The Calebais campaign book speak about a specific hermetic symbol used to indicate a Magus' sanctum (meaning "any trespassing is a violation of the hermetic code").
Is it an official picture for it ? Maybe in True Lineages ? What does it look like ?
Imagine a circle in a square, such that the circle touches the middle of the four sides of the square.
Draw in the diagonals of the square.
That's it.
In the communal areas, a diamond replaces...is it the circle?
It's actually show on page 105 of Covenants.
I'm stumbling upon this thread and opening my eye.
Do you mean that the sanctum is represented by an undistinct common mark that any magus can know?
I always assumed that the sanctum mark needed to include your own personal sigil (which is often seen in the tribunal).
If you are right, what prevents magus B trespassing to say to magus A that it is his sanctum from now on? He can prove it: it already has a sanctum mark making it indisputably a sanctum, and who are you to claim it's your and not mine? How can magus A (which was the "real" owner of this sanctum) then say "no it is my mark".
Nowhere is it said that your sanctum mark must be written by yourself IIRC, so magus B can just answer "you did the sanctum mark for me" to the "I wrote that mark!" comment. And further he can even try to make a quaesitor come, and the trespassing magus could just say something like "where in the code is it said you must write the sanctum mark knowing that you are doing it for another magus?".
What about the following situation? "hum those 10 spots with vis are all marked with a sanctum mark. I guess 10 magi live here but I can't know which one in useful time, too bad for the things inside I'm interested in"... at least, with a personal marker you could say "Guernicus pal, I think magus A has 10 sanctums, isn't that against the code?" or "Dear quaesitor friend, is that normal that you have 10 sanctum on that place? What? it isn't your sanctum? I guess someone is using your mark to protect his illegal act, then. You'd better act quickly before the troubles come for you, don't you think?"
(We will not enter the territory of the "You say I really erased your sanctum mark before entering your sanctum, and thus depriving you of the right to do whatever you want on me because this is no more your sanctum? good luck to prove that your sanctum mark is a magical property." because that's certainly a YSMV thing.)
i'm wondering if the Order is at that point naive or am I missing something.
Well, indiscriminate use of the Sanctum Marker will bring the Quaesitores investigating, since a magus is only permitted one sanctum...
It needs to be a common mark so that every magus in the order knows it's a sanctum. If it's not, how does a magus from Thebes know that the cave they are going in is a sanctum in say Stonehenge? I'm sorry, Presiding Quaesitor, I didn't recognize that it was a sanctum, because I'm unfamiliar with that magus's sigil/symbol/whatever.
There could be an identifying mark below the sanctum marker, that identifies the magus, too. Nothing in the setting suggests that it isn't the case, but the idea that every magus has his own marker, and then every magus knows what that looks like is unlikely.
Once you have entered a sanctum you're not protected by the hermetic code amiright ?
So if something bad happens, you looked for.
Cathelineau exactly:
You enter a sanctum.
The owner of the sanctum is there.
You kill him.
You then say "I took that place as my sanctum, I decided it at the moment I entered it." That statement is true if you mean it.
You say: "He was in the place I call sanctum"; that statement is also true.
Never did you say that he also thought it was its sanctum or say that it was your only sanctum (and you may have changed it beforehand if you are carefull... like "I renounced my previous sanctum to abide by the code at the moment I chose this place as sanctum, then when I was bored of that one - coincidentally after I killed that magus trespassing in my sanctum - I took my previous one because it was less easy to trespass in. Proof: I have never needed to kill anyone in my current sanctum.").
Of course that is YP&SGMBF, law-shit thing. But that is classical cheats in law, and I really thought the sanctum thing was more cleverly thought to prevent such easy exploits.
This is not an infraction for the code, thus no tribunal. And if you face a boring quaesitor, you stick to your version. Your word as a magus mean better than that of a dead one (which can be an infernal ghost of revenge, thus denying any value). What can they say "it was registered as the dead man sanctum". And where does the Code prevent that you take over a sanctum? where does the code say that a sanctum is not a sanctum until a witness know it? better, if it was a (valid) sanctum for the deceased, nothing in the mark proves that it was his valid sanctum. Records? what prevented him to renounce his sanctum for you? You need only to imply that it may have been the case, using formulation as "I think there may be sufficient evidence that he was not in his sanctum but well in mine, since he didn't kill/enslave/... me, which he could have done if I really was in his sanctum tp punish what you pretend is trespassing". (sorry if that is not really convincing in English, in French I could have designed a sentence which is not false without being true more easily)
Jonathan: I perfectly understand the need to have a "common mark". Compare with real world: passports, ID cards are of one official format, but the data are personalised.
I imagined that it was the case: a sanctum mark is a mark composed of a common part (to say "it is a sanctum") and a personal part (to say "for magus X").
Besides, if common mark are allowed, and you see 10 places with "common marks", you have no clue that it is, or not, a fraud by the "one magus, one sanctum" rule. In the order, there is plenty enough of sanctums to cover those 10. Yes, you can check to your nearest quaesitor, but the time you do it, the cheating magus may have succeeded in what he attempted.
I doubt you will find one quaesitor willing to use a truth-checking spell (and the utility of those is in YSMV territory) on every magus in the order.
If there is a mandatory personal marker, you only need to check that supposed magus. If he is responsible => crime. If he is not => investigation to check which. But that is less cases than without the personal mark.
My point here is not to say that all those things are useless, but that there are exploits and that the "common mark" only rule for sanctum is a (big) flaw lacking any intelligence from the magi/quaesitor/Guernicus who invented the rule.
Talk about the need to coordinate drawing and text. 
Cheers
You can say all kinds of things, but when the quaesatoris asks around and it turns out the dead man was using that as his sanctum you are getting your sweet behind marched.
1 Like
And to build on what said silveroak, it is not because you have a key to a house that it belongs to you.
So any magus who is trying to play this silly game of "there is no distinctive mark on this Sanctum symbol so I can add mine and take it", then kill the owner and pretend he was in his Sanctum will be dealt swiftly and permanently. It will never fly in front of any quaesitor.
1 Like
Sounds like a great chance to investigate corruption in your tribunal. Story seed acquired!
Well IRL it may be at least in current laws based on roman law.
I have had the answer from previous poster.