Amendments to the Code of Hermes

[Wanderer]

@Vortigern

RE Apprentices: I agree with Agnar. Placing provisions in the Code about apprentices beyond current elevates their status to nearly that of Magi... which at current it is anything but. If that is your intent, OK. However at current they are more an item of property under the code rather than a protected person like a Magi. I, being a relatively conservative interpreter of the Code, favor the property approach to all mundane (including apprentices) affiliates of Magi. This makes it at best (or worst depending on perspective) a low crime to in any way harm/malign them. (Save perhaps a near gauntlet apprentice, which could then perhaps be deemed a magical resource. ) Which, rightly, reflects all such individual's lower status than Magi.

Hmm, if I understand it correctly, both of you are in favor of leaving the canon stand, as it concerns apprentices. OK. I would only point out that under canon, an apprentice is a magical resource, not a mundane property. It is property, albeit a precious one. Harming one is far, far more serious than harming a companion.

RE Wizard's War: The clause about no retribution I've always interpreted as meaning that there can be no -legal- retributions on the declarer of a war. This I think is important to have in the Code.

A reasonable point. OK.

RE Mundane Spying: I think both that Magi are unlikely to consider this a real threat sufficient to include in the Code and that the effects of such a provision in the Code would be more negative than positive. Remember that we are dealing with a medieval political model. People expect there to be dealings and political maneuvering surrounding just about -every- vote cast. (Prudent, gentlemen?) This reminds me of the old quandary about casting an area intellego spell and 'accidentally' catching another mage in the area. According to the Code this obviously is a crime, though perhaps not a very serious one. Follow this line of logic through to applying it to mundane means of gathering information and the possibilities for trouble magnify greatly. The circumspectness required in judicious use of intellego now must be applied to mundane affairs. Virtual isolation is the only logical outcome.

Your point has merit. OTOH, I'm also mindful of the fact that outright mundane spying of precious secrets is still going to be heavily frowned upon, and ultimately what it matters is the importance of what is protected, not the means of spying on it. Defaulting on canon and leaving the mundane loophole is a possibility, but also it is rewording the law so that only valuable secrets are protected, not the undiscriminate private affairs of mages. That would take care of abusive uses of the law, like litigation for the accidental intellego spells you mention.

RE: Parma / Secrets of Hermetic Magic: This falls directly under 'Join or Die'.

Which modern Order has relaxed considerably. The days of indiscriminate hunting non-Hermetic magicians are long past.

A mage is free to teach whomever they wish. This person is then considered their apprentice. The caveat is that they are then expected to gauntlet and induct such individuals into the Order. Any mage who doesn't do so has gone renegade, and any apprentice that doesn't do so has chosen 'die'.

A rebellious apprentice skirting the Oath and going rogue is covered under the apprentices provisions and is another (rather less serious) matter entirely than willfully teaching the Parma or Hermetic magic to an exotic magic-user that has no intention of entering the Order. In the first case, the teacher is cuplable of neglicence at worst and is only expcted to cooperate in full with the hunt. In the latter case, it is an automatic March sentence, unless gretely extenuating circumstances can be proved. It's the same difference between harming one's Gift, and destroying his lab.

Re: Quaesitori: I'm not in favor of enshrining investigative powers in the Code. The idea of forfieture of immunity is enough for me. It also lends -far- more drama to investigative plotlines. Magic investigation is both rightly feared and forbidden, and... too far reaching and effective. Remember that Guernicus and other Qs are all just Magi themselves with allies/enemies etc. All magi would fear that the pet Qs of their local tribunal faction in power would come calling to 'investigate' something trumped up with the real goal of divining their secrets. A universal 'Over my dead body' would be my anticipated reaction.

Quaesitors that really abuse their investigative powers (either indirectly allowed under the Peripheral Code through forfeit immunity, or directly enshrined in the Code) will have Hell to pay, both from Tribunal retribution, Wizard wars, and punishment from the Primi of the House. The Quaesitori leadership is very well aware that really blatant abuse of their police powers would quickly move the rest of the Order to strip such powers away. In the ned, all the powers of Quaesitors do rest on the goodwill of Hermetic public opinion, as expressed in Tribunals. Of late, I proposed a wording of the Q-empowering provision "I understand that should I break my Oath, this Code will not shield my crimes, and members of the Order shall inquire into my affairs and deliver their judgement. I will not presume to be inquisitor or judge of my sodales without the blessing of Tribunal, nor I will invade their mind, lest I turn justice into tyranny" Don't you think this might indeed represent a strong caveat against abuse of power, along with the enshrinement of such ? All that you may then require are some Peripheral Code rulings clarifying which are the proper investigative procedures. Granted, the more political-minded Qs skirting the edges of proper would still be commonplace, but the blatant abuses of power would be severely sanctioned.

