While I do not think the Code should delve into minor issues, I do think it should spell out all the basic principles of Hermetic law. That's what a well-written Constitution does.
About forfeit immunity, once the Code gets a thorough revision, what would be the matter in adding a provision that explicitly covers it, just like we did for certamen ? Bonisagus and Trianoma, while very clever sages, weren't omniscient, and not all major principles of Hermetic law that are dmonstrably useful and necessary could be directly derived from the wording of the Code. It might be a good move to constitutionalize those that weren't. Moreover, in the setting, any such thorough revision of the Code would likely come through as the result of the Transationalist mindset becoming dominant in the Order. Major issues of that program would be to strenghten judicial enforcement in the Order, liberalize dealings with mundanes, and better protection for sources of vis and aura, and provisions to that scope would be certainly added to the Code.
So far in canon setting, the Traditionalist mindeset has resisted outright revision of the Code and the First Tribunal rulings, but the whole point of this thread is to assume that party has been marginalized, and the floodgates of Code revision opened.
The code draws a lot of its authority from those who swore it the first time: The Founders, who are still very much respected. Changing the oath later on might produce a better wording but robbs it of a lot of authority. That is IMO. However, some day it will have to be revised. I think this will happen when the code known by now has become absurd and unable to sustain paece in Hermetic society.
Changing the code could be a great story arc. Show the players the code's imperfectness. let them take part in secret meetings when a new code is discussed, than let them succed with their interpretationof a new code! This will result in a dramatic change of hermetic history just like the shism war was. And finally they might suffer to see sodales breaking away, not feeling much obliged to follow this new code. This could even lead to an outright war between the fractions. (Neo-Hermetics vs. True-Hermetics)...
Concerning apprentices: Any troup who does not like the idea of their children being snatched away from under their nose, could introduce a new ruling: No child can be claimed as apprentice before becoming five years old. (Or any other age if you like that better...). This gives those who find a gifted child the opportunity to train them in Latin or other abilities before opening the arts. (Well, sort of if youz choose five to be the age...) This way you can plan in advance and can easily avoid another mage claiming your child.
Nonetheless, stealing of magical resources is frowned upon in the present edition's canon Hermetic law, so we have to start from that. While I do heartily agree that harming the Gift and stealing vis should not be covered by the same provision, I do not think the Code should legitimize a free for all on vis, books, and apprentices with only certamens and Wizard's War to make a stopgap. This would enshrine the most powerful magus or covenant to spoil their fellows, and I do not think the average magus would want that.
Moreover, I do absolutely deem necessary a "Guardians of the Forests" provision in the Code that forbids to destroy sources of magic and legitimizes going postal on mundanes to protect them, and not forbidding to steal magical stuff would be contradictory on that.
Then I suppose you picture current Tribunals to be bogged down with property disputes, since the current canon Code punishes property thieving. As a matter of fact, the current "deprive of magical power" is rather more sweeping than the proposed "steal or waste magical resources". So we would go in the direction you want. However, again, I do think the average magus would not want this to be based entirely on the Peripheral Code.
The Revised Code also enshirines certamen as a resolution of disputes, and speaks of "stealing" which implies a good faith somewhat certain property right. No doubt, a mage that maliciously abused that would be punished at the next tribunal, both for refusing certamen and for wasting the Tribunal with a groundless litigation. THAT would be ample ground for the Peripheral Code.
Again, that should happen for the canon code, too, because of the not-deprivation provision. I might be open to debate whether property rights per se do belong in the Code or not, although I'm leaning to the opinion that they do, the average magus would feel more protected this way. I only deem absolutely necessary that the revised Code blesses blowing up mundanes that cut down faerie glens and magical woods.
Indeed. But I sincerely doubt a code of law is well-written that does not make any coverage of property rights for precious and coveted resources.
