Amendments to the Code of Hermes

Games Discussion Ars Magica
21

Let's be clear- I never said they would form a nation, nor had, but that "...the Fae are a "whole", almost a foreign nation, and one on a par with the Hermetic Order." The nation thing meant as an analogy, not literally. And altho' I mis-stated by implying that the fae as a whole might join together, across all faerie-land, there are within faerie structured coalitions that exist- courts, or groups that see themselves related by location- the fae of a forest, or a clan that inhabits a river, whatever, and they, certainly, could act in unison and perhaps have larger influence over their neighboring fae.

To clarify the analogy, killing one fae does not (typically!) trigger "the wrath of the fae", any more than killing one foreign citizen, or a score, triggers a war with a foreign nation. But constant harrassment might well cause a Court, Selidhe or Un-, or the combined fae denizens of a given location- a forest, a valley, whatever - to agree in their animosity and concentrate their vengeance against those they see as responsible- mankind in general, and/or a Covenant or the Order specifically.

A mage could go all his life killing fae wantonly and never "incur the wrath of the fae", but if one area or group - however the fae define that - takes too much of a beating, they may well rise in their own common defense. That's what turns an enchanted forest into a truly dangerous place, and that's what the Order doesn't want to happen.

22

I have always considered the sections about mundanes, the Fay and the infernal as sub clauses which identify specific areas of concern . The overriding feature of the Oath of which these areas are sub clauses is
"I will not endanger the order through my actions" I submit if you go and poke a dragon which then starts rampaging across europe it will not save you that there is no clause about not bothering creatures of magic the tribunal will march you.
Likewise if you exterminate all the magical spirits of an area and cause problems for the order when a bigger magical spirit objects you have still 'endangered the order' and if you ahve damaged the vis sources endangered the magical power of your sodali's.
The oath is a fairly sort document with a lot of interpretation unless you are going to turn it into a multi volume document (the periphrel code) there are always going to be loopholes and areas which could be exploited

23

This is all very true and indeed is the kind of judicial standard I would expect the Order to apply. I just contend that the same standard would be proper and necessary with magical creatures, hence I would rewrite the faerie privision to apply to magical beiings as well.

Yes, but I would point out the kind of provisions we have been discussing as additions or amendments to the Code are fairly broad in scope and hopefully wording as well: dealings with magical creatures, dealings with mundanes, protection of sources of vis, certamen, demons, apparentices.

24

Well, I am a bit late to this party but I have strong ideas on the subject so hey, I'll put 'em out there. Additions are in bold, deletions are in [bracketed italics]

Note that stealing books and vis and stuff are unambiguously not covered by my version of the Code. The reason that cries of "deprivation of magical resources" seem extremely whiny and petty to me. The rest of this paragraph is about the highest of the high crimes, homicide and wrecking somebody's Gift. If there is stuff in the Code about property crimes, I believe it belongs somewhere else. I think robbery and burglary are covered by the "I will not endanger the Order" clause anyway; short of that, I doubt Tribunals and Quaesitores want every dispute over an unattended pawn of vis to escalate to the level of a High Crime. Property rights would be much more logically covered in the Peripheral Code IMO.

The bit about "no retribution" for Wizard's war is, officially, nonsense. It is OK in 5th to declare Wizard's War for purposes of vengeance, so the meaning is clearer without that unenforceable clause.

Whether I use my vote prudently or not is none of the Quaesitores' damned business.

Even if mundanes are capable of bringing ruin to the Order, I seriously doubt magi would be willing to admit that. The faerie thing I see as part of the "I will not endanger the Order through my actions". Demons are extra bad, mundanes do not seem so bad (but really they're a bucketful of trouble), so those make sense to call out explicitly. But faeries? Really if the point is not to make trouble for other magi, that's already covered by the first sentence.

Added sanctum rights, and removed the loophole that prying into a magus's affairs without using magic was OK. And if there is a way to scry without using magic, I am unaware of it.

Big change here: apprentice has to swear to the Code before he gets any training. Seriously, do you think the Order would be OK with the possibility of a fully-trained wizard passing his Gauntlet and then saying, "Nah, I don't want to swear to your stupid Code, I will just take my training and go on a demon-assisted killing spree. Thanks for the education!" Seriously, making apprentices bound by the Code has all sorts of benefits, not least of which being you cannot play games like have your apprentice become a court wizard or spy on another magus or whatever.