[SirGarlon]

@Vortigern

If I initiate anything with said guild, unknowing their involvement, I'd very rapidly be guilty of unintentionally prying into their affairs.

The reason I chose the word "pry" is that it implies exerting some effort: going out of your way to find out what your "sodalis" is up to. My intent was that you by definition can't unintentionally pry.

So if the standard were that you'd have to show intent to pry, would that satisfy your concerns?

For my part I like the problems of deciding what constitutes prying a lot more than I like my Tytalus neighbor sending mundane spies into my covenant on a weekly basis, with complete impunity.

[Cuchulainshound]

@Wanderer

...rewording the law so that only valuable secrets are protected, not the undiscriminate private affairs of mages...

And who is to determine the difference? Or do magi have to reveal their "secrets" to a Tribunal, so they can be judged on their "value"? Even then, a personally embarrassing secret may seem trivial to a mage concerned only with magical power, yet be leverage against that one mage in a political arena.

What is great in theory is not always practical, not even close. You're really talking about shooting the moon, here, W, and forgetting how far it is.

Simplicity, and allow the Peripheral Code to do its job, of clarification. Mere words will never be airtight by themselves, in a vacuum without examples and interpretations. Accept that.

(You're doing good work at achieving your goal, but are (soon?) past the point of diminishing returns. The fact that you're posting pages and pages and still haven't plugged all the leaks should be a hint here. One reason I've chosen to only address one exemplary issue.)

[Vortigern]

RE: Spying, Important Secrets, and Intent -- Intent to pry with intellego is a headache enough for me. Intent to pry in the mundane sphere would be incredibly difficult to establish or defend against in the medieval world. Arguments for or against would tend to flow in very similar yet utterly contradictory manners following the modes of thinking of the day.

"Just because a member of a Mercantile Guild I invest and participate in happened to be selling supplies to their covenant does -not- mean I was prying into their affairs?!"

vs.

"Of course he was prying! He was sending -his- merchant to our covenant under false pretenses for -years-! Who knows what else he has done."

At least with intellego we are talking about something reasonably discrete and confined. i.e. the direct magical actions of the Magi in question. With mundane prying the door is wide open as to interpretation of what constitutes an agent, intent to gather information, whether that intent was targeted or passive, what constitutes 'damage' done to be assessed by tribunal, how to equate said damages into hermetic terms so that magi can deal with their petty fines in this regard without having to resort to mundane resources they may or may not have... it is... a big headache.

As for the example of the Tytalus sending spies/agents every week with impunity... First, I'd say if they are doing any damage to anything that the covenant resources are still protected property under the peripheral code, and the matter could be addressed at tribunal if you can swing enough votes. Second, you could always kill said agents to send a message. Third, and this may work the best, Certamen said Tytalus with the victory condition that they stop so pestering you. There are recourses under the code as written.

RE: Investigate Authority -- Actually I think limiting investigative actions to those condoned by a tribunal is rather crippling given how inoften there are tribunals. As soon as this provision was in the code any Q that came calling without such a writ of authority would be sent packing. Unless a tribunal established 'standing investigative officers' so endowed there could only be a spate of investigations every, um, seven years or so? Hardly convenient. Oh, wait... we have standing investigators now. Qs. They just aren't given explicit authority to do as they will in the code.
So, from a practical viewpoint, you either empower Qs to go about gathering information under their own discretion... or you don't. Given the binary options there (from my appriasal/opinion at least) I think most Magi would favor the negative.

RE: Apprentices -- True. I just think it is important that they are not equated or built up to having status/protection similar to that of Magi. And, to me, putting protections for them into the Code comes close to that... as it makes things concerning them and their treatment a much more serious legal issue.

RE: Join or Die -- I tend to view this as a matter of perceived threat / pressure. Any percieved threat would get this treatment instantly. If the Order actually felt a growing pressure and/or entered into some manner of conflict, this would be brought back out and dusted off in a heartbeat. Now, that said, hoplites and other conservative members of the order in my experience still practice this on a smaller scale. Perhaps it is not a driving goal of the Order any longer, due to success, to absorb other Magi from the wilds... but it is still a viewpoint many hold to.

RE: Divine -- Never been a big fan of that realm in particular in my games. But aside from that personal feeling, lol, I'm not sure how to approach that subject. Many Magi in my past experience were outright hostile to the Dominion and desired a war against it's encroachment on magic. I have a hard time formulating a hermetic argument against it, though this could simply be my personal bias.