Point taken. We could say "I will not harm sources of magic that do not endanger the Order", but I was fearful that wording would be too specific and nitpicky. A previous version said "I will not harm sources of magic, nor I will not oppose the efforts of my sodales to protect them, if they do not endanger the Order". Later I thought it the Code might flow better if this was combined with the no-stealing provision and the latter provision dropped, since it is implied in the former (If I am hampering someone that is protecting something, I am harming it).
For various reasons, I absolutely deem necessary that a provision be added to the Code that pledges mages to a Guardians of the Forest agenda. A conservationist agenda with magical sites and legalization of reprisals against mundanes that endanger them, any non-interference pledge made irrelevant, and only having the no-endangerment pledge as a limit. Do you think the previous wording would work better ? I welcome suggestions about the wording, as long as the principle is covered.
A big point of the Transationalist aganda is to strenghten the investigation powers of the quaesitors. This would very likely involve enshrining the forfeit immunity principle in the Code. We may discuss what the most appropriate wording would be like.
Hmm, maybe "I understand that should I break this Code, it does not protect my crimes and duly conducted investigation by magi so empowered by Tribunal does not constitute prying into my affairs" ??
HoH:TL makes a point of explaining that basing the whole of the Quaesitors' investigational powers on forfeit immunity is a delicate, tricky issue, and that as a consequence, Transationalists are seeking to give them a more secure basis and expanded scope.
Forfeit immunity works best to legitimize things like self-defense, defending one's Sanctum, anti-scrying magic, and summary execution of blatant diabolists.
I like it a lot, too, but please kindly explain where the contradiction lies, since I do not see it.
Five is too early. According to the rules, in the first five years of life, people can be taught a rather limited set of Abilities, Latin and other useful stuff to mages like Concentration excluded. So part of the purpose of the ruling (optimizing apprenticeship by reserving some early years to non-magical training) would be defeated.
The key is to change the way an apprentice is recognized, instead of opening the Arts, as long as demonstrably useful stuff to mages is taught.
I fully agree that there should not be a "free for all." I thought the Code worked OK up till now without mentioning property rights but I suppose I wouldn't object to them being spelled out, as long as it's worded carefully.
What comes to my mind is something like this:
"I will not scry upon members of the Order nor pry into their affairs. Nor will I intrude into their sanctuaries or dispossess them of the tools of their Arts."
(I changed the word "domains" to "sanctuaries" to imply a smaller area. "Dispossess" implies they lawfully possess the items in question, and exactly what constitutes a "tool of the Arts" is left to the Peripheral Code but basically it means "magical resources" as we commonly use the term.)
What I like about this is it puts robbery in the same paragraph as scrying, the other crime against a wizard's person. The first paragraph, homicide and ruining someone's Gift/Arts/powers, constitutes a crime against the Order.
Hide the Mind’s Secrets
MuMe 25
R: Touch, D: Sun, T: Individual
This dangerous spell rewrites selected memories into something completely mundane and unrelated, so that neither the most astute questioning nor the deepest mystical probing can detect them. As this version of the spell is designed, neither caster nor target have control of the final form of the transformed memory, nor are aware of it; it becomes one with the minutia and trivia of the mind’s back corners. A dark secret might be rewritten to be the dim memory of the scent of a flower, a burning hatred as the song of a bird, or a complex plan to be a spot of mold on a cheese. The target need not concern themselves with lying or concealing the truth; for them that truth no longer exists, and so they speak and act as if they were never aware of it at all. For the duration of the spell, they act appropriately to that lack of knowledge, although after the spell lapses they become aware of the difference in their previous actions and statements. The jar of the suddenly returning memory may be more or less of a shock, depending on its nature and the target’s recent activities and surroundings.
Aside from the usual dangers with Mentem spells, a botch on this spell can completely and permanently transform memories, leaving the target unaware that they ever existed, and in extreme cases even unable to relearn them ever again as they are constantly reformed. Although this spell has many legitimate and mundane uses, some Quaesitores have sought to ban its existence, and any who happen to find such a spell active during an investigation, or evidence of such within a Magus’ lab notes, may become most suspicious indeed.