Anyway, that's what I would do. As they say on the Berklist, Your Mileage May Vary (what works for me may not work for you, and vice versa).

1 Like
25

While I may agree that bickering about every little pawn of vis may be whiny and petty, and that harming to the Gift should be kept separate from theft of magical resources, I think that the average magus would want some form of explicit prohibition for gross theft or vandalism of major magical resources. Moreover, I do want a mention in the revised code for prohibition of harming magical sites, and your appraoch would be in contrast with this. Proabably two separate clausles is the best approach.

While I agree about the point above, I do think that just mentioning the destruction of the Gift per se is too restrictive. Almost as serious to a mage are mutilations of the Gift, i.e. causing serious loss of one's Arts, arcane abilities, loss of important Hermetic, Supernatural or Major Virtues, causing General or Hermetic Flaws that severely hamper one's ability to use or study magic. While I agree that property damage is a crime of a whole different degree, I do think such things are still High crimes of the same highest degree as slaying and should be covered by this clausle.

I do propose something like: "I will not harm or attempt to harm the magical abilities of a member of the Order" for damage to the Gift,

and "I will not steal or ruin the magical resources of a member of the order, nor I will harm the well-springs of magic, and thereby cause my sodales to be diminished by their loss", for property damage.

I wholeheartedly agree on both points.

I think a separate clausle for non-diabolic supernatural creatures may still be appropriate, given their frequency and importance in the setting. The no-endangerment clausle is a catchall.

This, too, seems like a good rewrite, save I would add a clausle to legalize investigations.

"I will not scry upon members of the Order, nor shall I spy into their affairs or intrude into their domains. If I break this Oath, I ask my sodales to reveal my crimes and judge them by Tribunal".

As for apprentices, I think the best thing is a rewrite of the clausle, in order to close loopholes:

"I will train apprentices to be worthy members of the Order. Any apprentice of mine will uphold the Code and swear to it when they complete their training".

1 Like
26

I think that maybe at this point in the discussion, we may try to see how a revised Code might look like:

"I swear my everlasting loyalty to the Order of Hermes and its members. I will not harm nor attempt to harm the magical abilities of any member of the Order. I will not slay nor attempt to slay any member of the Order, except in justly executed and properly declared Wizard War. I understand that Wizard War is an open conflict between two magi, who may slay each other without breaking this oath. I will respect a properly waged certamen as a peaceful resolution of disputes with my sodales, and I will abide by its results. I will not steal or waste the magical resources of any member of the Order, nor I will harm sources of magic, and thereby cause my sodales to be diminished by their loss. I will abide by the decisions made by fair vote at Tribunal. I will have one vote at Tribunal and I will respect as equal the votes of all others at Tribunal. I will not endanger the Order through my actions. Nor I will meddle with the affairs of mundanes and thereby harm the peace or dignity of my sodales, or degrade myself by entering into their service. I will not deal with devils, lest I imperil my soul and the souls of my sodales as well. I will not molest the faeries or magical creatures, nor provoke the Divine, and thereby bring their wrath upon my sodales. I will not scry upon members of the Order, nor shall I pry into their affairs or intrude into their domains. I will train apprentices who will swear to this Code and be worthy to be members of the Order, and should any of them turn against the Order and my sodales I will do my best to strike them down and bring them to justice. No apprentice of mine shall begin his training until he first swears to uphold this Code. I understand that a duly conducted investigation by magi so empowered by Tribunal does not constitute prying into my affairs, and should I break this Oath, I ask my sodales to search and reveal my crimes and deliver their judgement, leaving my mind inviolate. I request that should I break this Oath, I be cast out of the Order. If I am cast out, I ask my sodales to find me and slay me that my life may not continue in degradation and infamy. The enemies of the Order are my enemies. The friends of the Order are my friends. The allies of the Order are my allies. Let us work as one and grow strong".

How it feels ? I wish to look like something that might conceivably be passed by Grand Tribunal should Transationalists become dominant in the Order.

27

Well, it doesn't flow right. Needs to be edited by someone with more artistic skill than myself :slight_smile:

I like Giralon's point about apprentices, and like his phrasing better - "No apprentice of mine shall begin his training" is a good phrasing.

