Amendments to the Code of Hermes

[Wanderer]

@Fruny

@Wanderer

The former establishes that the crime and its consequences are not shielded by the Code; the latter that a convicted felon is an outlaw with no legal protection whatsoever and a death sentence.

I disagree: both sentences are based on the very same precondition - that the Oath be broken. From that point on, the oath breaker is no longer a member of the Order. There is no discussion of investigation, conviction or Tribunal clemency. There only is a "crime" because there is a breach of the Oath.

That Tribunal may hand out a lesser punishment is not enshrined in the Code (except in that you must abide by Tribunal decisions, which establishes the Peripheral Code). If you can show he broke the Oath, any action you take is already justified as far as your own Oath is concerned. And that is "forfeit immunity".

Except that forfeit immunity implies the concept of proportionality. By the way, that's why I wrote of "crimes" and not "criminal", in the Revised Code's draft. Since it's supposed to be applied on the spot, you can safely override the criminal's rights only in a way which is proportionate to his crimes. Only a Tribunal can rule that a convicted crminal is stripped of any rights whatsoever. The average Tribunal or Quaesitor isn't going to be sympathetic at summary killing another magus because he stole some vis.

I do realize that my position isn't unassailable (in particular, if Tribunal did hand out a lesser punishment, then your victim is still a member of the Order and thus protected by the code).

Indeed. That's why you need separate provisions for establishing forfeit immunity, investigative and judicial powers, and casting out as (extreme default) penalty.

While the Oath may benefit from amendments, I don't think it should be drafted like a lawyerly document, with weaselly cop-outs, hedges and exceptions.

I'm fairly confident that the latest draft in particular doesn't look so lawyerly, even if it adds some novelty provisions and incorporates some innovations from Peripheral Code.

At the very least, it would be a sin, and one (since I know you're rather sensitive to such issues) recognized by christians and non-christians alike, right along with kin-slaying.

You're right, of course, but again this confirmes my point. In the ArM universe, a sin being punished during the sinner's lifespan is a rather special occurrence, which requires some kind of powerful supernatural creature from any of the four realms taking personal outrage and attention at your transgressions and taking law enforcement in its hands, so to speak (in OOC terms, it needs the SG to apply fiat).

And I do believe the two RoP books together do cover such issues - though RoP:M or RoP:F might treat the topic more directly.

Noble's Parma, but IIRC, no specific mention of Divine or Infernal automatic punishment of oath-breaking is mentioned in either book. It may certainly happen, but as I said, it is an occasional, special occurrence, which needs the specific attention of a saint, angel, or demon (or spirit or fae lord), not an automatic consequence.

It may indeed be that oathbreaking will get greater coverage in RoP: M or RoP: F, since typically oaths bring more importance to those Powers.

Now, one thing you might want to address (and I think the topic was raised on the Berklist) is whether it is a violation of the Oath (re meddling with mundanes) to bring a mundane suit against another magus...

Thanks for bringing the topic to my attention. Well, I think that bringing a mundane suit against another magus would be a most serious violation of the Code, since a) magi are forbidden to meddle with mundanes and endanger the peace and dignity of their sodales b) in the most serious cases, it would be endangerment of another magus c) magi are forbidden to make themselves the servants of mundanes, and bringing a suit in a mundane court against another magus is just that. At the very most, the local Tribunal would have to rule and allow mundane arbitrage, for that being legal, and actions from mundanes should not endanger the mages in the losing side.

On a more general issue, the case of a mage aiding and abetting an authority external to the Order against another mage would be a typical case of disloyalty towards the Order, which should be absolutely forbidden by the spirit of the Code, beyond what is allowed by certamen, Wizard War, mundane spying, and normal magely politicking. The only issue is whether a specific provision would have to exist in the Code against this. I believe it should not, but please discuss.