(Base 10, +1 touch, +2 Sun)
I would disagree, since one point of the Transationalist agenda is for Quaesitors to be greanted the right to make mind-readings. Although, I do think that most Hermetic magi, being the individualistic freemen they are, would be violently objected to grant such a power to investigators, so I think this should remain and be enshrined as the one limit to forfeit immunity. Admittedly, this is the most extreme and controversial point of the Transationalist agenda, and I doubt a Great Tribunal majority would ever pass it.
I find myself in agreement with your advice and wording here.
Therefore, I suppose the clausle on harming magical sites should remain in the first paragraph, since it is a crime against the livelihood of the Order:
"I will not harm sources of magic, nor I will hamper their protection, and thereby cause the Order to be diminished by their loss".
Comments on this wording ? Tempted as I would be to include a prohibition against harm by inaction or willful neglect, as it was in the Guardians of the Forests ruling, I skip it, since it would oblige all mages to activist protection, which some Hermetics might find too burdensome and distracting. Nonetheless, it gets close to that (since it forbids messing with protection measures, or siding with tree-cutting, church-building mundanes against fellow magi). There is the issue of anti-mundane reprrisals that may so radical, or vis sources that are so dangerous, as to endanger the Order. I suppose the reference to the Order would imply they are not protected, since something can never be diminished by removing or avoiding a threat to it.
I suppose that after the last batch of discussion, another look to the current version of the revised Code might be in order:
Revised Code of Hermes, v. 1.1
"I hereby 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 harm sources of magic, nor hamper their protection, and thereby cause the Order 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 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 pry into their affairs. Nor will I intrude into their sanctuaries or dispossess them of the tools of their Arts.
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 should I break my Oath, this Code does not shield my crimes, and a duly conducted investigation by magi so empowered by Tribunal does not constitute prying into my affairs. Should I break this Oath, I ask my sodales to 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.
This I hereby swear on...Woe to they who try to tempt me to break this Oath, and woe to me if I succumb to this temptation."
good bye any post gauntlet additions to house Verdi. I’d say crippling your gift to require casting tools falls under this
why change properly from formally? Formally is wording more in line with the time period
where did no retribution for wizards war go? Leaving that line out opens the door to feuds lasting generations
I will respect the outcome...but that doesn't mean much. If its an oath your swearing it needs to be simple and unambiguous. I will abide by the results of a certamen
So by protecting magic the rest of the oath can be thrown out? You see a group of kings foresters cutting down a magical forest. You kill the entire group. How can you be charged, since doing so will hamper the protection of magical sources.
If I want to make my sodales look like a fool I am within my rights to do so. I will not hold their hand and play nice to avoid hurting their feelings.
They are welcome to hold a month long discussion anounced by redcap if they disagree with my activities.
If I want to degrade myself that is my right and none of the orders business unless it brings them harm.
The only type of service to be disallowed should be that which effects greater mundane events, which was already covered in meddeling with mundanes.
Original wording of “lest their vengeance catch my sodales also†works better
Tytalus and Verdius for sure, most likely others, won’t like this. They gladly use spies and other mundane means to compete with opponents.
“how was your day?†“none of your business, I’m calling the queasator!â€
Define worthy? So if I get a majority that says house Jerbitron is worthless, we can get them marched? Schism wars are good!
swearing at the beginning is unneeded. If he refuses the code at the end he falls under "join or die". Your going to ask a 5yr old to swear an oath he can’t understand?
For comparison…when does a knight swear his vows…beginning or end of training?
Unneeded the original says "I break the oath I’m out of the order", not being part of the order you are fair game. (you sound like a lawyer who gets paid by the word writing contracts with this)
i will not hurt a magus' magic abilities (your version) VS. i will not take away a magical possession from another magus (original)
-i can take somone's magical item? items are not abilities. i see 'magical power' as stated in the original version more all encompassing.
