I donate it to you, it isn't.
If you take a magical item from me without my consent, it's a High Crime. If I sell it to you, it isn't.
If you take an arcane connection from me without my consent, it's a High Crime. If I agreed that the winner of a certamen would gain it, and you fairly win that certamen, it isn't.
In the case of Alicia, Carolus took a a connection from her without her consent, exploiting a vulnerability that certamen had created. Ergo, it's a High crime.
Maybe it's clearer now?
Reread :
That's what happened. Alicia wasn't acquitted. She was punished. Simply, not marched.
You aptly quote the case of Gravis. Gravis slays anothe magus, who "had cast a spell that made Gravis’s voice sound like a little girl’s, to the great mirth of all others present." He is punished with the loss of his familiar. Note that the other magus had not committed any crime whatsoever, and he posed absolutely no threat to Gravis. In contrast, Alicia had just been deprived of magical power, and in a way that did put her life at potential risk. Should she get a punishment harsher than that of Gravis, or even as harsh?
But let's examine the next case, that of Dominicus of Jerbiton, whom Gravis attempts to slay (outside of a Wizard's war, but following serious provocation) and failing to do so because Dominicus had taken powerful protections fully expecting the confrontation to be the result of his own (gratuitous provocation). One following your logic would argue that, even though Gravis had committed a high crime by attempting to slay Dominicus, since Dominicus was not in danger he should simply have brought the thing to Tribunal; and so by slaying another magus Dominicus committed a High Crime and deserved a March. You know what? He gets acquitted without even a token punishment.
The correct response is
"Certamen. If I win you will return the arcane connection, if I lose, you have my full permission to retain it undisputed until the next tribunal."
Admittedly you'll end up tweaking the terms, but that's the starting point. Not "Murder"
I would modify it slighly. Assume you find someone whom you have invited at your home rummaging through your stuff and now holding the only remote control of your pacemaker. You ask him to please return it to you immediately, and he refuses. You shoot him. In many, if not most countries you'll be acquitted; in virtually all others you'll get off with a far, far more lenient punishment than what you'd get for killing him in cold blood.
Taking an AC without consent is not specifically defined as a crime, just like stealing a protective amulet is not specifically defined as a crime. That's because it succeeds on a very simple and clear test showing it is Deprivation of Magical Power: it reduces the magical puissance of the magus whose AC has been taken. I don't think anyone can dispute that -- it's even treated as an Ordeal on par with Weak Parma Magica! The fact that it's a loss that threatens further danger, only adds to the gravity of the act and increases justification for immediate action being taken.
Now, everyone agreed that her reaction was disproportional. The point is: how disproportional? If she had some justification, she should be punished (as she was) but not Marched. Frankly, I can't believe that this should be punished more severely than a magus killing another magus who'd only magically changed (briefly) the pitch of his voice!
Lucky Alicia, her Tribunal was not nearly as bloodthirsty as the lot of you
I disagree. If someone steals your stuff, and when you ask it back, he tells you "let's toss a coin: heads I return it immediately, tails I return it in seven years" would you agree to the deal?
OneShot, I fail to see how you read my asking your opinion, and my stating my opinion, as contradictory.
My opinion has always been that taking an AC from a magus diminishes their magical power. Specifically, it reduces the effectiveness of their parma, so it is an "act that detrimentally affects a magus' ability to use ... [his defensive] magic". In fact, having a group take an arcane connection (and a few sympathetic ones) to you is considered an Ordeal that reduces your magical defenses on par with taking Weak Parma, as you correctly pointed out.
Yes, I do find it surprising that I seem to be the only one on this thread with this opinion. Yes, HP is vague on the subject, which is good for a sourcebook ("Do as you like in your sagas!") but not very useful for a reasoned discussion, which is why I asked everyone to please ignore it (yes, you are the only one who didn't ).
Frankly, however, it seems to me I keep on repeating myself, so I guess I'll focus on other threads for the time being.
Maybe it helps to compare the definition of "Deprivation of Magical Power"
with your statement
You see that obtaining an Arcane Connection to a magus does not affect his ability to use the Parma, but only its effectiveness under certain circumstances? And whether a Tribunal goes that far in its extension of the Code is certainly campaign-specific.
I guess he made a mistake (in fact, quite a few). From his point of view, he "bent the law" for the common good and for Alicia's own good. He wasn't expecting Alicia to notice, and when she did he tried to stall and wasn't expecting her to react as she did, nor to be able to pack that punch with the vis and a Clenching Grasp. That's the reason why House Quaesitor did not press for a harsher punishment. Their own man was not blameless, so any heavy handed punishment would be seen as abuse of their position and cronyism on their part.
).