[John_Post]

@Cuchulainshound

@skridragon

...but it can escalate. before you know it, someone will sue mcdonald's for not telling them that the hot coffee they bought was hot!

(A low point in American jurisprudence.)

I hate lawyers as much as the next person, but in the McDonalds case, the problem was that McDonalds instructed stores to keep the coffee at 185 +/-5 degrees. For those not familiar with the Farenheit scale, 212 is the boiling point of water.

McDonalds knew that their coffee would cause third degree burns in under three seconds, because it had hundreds of reports of injuries caused by the coffee. But McDonalds wanted the coffee to be too hot to consume because most people pick it up and drive somewhere before drinking it, so when they arrive the coffee is still hot and closer to the desired 155 degree serving temperature. So despite settling case after case of severe burns, McDonalds did not change its practice of keeping the coffee at 185 degrees. That's why the jury ruled against McDonalds.

The injured woman had $11,000 in medical bills, but McDonalds refused to pay her more than $800 in their initial settlement negotiations. So she got an attorney, who ended up getting her about $600,000 for her injuries.

[SirGarlon]

@Vortigern

As for the example of the Tytalus sending spies/agents every week with impunity...

(snip)

There are recourses under the code as written.

Except that if you use magic to see where that shady character goes after he's finished snooping around your covenant, and it turns out he is reporting to a rival magus, you've just committed a capital crime.

If the loophole of mundane spying is left open, then the Code protects those who are sending spies, but not those being spied upon (indeed it actively prevents them using their God-given magical powers to defend their own privacy). If you enjoy playing in a game where law is perverted to that point, then you're in luck because that is the approach the line is taking.

For my part, I don't think it's plausible that magi would agree to live under a legal system like that.

[Cuchulainshound]

No, it isn't, which is why the Tribunals would never interpret the Code as strictly as you suggest they do.

In the example you give, the Scrying mage is not scrying on another magus, but a spy. At the moment he notices the other magus, the Scryer has a choice - how he proceeds at that moment, not before, is what influences a Tribunal.

In the state of California, it's a (minor) felony crime to throw an object at a moving car, but, oddly enough, police and the state don't prosecute every egg thrower on Halloween and every water-balloon thrower during summer, nor do they even try. But IF they ever needed to, IF the situation got ~way~ out of hand, then they could.

The Code is there as a theoretical yardstick. How closely anyone measures is a practical concern.

[SirGarlon]

I would like to point out that there is some progress in the back-and-forth over mundane spying. I am starting to come around to seeing the problems with messing with the Code with a seemingly-innocent amendment to close the glaring loophole.

My complaint is based on the commonly-held assumption that if something is not explicitly banned by the Code then it is implicitly permissible. If that assumption can be relaxed then we will get an Order that is much easier to live in, and one that more resembles a medieval system IMO. The Magna Carta doesn't say anything about punching somebody in the face, but that in no way implies it's perfectly legal to do that in England.

So what I am now thinking the Order needs is a Peripheral Code that is willing to go beyond the major crimes of murder and damaging someone's magical powers, and plug the gaps by outlawing things like robbery or even fraud (against other wizards). Essentially, a realistic and medieval-seeming justice system. Add to that some basic inheritance law and property law (what rights covenants have to claim and defend territory) and you would quell a lot of the bickering and nonsense.

What I am talking about here is that Tribunals need legislative authority in addition to judicial, or else they can't really govern and the Hermetic law quickly breaks down in one of two ways (tyranny by the majority or complete anarchy).

All of these common-sense laws could be derived from two clauses: "I will abide by the vote of Tribunal" (which empowers the Tribunal to set policy matters like inheritance or property) and "I will not endanger the Order through my actions" (for criminal law; I hope we can agree that things like beating up random magi without killing them should count as endangering the Order!)

However Tribunals are only authorized to define Low Crimes, so if it's not in the Oath, they can't March you for it.

If this is the way things are done, then the only amendment to the Code itself I think would be needed is something about not sharing Parma Magica. And maybe re-phrasing the "no retribution" clause in Wizard's War.

Oh, and I would throw out most of the Peripheral Code rulings from the supplements (like the ones that say apprentices have no rights or obligations) because they're silly, but that is just me.

[Vortigern]

I value a lot of the ambiguity and 'grayness' of the current code for a few reasons... but one in particular is the same reason I value the 'loophole' that allows mundane spying etc.

The Code is -supposed- to have a lot of leeway for Magi who don't like each other to go at it without incurring legal penalties. Part of the design of the Code is that it accepts that Magi are highly individualistic, powerful, and prone to disagreements and even conflicts amongst each other. Hence we have Wizard's War.