-how about the spell, Aegis of the Hearth? if a magus is not part of the ritual spell, nor is he given a token upon being gifted with the hospitality of the covenant that he is visiting, is his ability to do magic not injured (if only temporarily) by the presence of the Aegis so long as he is within the Aegis? in the original version, he is still not deprived of magical powers.
formal: being in accordance with the usual requirements, customs, etc
proper: conforming to established standards of behavior or manners
-which would a medeval person use? cut the properly. keep the formally.
-similar the the previous. people used the word "hereby" back then. you are going to waste the time of a grand tribunal to oliminate "hereby?" i like the flavor of the original text.
-and following that should be; "...and should I be slain in Wizards' War, no retribution shall fall on he who slays me." i'm not sure why this is omitted. were someone to slay a Tremere in wizards war, what's to stop other members of the house from coming after you? i believe this was originally added, like Agnar says, to stop fueds from developing, which i could see resulting in full blown war within the order.
-once you start adding words like 'properly,' you just make more trouble. now you have to define 'properly.' and you have left out any mention as to the results of a refused certamen. as Agnar mentioned, if you must add anything about certamen, which i don't think you need to, "I will abide to the results of a fair certamen," is fine.
-resolution: Word Origin: 1350–1400; ME -dictionary.com did medeval people really speak in such terms as 'peaceful resolutions' and 'properly waged'?
-my end thought: leave certamen to the peripheral code.
-i will not hurt (use up) vis (a source of magic), and i will allow someone to stop me from using it? you think that no magi will bring this up, but it is a loophole the size of montana. you either declare that vis is a source of magic, at which point you cannot use it (which would harm the vis by destroying it), or you say that vis is not a source of magical power, thereby not protected by the code (depriving a magus of his magical powers) and then can be legally stolen.
-what is a 'source of magic;' vis, vis sources, auras, creatures with magical might, items, spells? are magi no longer allowed to destroy magical creatures because they are the source of magic? but what if taking the magic kills the creature? did i just destoy a source?
-am i not allowed to destroy the item that casts Clenching Grasp of the Crushed Heart with a penetration of 100 at whomever gets within 10 feet of it? i must protect the item so the order is not diminished?
you took out the prudent part. though i can't think of a way to use a vote that could be declared not prudent, i admit to appreciating the code as it stands. this is kind of like taking out the 'hereby' that i pointed out earlier.
meddle: to involve oneself in a matter without right or invitation
interfere: to come into opposition, as one thing with another, esp. with the effect of hampering action or procedure
-firstly, since you do not allow me to involve myself in a matter without invitation, i cannot break up a brawl between two mundanes that has escalated to being potentually lethal. on the other hand, if the king of england give me an invitation to 'advise' him, i'm ok with the code?
-'harm the peace and dignity of my sodales?' now this just sounds like 'disturbing the peace.' if an explosion happens in my lab, which happens to be within earshot of another magus, am i 'harming his peace?' can i get thrown out of the order for this? how about the dignity of my sodales? can i get marched for saying my sodales eats like a pig? if my sodales thinks i am insulting him, bring on the certamen.
-now it is degrading to be in the service of a mundane, so i can't do it? is creating a magical device a service? what if i do a mundane service? are you going to throw me out of the order for carrying a little old ladies' bags for her? just because these acts might be degrading for some magi to preform it does not mean that i should not be allowed to do them as long as it doesn't have repercussions on my sodales. keep it the way it was!
i prefer: "I will not molest faeries or magical creatures, nor provoke the Divine, lest thier vengence catch my sodales also."
there is no garuntee that thier wrath will be brought upon my sodales. leave it so i can molest/provoke who i want just as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
-i agree with Agnar, some houses would be against this. Tytalus would no longer be able to legaly spy on thier sodales and housemates. Verditius could no longer persue thier vendettas, which is a big house tradition.
