If Thebes can have legal propositions, which are not contradicted by the Code, then other tribunals do (I remember distinctly the Normandy having one). Thebes is also bound to the Code and the Grand Tribunal.
We agree that at start of a saga, Provence is vanilla in the sense of players do not need to know additional rule: the code suffice. But players being statu-quo breakers they are, and being obligated to 2 factions, they will break it. That's why I accepted their call to NPCs to save their asses which were wiped after a flagrant display of magic breaking mundane King armies during the Provençal rebellion. The Code would have had them dead but that would have been uninteresting. Killing the famliar of the magi who had one didn't provide any sense of consequence in those who had not.
From the moment magi agree on a topic, there is nothing in the code to prevent that for happeningas official ruling. And there is little reason for magi of Provence to remain in the outdated "vanilla" code version of the Order. Because laws are alive, and even if reality always comes hard on laws demonstrating their flaws and never their merits, it would be worst to not rule at all.
Call it rules or law, as long as it is enforced by the peripheral code and can bring matter in front of the assembly of peers which is the tribunal, with his political weight, then it is okay.
(Big covenant are always interesting because when they face"legal" problem at tribunal, they can just draw the magical raw power. Declaring wizard's war on the "leaders" is not a good idea, but on their followers of less importance, it is; ensure that it takes place during the month of tribunal, and tada, the accuser only have the minority to vote. Especially if PCs are on your side because of a previous affair. And when Castra Solis and Aedes Mercurii are obligated to hate each other, Coenobium acts to ensure they keep doing it for a long time... because that allow it to grow in power undetected.
In terms of vote, I remember something as 20 for every big covenant in our saga, and alredy 8 for the Pcs, with most minor covenants never voting when not morally obligated because they do not want to take sides. That is those who attend tribunal: Ostal, Ara Maxima Nova, Bellaquin, Stella Durus. Ostal is a compromise and already used that neutrality to pass a rule which needs to be pproved - and hope that it is not abused - Ara is too weak to sustain any wrath, Bellaquin is the business partner of each big covenant t some point and do not want to anger a partner, and Stella Durus is a covenant of researchers. Jardin, Miniata Sophia and all others covenants I forget to quote do not attend tribunal.)
PCs being Pcs, they are the one who try to get those little covenant to take their side on any issue they etimate as importante... hence the need to provide those ideas of topics, for which the players may decide, or not, to involve their covenant in politics. But I cannot just introduce "saga themed issue" because it would be too obvious and of course they would involve themselve. But what if there are 20 proposals? they will need to decide which to invest in and take time for.
Steve, I understand, but here is an explanation more detailled on why I asked what I ask: in the saga I'm running, the whole Order and world-organisation are the stakes of the conflict, but even the PCs are not yet able to identify the threat. They believe to have found the "great enemy" but do not know how it can be stopped, because they are at the point where they realise it's maybe a Kosmokrator (or Protagonoi because they are not experts) whose powers cover/encompasses the theme of rebirth.
Besides that "grand theme", other, more little, causes have big impacts, much later. (For example, one thing which happen will only have impact in 1400+ but it is already "on its way").
And I wanted - and still want, to show that something they discuss now, may have consequence much later. But to hide the matter, I need to have a lot of other demands to conceal the real saga-themed matter.
Because there are not "one issue". In my who-is-who and who-does-what files, I have already have introduced more than 500 characters, antagonists between them or factions, etc. For a simple non spoiling example (because some of the players read this so I'm obligated to explain in their view what is up even if as a SG i know they are wrong [don't be sad]), the Suhhar Sulayman: when first met, they thought it was 1 faction, neutral to the order. Then they learnt that there was 2: the traditionalists and the rebels. Now they have clues that there may be 3 factions: the rebels, the progressists and the "in waiting" ones. Among the rebels - who pledge the War with the order, using every tool available -, they have personal enemies, but they also have personal enemies in the progressists who want to join the Order of Hermes, do a 13th house, include all of their 10.000 friends, and rework the Order in a sahir-like centered organisation. In fact, they find the progressists more dangerous than the rebel. The "great enemy" uses each of the 3 factions, but with totally different goals but in the factions itself, some do not follow the "line of conduct".) Since Provence being Provence, they did take part in the 7th crusade which happily did involve an official truce with the suhhar. The players do know why (or almost by who) this happened, and do know it lasted long enough to cover the defeat of the Crusaders. [To be honest, I had prepared a scenario where history would change a lot with the Crusade totally succeeding and Egypt and those lands becoming christians, and the players releashed an undying which destroyed the tools of that victory for the crusaders... they didn't do that on purpose, but whatever.]
They could decide to send a covenant or representative to take a formal approach and then, if making progress, use that during the grand tribunal of 1261 to make the Order decide a more formal thing (as will the Levant tribunal do with the Hermetic Ambassy at Bagdad)... but Provence do not know yet.
Another example: another player has done the part where the Order protect Transylvania from the Mongol threat. Novgorod has been majorly destroyed, most covenants destroyed and magi dead. In opposition, Transylvania suffered massive protection with magical powers. Now I could imagine a proposal being to have the Provence tribunal urge for the creation of massive invested devices able to create a big wall like the great wall of china. I do not say it is a good idea, nor it is legal, but the catch is that even "bad" proposal may find appeal in the Tribunal or among the Pcs. And that's what I want: something for the PC to believe in, be it something related to magic or organisation.
At the end, even with the stakes being resolved, the life of magi will continue (or not) and they will think and feel for themselves, being selfish and not united. Because that's human (suffice to say: watch any newsreport) and that makes the magi (Npc and Pc together) more credible. They will fight about laws even wrong or good for "the greater good" because that is or not good for themselves first. But for that, I need more inspiration on what magi would want. Because in that matter, my imagination will not go far (my own PC is the most labrat of all of them and only had one proposition : erase the 2pounds/magus which is "order-whole" done, and was rejected loudly. -obviously, it would have allowed him to spend the million of gemstones he lastly created to pay for covenants goods...) because apart from what I need for the saga, I'm not really into.
That's the same reason as for why I use this forum to find "judiciary cases" to display at tribunal, to force the players to roleplay what they believe to be a right decision. (Thanks at the authors of various 30days november thing who covered the judiciary issues already ).