Any ammount of conflict amongst Magi is only really relevant to the Code when it reaches a point at which people begin to worry that it endangers the Order. i.e. repetitive use of Wizard's War with any of your enemies/rivals who stand up to you etc.

I view mundane means of achieving one's aims in the same way. People only really care if they see mundane actions as endangering the Order as a whole, or at least regionally.

Two rival Magi whose agents regularly trade blows (or even kill each other), without the Magi directly being involved, while a very interesting bit of local lore/gossip is not a Tribunal case... barring other elevating circumstances.

This is exactly what I view as intended under the Code as written. Magi are -supposed- to have the freedom pester each other, and even in a formal way kill each other, if their personal affairs so dictate. It is a given that a certain level of that is inevitable and that the goal of the Code is to preserve the Order as a whole by making a given level of allowances for this rather than engender greater conflicts in the long run by attempting to prevent the inevitable.

Of course you all may disagree?

[Wanderer]

@Vortigern

RE: Investigate Authority -- Actually I think limiting investigative actions to those condoned by a tribunal is rather crippling given how inoften there are tribunals. As soon as this provision was in the code any Q that came calling without such a writ of authority would be sent packing. Unless a tribunal established 'standing investigative officers' so endowed there could only be a spate of investigations every, um, seven years or so? Hardly convenient. Oh, wait... we have standing investigators now. Qs. They just aren't given explicit authority to do as they will in the code.
So, from a practical viewpoint, you either empower Qs to go about gathering information under their own discretion... or you don't. Given the binary options there (from my appriasal/opinion at least) I think most Magi would favor the negative.

Hmm, my own take on this for the revised code, would be to grant the Great Tribunal the power to bestow investigative authority. The detailed bylaws about such investigative powers would of course be standing rules in the Peripheral Code, valid until repealed by the Great Tribunal. Therefore, you would still have standing Quaesitors, and their powers would be explictly granted, but by Great Tribunal decree, instead of either directly enshrining Quaesitors in the Code, or having to justify investigative powers from indirect extension of forfeit immunity only. This would also allow local tribunals to empower their own local investigators and judges as they see fit (e.g. to arbitrate some dispute). The details of the Qs. "police powers" would still have to be defined in the Peripheral Code, and all kinds of checks and limits can be legislated. In my own take, one such limitation would be inserted in the Code, the absolute prohibition to mind-read.

RE: Divine -- Never been a big fan of that realm in particular in my games. But aside from that personal feeling, lol, I'm not sure how to approach that subject. Many Magi in my past experience were outright hostile to the Dominion and desired a war against it's encroachment on magic. I have a hard time formulating a hermetic argument against it, though this could simply be my personal bias.

Heh. Personally, I'm likely one of the greatest Dominion-bashers around on this forum, reflecting my own Godzilla-sized chip on shoulder about conservative religion. Making some violence to my feelings, I've tentatively put a provision against provoking the Divine in the draft of the revised code for the sake of balance and completeness, but as of now, I'm reconsidering the issue, b/c IMO the revised code should espouse the Guardians of the Forest approach and allow mages much more of a free rein in actively fighting Dominion's encroachment on magic.

[Wanderer]

Well, after the last bout of discussion, I think another draft of the revised Code might be in order...

Revised Code of Hermes v. 1.2

"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 formally declared Wizard War. I hereby understand that Wizard War is an open conflict between two magi, who may slay each other without breaking this oath, and that should I be slain in a Wizard War no retribution shall fall on the magus who slays me. I will abide by the results of a just certamen in settling disputes with my sodales. I will not harm the places where magic flourishes and its might is reaped, nor shall I hamper their protection, and thereby weaken the Order with their loss.
I will abide by the decisions made by fair vote at Tribunal. I will have one vote at Tribunal and I will use it prudently. 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 shall I use magic to 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 competent members of the Order, and should any of them turn against the Order and my sodales I will strike them with all my heart. No apprentice of mine shall be called magus until he or she first swears to uphold this Code, nor shall I reveal the secrets of our Arts to anyone except an apprentice or a member of the Order. I understand that should I break my Oath, this Code will not shield my crimes, and members of the Order shall inquire into my affairs and deliver their judgment. I will not presume to be inquisitor or judge of my sodales without the blessing of Tribunal, nor shall I invade their mind, lest I turn justice into tyranny. 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."

The Divine bit is in Italic since at present I'm rather conflicted about keeping it or not.

[SirGarlon]

@Wanderer

No apprentice of mine shall be called magus until he or she first swears to uphold this Code, nor shall I.reveal the secrets of our Arts to anyone outside the Order.