-i say leave it as is, forbidding magical scrying. you believe that it is degrading for a magus to work for a mundane, for they are so far beneath you (though many magus had mundane parents, have children with mundane partners, and enjoy the nightly company of mundanes. though that moral discussion is for some other place), but you are worried about a measly mundane spy? feels like a double standard for me.
-like certamen, i think the santum should remain in the peripheral code. once you mention it here, you have to define it better. am i going to get marched for glancing in a window? invading a sancta is now a high crime?
-what is 'tools of thier arts?' if someone has study bonus (or study requirement) and they are stuying herbam under a tree, and i come by and cut down the tree, thus destroying the bonus, am i breaking the code? is destoying a Verditius' crafting tools covered under this? how about a magus that is standing next to a torch and has the necessary condition that they must be near a flame to be casting spells. i come along and destroy the fire cause i want it to be dark. was the fire a 'tool of the magus' art?' how is anyone supposed to know what a 'tool for the arts' is?
-simply put, how do you define 'worthy?' just get rid of that part.
-this is a medeval oath, not elementary school. 'do my best?' if you don't like being the first to strike him down, perhaps you could be the first to denounce him.
-how many organizations make kids take oaths. you don't. it's a final step into adulthood. if they don't swear, you will be the first to strike them down, because they just decided to 'die' instead of 'join.'
-have your lawyers call my lawyers. we'll do lunch. cut the crap. get rid of this. if you break the law, you don't get protected by the law. since when do you show the enemy mercy? this is modern day thinking. your word is your bond. if someone breaks their oath, their life is forfeit, but not their mind? no, you are going to hell and the rest of the order is sending you there.
my final thoughts on the code: If it Ain't Broken, Don't Fix it
I think, rather than your loud suggestion, Skri, this exercise demonstrates the problems with any such law-making process. It shows that "words" ultimately cannot be easily nailed down to have only one meaning. And so it first requires a philosophical agreement - whether what is undeclared is, therefore, legal, or whether what is declared is only what is most illegal, and other, associated breeches would be illegal by association.
Also enters the question of language, specifically, of whether "too much" definition begins to steer the document toward the former philosophy, above. That is, the more you "define" the specifics, the more specific the words are expected to be. Large, sweeping statements enjoy the opposite as part of their power - they both encourage those bound by the document to "not even think about getting close to this!", and allow for later interpretation in practice.
If there's a chalk outline around a minefield, you don't cross the chalk, but might lean over it, or kick the line. If there's a sign in the middle of a field, "Mine Field", you don't get even NEAR it, you go the other way.
In today's society, especially in the USA, we have become accustomed to the latter philosophy - if it isn't specifically spelled out as illegal, it must, therefore, be perfectly legal. This isn't the way things were done in medieval times, and certainly isn't practical, unless you want to play Ars Lex Legiuris (trans, the Art of Sausage Making). Words will always have more than 1 meaning, and sentences can be deconstructed to be meaningless if you try.
So, don't try.
Some of the suggestions are perfectly valid. Some of the above wording is just a trap. My 2 cent suggestion? Don't try for "air tight" wording, go the other way. Make the intention "clear", but with simple language, and leave it to the peripheral code and challenges to interpret what exactly is meant.
As attitudes shift, this might shift as well, and that's fine. As far as the language, the wording goes, simpler is better.
shrugs i felt i answered the question given. unless shown that the code, as stated, is broken, i don't believe i would change it. prove to me that your changes are better, and i might concede your point.
perhaps i was a little 'loud' in my position, but i didn't hear much opposition to the changes being posted in four pages worth of thread. i felt it worked to get my slogans across. at least i didn't use all caps.
if you disagree with my aguments, please post. that is how a debate works. that is how the law changes, as Cuchulainshound pointed out.
i believe an oath should be oath. what it states is what you do, no exceptions, no definitions. i would liken it to the code of chivalry, or the ten commandments, for example:
Thou shalt not murder/kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife
Thou shalt not write in all caps
The unspoken premise is that there are things that need changing.