I also like "pry" or "peer" over "spy".

More generally, I think quaesitors will receive greater powers as part of the deal that has them not vetoing the whole thing. :slight_smile: It goes well with the Transitionalist thingie. Accordingly, I think the clause saying "If I break this Oath, I ask my sodales to reveal my crimes and judge them by Tribunal." should be re-phrased to allow them to use investigative magic and to judge - not just a Tribunal.

28

If that is what you are looking for, then I think you are on the right track.

:bulb: I think I can see a big difference between you and me with regard to what we think the Code should be. It seems to me that you are looking for a Code that will be a specific set of strict rules that magi can live by and that will govern their behavior. That is, I believe you want a Code that will be the main day-to-day law of the Order.

What I am looking for is a Code that spells out the general structure and principles for the Order's legal system: a Code that is more like a Magna Carta or Constitution. For me, I want a Code that is general (some would say vague) and simple, with few exceptions and qualifications. If that is not specific enough to decide any actual case, then I am OK with that; the details would be left to the Peripheral Code. From an out-of-game perspective this allows individual Troupes to vary how strict or loose is law enforcement in their games. However it is harder to play because the players have to decide on what is legal and what is not.

:bulb: Hmm, I don't have my books handy but maybe that distinction can be part of the Traditionalist/Transitionalist debate in your game?

29

Indubitably. I have no compunction in acknowledging that my writing skill is rather dry and analytical, not artistic (even worse in English since it's not my native language). I heartily welcome any suggestion to improve my style.

Hmm, trying to combine my approach and mine "I will train apprentices who will swear to this Code and be worthy to be members of the Order. No apprentice of mine shall begin his training until he first swears to uphold this Code".

(personally, I find the obligation of a parens to lead the hunt to Marched magi a useless show that should be removed from the Code.)

OK.

I thought that the clausle obviously allowed investigative magic by the "reveal my crimes" bit. Would it be better to say "If I break this Oath, I ask my sodales to search and reveal my crimes and deliver their judgement". Or do you deem necessary an explicit reference to investigative magic, such as "scry my crimes" ?

30

I confess your point leaves me more than a little confused. It seemed to me that the kind of revision I was trying to concoct would keep the "Constitution" nature of the Code, and no provision we have been discussing would be excessively specific or strict (although I was indeed looking to fix some loopholes).

31

'Mess' has to go....Doesn't sound...right.

32

"meddle" would be much more appropriate.

33

It delivered the sense of incompetent interference that explodes in the face of your brethren. But we can change it to "meddle", as Boxer suggested. The canon "inteference" is just too restrictive, it may open the door to malicious or pigheaded political persecution of harmless dealings with mundanes. Loosening up the dealings with mundanes (both in the sense of allowing harmless commerce and of keeping magical/faerie sites and sources of vis safe from the Dominion) is just one of the main good selling points the Transationalist movement has.

34

"Meddle" is definitely better.

Seems fine.

I think it's a nice, colorful addition to the Code, emphasizing the importance of upholding the Code. I don't see it as enforceable, but it is certainly should be kept as a declaratory statement.

I think what is needed is giving rights to quaesitors. The Order has them, the Code doesn't. Just like we inserted Certamen into the Code, so too we should insert quaesitors.

Perhaps add "I realize that a duly conducted quaesitorial investigation does not constitute prying into my affairs, and should I break this Oath...".

35

I'm not just going to let any and all quasitores scan my brain with Mentem magic. You all know how dangerous that stuff is, that it often leaves permanent marks and I don't even want to begin exploring botches.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Just a reminder to you all that quasitores are often more political, vile, demonic and powerlusting than the average magus, whom is already knee deep in all that.

36

'Ol Ben was considerably after our time period Paris :wink:

But yeah, nosey officious bureaucratic repressive Quesitors! Little more than self-righteous thugs and if truth be told a House of hypocritical criminals in their own right.

Let's unearth their long buried dark secret of human sacrifice and betrayal of House Diedne for mere political expediency I say! :smiley:

37

Then I would at least ask to change the wording from "I will be the first" to "I will do my best". If I am an Intellego specialist, I certainly be quite useful to track the rogue down, but it is asinine that I'm expected to go on the hunt first, when dozens of Hoplite combat specialists are so much more qualified than me to defeat and slay him.