I think you are going to have to re-phrase that bit because if it means what it seems to say, a magus can't train an apprentice (who is outside the Order until sworn in).

Originally this clause grew out of the perceived need for a Parma Magica provision. If you want to broaden it to include Arts I guess that's OK, but the wording will then have to allow training apprentices.

Or you could do it my way and have apprentices swear in at the start of apprenticeship.

[Wanderer]

@SirGarlon

@Wanderer

No apprentice of mine shall be called magus until he or she first swears to uphold this Code, nor shall I.reveal the secrets of our Arts to anyone outside the Order.

I think you are going to have to re-phrase that bit because if it means what it seems to say, a magus can't train an apprentice (who is outside the Order until sworn in).

Originally this clause grew out of the perceived need for a Parma Magica provision. If you want to broaden it to include Arts I guess that's OK, but the wording will then have to allow training apprentices.

Oops. Good catch. I've changed it to "anyone except (or would it be better "but" ? Style, argh ) my apprentice or a member of the Order".

Or you could do it my way and have apprentices swear in at the start of apprenticeship.

I was fine with your idea, but it was somewhat impopular, and since I'm also using forumite feedback as a gauge of what would be the IC reaction of the Hermetic population, to a degree...

[YR7]

@Wanderer

Oops. Good catch. I've changed it to "anyone except (or would it be better "but" ? Style, argh ) my apprentice or a member of the Order".

Not "my" apprentice, "an" apprentice. Otherwise you've just outlawed magi helping each other out and the Bonisagus custom of shared apprentices.

[Wanderer]

@YR7

@Wanderer

Oops. Good catch. I've changed it to "anyone except (or would it be better "but" ? Style, argh ) my apprentice or a member of the Order".

Not "my" apprentice, "an" apprentice. Otherwise you've just outlawed magi helping each other out and the Bonisagus custom of shared apprentices.

Double oops. Good catch to you too and thanks to both of you. Truly the devil of legislation is in details

[Fruny]

I understand that should I break my Oath, this Code will not shield my crimes, and members of the Order shall inquire into my affairs and deliver their judgment.

is made wholly redundant by

I request that should I break this Oath, I be cast out of the Order.

and all that it entails.

BTW, remember that if you break the Oath, you are an oath-breaker, which has (e.g. mystical) repercussions beyond the obvious fact that you aren't "legally protected" by it anymore. An oath isn't just a mundane contract.

[Wanderer]

@Fruny

I understand that should I break my Oath, this Code will not shield my crimes, and members of the Order shall inquire into my affairs and deliver their judgment.

is made wholly redundant by

I request that should I break this Oath, I be cast out of the Order.

and all that it entails.

Not entirely. The first bit enshrines forfeit immunity in the Code, which has broad usefulness beyond investigating crimes: e.g. it legalizes self-defense, anti-scrying magic, defense of sanctums, and the like. It also enshrines the power of the (Great) Tribunal to sanction Quaesitors' investigative and judicial powers beyond the strict boundaries of forfiet immunity. E.g. It may allow for trials outside a full Tribunal. The second bit instead establishes that the default penalty for direct breaches of the code is outlawry and death, even Queasitors and Tribunals are free to apply a substitute punishment. 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.

BTW, remember that if you break the Oath, you are an oath-breaker, which has (e.g. mystical) repercussions beyond the obvious fact that you aren't "legally protected" by it anymore. An oath isn't just a mundane contract.

This might be a nifty bit of flavor, but its IC application is wholly based on GM fiat, since IIRC there isn't a single case in the rulesystem of an Hermetic mage being directly and automatically penalized by the universe for breaking an Oath. You need to have Flaws like Prohibition or Malediction for that.

[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".

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). 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.

It doesn't fit its drama and mystique.

This might be a nifty bit of flavor, but its IC application is wholly based on GM fiat, since IIRC there isn't a single case in the rulesystem of an Hermetic mage being directly and automatically penalized by the universe for breaking an Oath. You need to have Flaws like Prohibition or Malediction for that.

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. 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.

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...

I apologize for bowing out of the discussion, I only have very sporadic Internet access these days (read, "at my parents's"), and right now, I have a train to take.

[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.

[Wanderer]

Sorry if I resurrect this old discussion, but I was rethinking this issue, and in addition to the points already discussed, I was thinking about a provision that would punish making false accusations against fellow magi (this is generally covered by the endangerment clausle, but may warrant a specific clausle), e.g. to punish specious accusations of diabolism against harmless practitioners of exotic magic, and to forbid bringing a suit against another mage before any other authority but a Tribunal or Quaesitioner. E.g. "I shall not knowingly make false accusations against my sodales, nor I shall bring my dispute with them outside the Order".