Rather than say "I would not change anything", and (loudly and at great length) argue why any alternatives are no better, it might be better to accept that this thread as something you are simply not interested in, as many probably have.
Or, at least, accept the premise, and not argue against the validity of asking the question, which is what "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" does. Wanderer, and some others, apparently believes it ~is~ broken, or at least could use some fixing. To give alternatives is fine, but to simply shout "your premise is wrong" is hypocritical to the other loud line in your post, about who should be telling who how to live, or, here, how to game.
(For what it's worth, I ~tend~ to agree with you, Skri, that much of this "fixing" is merely opening the door for different loopholes, and not actually solving that problem. However, some of the points have merit, and others do given the author's preferences ("no spying" vs "no magical spying", etc). But, for me, besides offering an approach with the wording, I'm not going to argue whether, for instance, Magical Creatures, as a whole, could pose a threat to the Order, or whether "any service to any mundane" should be addressed by Hermetic law. (There's no RL law against soiling yourself, but I'm not gonna do it.)
Much of these differences are social/legal interpretations or preferences that are far too Saga/Troupe/StoryGuide specific, imo. But, that's what Wanderer invited in this thread. More power to ya - just don't expect to reach a consensus, W, much less widespread agreement.)
It surely would be a crime if it was involuntary. Since the canon code would fall under the same problem, as it would getting an Ordeal in an Initation, (no "deprivation of magical power") I suppose that a Peripheral Code rule already exists that allows doing it as a voluntary basis, for initation into Mystery Houses and Mystery Cults. Therefore I would rely on such an interpretation. If you really deem it necessary, I suppose a caveat "without their permission" could be added, but then don't charge me for making the Code too nitpicky.
Suggestion welcomed. As I said, I can make reasoned decisions about the content of the rules, but about the feel of the wording, I'm at the kind mercy of those forumites that have a better stylistic graps of English than me. I'll change it.
Someone (IIRC it was SirGalron) made a reasoned point that since Wizard War to revenge a previous Wizard War is legal in 5th Ed., the no-retribution bit was pointless, and it made sense to me. Other opinions on this, folks ?
Yep, it makes sense to me, I would change it this way. I would only feel the need for a qualifier for the certamen to clarify that only a "legal" or "proper" certamen should be respected (i.e. if you are challenged on a matter that is protected by the Code, the certamen is null and void). What kind of qualifier would you think it would be better period wording ?
You can be charged if the killing actually endangers the Order, but in no other way. This provision is meant to make a strong exception to the provision against interference with mundanes (the no-hamper bit is meant to forbid mages to protect magic-destroying mundanes from the retaliation of their sodales).
Besides harming the Order because it causes jealousy, service to mudanes harms the Order because it creates the expectation that mages should be subservient to mundanes. The provision still allows mages to deal with mundanes... as superiors, or equals at worst. It only forbids mages becoming vassals to mundanes. I would point out that being a court wizard and similar cases has always been forbidden by the Peripheral Code in any edition. I just thought that, just like other matters (e.g. certamen), this was a good novelty ruling that it was fitting to transpose in the basic Code once a revision happens.
If you say so. As I said, I am helpless about stylistic issues.
Too bad for them. Using non-magical means of spying is a nasty loophole that should be closed. Either you are allowed to intrude in the private affairs of your sodales, or you don't. It makes no sense that magic means are forbidden, and mundane means allowed. I would assume that once the issue of the loophole is raised, most mages would vote to close the loophole, rather than allowing a free-for-all violation of privacy. I don't think Tytalus would get enough following on this. Most mages would want more privacy, not less.
If you find the wording unclear, we can change it to "and be competent members of the Order". It is meant to forbid incompetent, lackluster training. Suggestions for a wording that would be clear and in period are welcome.
Some forumites made a reasoned point that besides making an apprentice fully answerable to Hermetic law, it better covered cases of former apprentices refusing the Oath and fleeing. It seemed to make sense to me. Do the original sponsors care to comment ?