I would shun to make an explicit reference to Quaesitors as a House in the Code. So as not to enshrine a privilege in the Code. I would instead talk of "I realize that a duly conducted investigation by magi so empowered by Tribunal does not constitute prying into my affairs..." and let the Great Tribunal rule that House Quaesitor is so empowered as a standing rule. It makes much simpler to revise the judicial powers of the House if need surfaces. The fiasco of House Tremere failed bid for power should have thought the danger of giving too much power to one House.

Also for the reasons Paris Sophia so aply reminds here

By the way, I would ensure that Quaesitorial powers are not abused by inserting an absolute forbiddance about mind-reading. if we enshrine permission for investigative magic, a safeguard is inserted against mind-reading. Sorry if it feels too specific a clausle. Hmm, tentatively, "I realize that a duly conducted investigation by magi so empowered by Tribunal does not constitute prying into my affairs, and should I break the Code, I ask my sodales to search and reveal my crimes and deliver their judgement, leaving my mind inviolate".

I'm 150% with you on this, and I think the average magus would be quite wary to grant this power. Intruding in Sanctums is one thing, but mind-reading is just too tyrannical. Although it is on the Transationalist agenda, it is the most extreme and controversial point, and I think we can safely assume that any compromise that passes the revision would expunge it.

38

There is no House Quaesitor. In many tribunals Guernicus magi aren't given much respect and may not have any authority to conduct investigations. For example, in the Rhine the Chief Quesitor isn't a Guarnicus, and the tribunal has only two week magi of that house; I doubt he will be inclined to approve at least one of them as the Tribunal's official investigator of a certain case.

But I do agree with your provision in general - it is best to allow Tribunal-appointed investigators rather than just generally allowing quasitors.

39

Let me ask this question, then. Does the Code need to be complete - does it need to spell out all of the major principles of Hermetic law? My position is no -- that the Code should concentrate on major issues and not all of those.

In Houses of Hermes: True Lineages, the Guernicus chapter discusses a concept called "forfeit immunity--" that a magus who breaks the Code forfeits the protection of the Code with regard to that crime. So, for instance, if a magus were to simply murder another magus (outside Wizard's War) then anyone who knew about it could just kill him in retaliation because in breaking the Code, the murderer lost the protection of the Code. What I like about that is that it gives permission for magi to respond to an emergency if they have to, without waiting seven years for the next Tribunal. (However I am sure you can see how it would be important to show some evidence why you took the law into your own hands, or else someone might do the same thing to you!)

The way I imagine forfeit immunity working, it automatically creates exceptions like "it's OK to kill a wizard in self-defense" or "it's OK to scry on someone who is dealing with demons." So powers for law enforcement do not need to specifically be written into the Code.

40

Some comments:

Good and necessary addition.

This was never part of the Code before Fifth Edition. It was in the Fifth Edition that the first clause of the Code, "I will not deprive a member of the Order of his magical power," was expanded to mean "magical resources."

Although I wholeheartedly agree that the Order would not say it's OK to steal other magi's stuff, somehow I don't like this being part of the main Code. I think it is because I do not want Tribunal meetings in my game to bog down into lots of property disputes. With magi being as far apart and as secretive as they are, and all of them wanting as much vis and as many books as they can get, I think it would be common for wizards to accuse one another of thievery.

The way I always handled this in my game was below the Tribunal level: certamen or Wizard's War. If this is written into the Code then what is to prevent someone from saying, "I insist this pile of vis I found next to your covenant is rightfully mine, and I refuse to agree to certamen because certamen cannot be used to justify your breaking the Code by taking my vis from me. We will resolve this matter at Tribunal five years hence."

For isolated cases, I think certamen and Wizard's War work better. If someone is a habitual thief, then he can be charged under the "endangering the Order" clause.

This needs some work because strictly speaking, it could be against the Code to use vis!

I don't think magi would agree to this restriction. Sometimes it could be necessary to harm a "source of magic," say by collapsing the roof of a dragon's cave even though there are vis sources in the cave.

I don't think this is necessary because of forfeit immunity, as explained in Houses of Hermes: True Lineages.

This contradicts the Fifth Edition principle of forfeit immunity; I like forfeit immunity.