The first part incorporates the principle of forfeit immunity in the Code. The second part empowers the investigative powers of quaesitors beyond what strictly allowed by forfeit immuntiy. The third part allows trials without a full tribunal. Second and third part are large part of the Transationalist agenda, whose eventual dominance in the Order is how I assume any revision of the Code would be passed. The mind safeguard is admittedly my own little caveat, since I see Quaesitors being allowed to mind-read unlikely ever to be passed by individualistic secretive magi and frankly unpleasant ever to be played. Suggestions about bettering the wording are welcome, but I think the scope of these provisions is sound, overall.
Theft of magical property is covered by another provision. It is not seeming that the same provision should cover harming the Gift (worse than death for the average mage) and theft.
Nitpicky. Harming magical abilities is making a mage mute, cutting his hands, or causing him a Major Hermetic Flaw, or a serious loss of Arts, Arcane Abilities, or Supernatural Powers. What you mention is just temporary suppression, nor permanent loss.
suggestion noted and accepted.
It got accidentally lost in copying canon text of Code by hand (just like it happened to scribes...). It will be re-instated.
As said, some forumites made an excellent point that since Wizard Wars are acutally allowed to revenge a previous one, this provision makes no sense and should be dropped.
I was in need of qualifier to signify that certamen to enforce violations of the Code are null and void. Suggestions are welcomed. I fear "fair" would be jumping from the frying-pan into the fire, since what about a certamen where one opponent is rather more skilled than the other ? wouldn't it be "unfair" ?
Would it be better period langauge (but let's not be too nitpicky please. So resolution is 1350 instead of 1220 ? One century later ? It's still Middle Ages. Who £$%& cares. I couldn't care less about the exact period when such-and-such item was first used. As long as it's recognizably in-period, it's fine. I want to play, not qualify for a doctorate in history) "I will abide by the results of a"qualifier" certamen" to settle disputes with my sodales" ??
The wording "source of magic" is meant to protect sources of vis, auras, and even creatures as long as they are renewable sources of the above. As long as it is a renewable source of magic resources, that mages could use over and over, it ought to be protected. Another wording might be "well-springs of magic", but in the end it's just a synonym. It has to be a wording that encompasses both auras and sources of vis. Nothing more, nothing less.
There's a difference between adding a word or two for flavor, and one whole meaningless phrase. How I decide to cast my free vote it none of the Code's business.
Interfere is too broad. The wording must immediately give the feeling that not any dealing with mundanes is forbidden, just the ones that cause significant trouble for the Order. Indeed forbidden involvement is the one doen without right, but the ones giving such right are your sodales, not mundanes. Mages are above and beyond the rules of the mundanes. It is not for them to decide when and how their superiors will decide to interfere.
The wording of provision makes it clear that herming the peace and dignity only is meant in relation with meddling in the affairs of mundanes. E.g. I emtroil myself in a feud that affects other mages, or I disgrace the dignity of the Order by allowing mundanes to see a magus as inferior to them (court wizard).
Doing a one-time serive out of kindness is harmless (as long as it does not cause resentment in others). Long-time subservience is what is forbidden, doing yourself the servant of mundanes. "entering the service", not "doing a service" (a lord can temporarily do a service to a peasant, out of piety or kindness). Mundanes must never be given the impression that mages are their inferiors, it is bad for the Order's reputation.
You too prefer the old wording. OK.
And the other houses would be all in favor of increasing the privacy of mages. I suppose Tytali and Verditii will have to curtail their pasttimes with other mages, or make it a mutually-agreed game (as it would likely be with housemates).
Yes, they are. We are in a historical period where equality of man would be regarded as worse than heresy, sheer, laughable foolishness and madness. Mages are lords, and mundanes are peasants. They ought not to abuse them without good reason, if they care for their souls, but inequality of men is sanctioned by God, according to the Middle Age Paradigm. In that, mages are no different from nobles. Nobles see nothing wrong in bedding peasants and having children with them, but would be horrified at the suggestion they might serve peasants.
Your disgreement is noted, and deemed contrary to part of the purpose of the exercise.
The crafting tools, certainly. The tree, well, not. Unless the magus cannot find another tree to study under within confortable/safe distance.
No. Starting another fire is generally trivial.
Anything that a magus can use to cast or study magic significantly better than without, and whose replacement isn't trivial. Enchanted items, books, vis, laboratory equipment, familiars, apprentices, talismans, casting tools...
"be a competent member of the Order", if you wish.
Expecting the former master to be the first to strike the ex-apprentice down is moronic, unenforceable, and actually detrimental to the success of the March when dozens of Hoplites are in all likelihood better able, equipped, and experienced to bring the rogue to justice. "Be the first" is quite stupid. "Do my best" (e.g. I forward good clues to the Hoplites) makes much sense.
The reason for this was discussed. See upthread.
No mercy is meant. The mind bit is meant to forbid the Quaesitors to mind-read mages on a whim when the revised code does expand their investigative powers.
I generally agree with Wanderer's replies, however...
That said, perhaps it would be wise to retain the Code and start enforcing it... that will prevent Wizard Wars from escalating. Although it would be difficult to enforce in practice, even a partial success, and hence a partial suppression of Wizard Wards, is desirable.
"just"?
I don't really like the word "properly" either. Not that I care a slight bit when it was invented, it is just that it feels... lawyery, modern, nit-picky.
These kinds of interpretations are precisely what the Peripheral Code is for. I don't see how saying that the text needs to be expanded and interpreted by the Peripheral Code, just like the old Code was, is a liability.
I am not completely pleased with either "well-springs of magic" nor "sources of magic". Again, we need a poet.
Of course it is. There are fewer things that affect the Order more than your vote.
I like the "prudently" bit. A meaningless, unenforceable provision? Perhaps. But it adds a certain feeling and flow to the text, a certain ambiance. This is the difference between a moving Oath and a dry legal statement, and I'm afraid the original authors were far better at crafting moving Oaths than poor old me.
"Meddle", for me, connotes something unworthy, low, degrading. Unlike "interfere", which is a more objective description, disconnected from emotional judgment. I therefore prefer "meddle". It signifies that not every interaction is forbidden, rather only the lowly and dirty ones - the ones that bring harm on your sodales.
I prefer "and thereby" to "lest". "And thereby" means that I can get away with molesting as long as it didn't cause their wrath to turn on my sodales. "Lest" means that I can't molest the faeries period, unless perhaps I kill them all, because the fear that their wrath will catch my sodales is still there. For faeries and magical creatures, at least, I think "and thereby" is better. For demons, I think "lest" is better. For the Divine... I'm not certain; I'd tend to go with "lest", but that creates problems with both the application and the flow of the text.
But "do my best" is childish and unenforceable. I prefer to leave the "be the first" - even if not enforceable, it sends the right message. If it is feared it would be taken literally, I would change it to something of the same spirit, say "seek their demise with all my heart, lest their infractions tarnish myself" or somesuch".
Yes, but it's still a good point. The oath also works better as an oath taken upon becoming a magus: "I will train apprentices..." and so on. I think it's preferable to leave the matter of alloted-to-be-apprentice children or long apprenticeship periods to the peripheral code.
Yeah... while I'm not sure I like it legal-wise, I think it would work better story-wise. This way even a quaesitor in official business would not be able to pry into the magus' mind without his consent, which would help some nefarious schemes.
While the provision may not be enforced, it sends a message that bolsters peace in the Order. I'm in favor of keeping it.
I am frankly not sure whether this is better served as being in the peripheral or main Code. Certamen I feel is such a major legal instrument that it needs to be defined alongside Wizard War, in the Code. But forbidding servitude to mundanes? It isn't such an integral part of the Code, and putting it into the Code will make it a High Crime instead of a Low Crime. Which has its merits, and its faults. I'm not sure which way is better.
