I’ve been thinking about NPCs and wondering if the following scenario is plausible:
A maga of the Jerbiton has an apprentice who is just a couple of years shy of their gauntlet. The maga has also manipulated several mundane nations into fighting a war, and the Quaesitors come down on her hard.
At tribunal it becomes clear that this is not going to end well. The maga really wants her apprentice taken care of after she’s Marched. Her covenant mates want to help, but the rest of the Tribunal has little sympathy. Complicating the situation the covenant has no other Jerbiton.
In this situation what happens to the apprentice? He’s just property according to the code, so I assume any other magus could claim him as soon as the March is declared? Could her prepared covenant mate, a Flambeau, be ready to jump in and claim the apprentice if the vote goes badly?
Now, assuming it all happens that way, the apprentice is apprenticed to a Flambeau and will be gauntleted as a Flambeau. If he would rather be a Jerbiton, because he liked his mater, I assume he could switch houses post gauntlet?
I also assume this would generate a great deal of conflict between the houses. But I’m most concerned about what is legal from and Order Law perspective.
House Jerbiton is a societas, so it is possible to change house to Jerbiton. If they will allow him to join is another matter - they may not want the (former) apprentice of a marched magus in their House. It would ultimately be up to the Primus of the House to decide if he may join or not.
The scenario is you play it out seems eminently reasonable to me. Now, the apprentice lives under the shadow of their Infamous Master, and Quaesitores will probably keep a close eye on them. There’s also nothing preventing one of the master’s rivals and enemies from Wizards Warring the apprentice as soon as their Gauntleted. So the apprentice’s friends might get called upon!
Before you mentioned the Flambeau, I was about to suggest a friendly Bonisagus claim the apprentice. But the Flambeau works and both Flambeau and Jerbiton are Societas, so a wizard can join either post-Gauntlet.
I am running a Rhine game, and ine of the 3 magi more or less went through this:
The mage who opened his arts was burned bybthe church (diabolical past flaw) and the apprentice got passed on to first to the young Jerbiton who had found him and then to a more senior Jerbiton who finished his training.
The only issue/plot hook that i can see is who ever completes the wizard's march might feel entitled to the apprentice and tries to make a case for the transfer post declaration of the march Hermetically null and void, and having some kind of beef with the new master. Bit that would be storyteller gold.
Once the vote is cast, the Jerbiton is becomes a non-magus; his property is up for grabs. If multiple magi claim it, the outcome will be decided by Certamen, unless the Tribunal awards said property to various parties (the Quaesitores who brought the case, the Hoplites who hunted down the Marched magus, the magi who take action to repair the damage he has wrought etc.). So, the chances that the Flambeau might claim the apprentice appear slim - he's competing with a lot of others.
On the other hand, if the Jerbiton while still a member of the Ordersells the apprentice - particularly if the price appears reasonable - then the buyer has a very strong claim that is unlikely to be overturned.
I think everything that has been suggested is can play out, depending on the political opinion and general goodwill of the particular magus at the given time and place.
One thing that may be a bit of a stretch is an apprentice almost fully trained as a Jerbiton, passing a Flambeau gauntlet within a few years. This could be a peculiar Jerbiton, or an easy gauntlet which could make a bad reputation. Anyway, the devil is in the detail.
Selling an apprentice may be frowned upon, but it is not unlawful. It should suffice to have the Flambeau train her for a season.
Normally, I would expect the apprentice and all other property of a marched magus to be taken as spoils of war, but then an apprentice of a traitor may not be wanted, so there is that.
In short, put in a few NPCs with their own agenda, and you can make whatever you want plausible enough.
There could also be a drawback to selling your apprentice shortly before a vote: It suggests that you're not confident to win the vote. This could lower your chances of actually winning the vote, because if you're not confident of your innocence, why would anyone else be? So you're sacrificing yourself for your apprentice, not every magus would do that.
The March is rarely applied to remorseful magi. I am sure it says somewhere even if I cannot remember where. I cannot really see anyone accepting a small bribe to acquit a magus who clearly demonstrate not only guilt, but also no regrets, by offering it. Better plead guilty and repentant, and negotiate a compensation or punishment.
How are all these Marchers going to claim said apprentice is they are not traveling with the Marched Magi (MM)? Or in fact almost all of the MM's property for that matter.
Once the march is declared, the MM has to flee from their Covenant. Anything they leave behind is in the Covenant and becomes property of the Covenant. Since the MM is not there no marchers can enter the covenant without permission. If they do enter and begin taking stuff they themselves are committing a Major Hermetic Crime which could easily result in their own marching.
For some crimes the Quaesitors would want to secure "dangerous" things, but since this is a case of manipulation of mundanes there is really nothing to secure.
So the easy answer is "anything the Maga wants her Covenant mates to have they leave behind when they flee".
What's the argument? The magus is protected under the Code. The covenant is not. It seems legitimate to claim entrance to the outcast's sanctum, to look for leads if nothing else.
But I'll admit that the one case I have seen in play was a whole covenant being marched, with quaesitores entering to deface all the sanctums. A march on an individual magus would be different.
The covenant certainly is protected by the Code, under the "deprivation of magical power" part.
Damaging the covenant could very easily hurt the other members' ability to study and research, and is therefore not legal.
The covenant buildings may be, but the covenant as an institution is not. Its members are, of course. Damage to the property of other members would have to be avoided, but this does not protect the sanctum of the marched one. Denying entry to the marching party could well be construed as aiding and abetting and thus a crime.
The covenant as an institution is its members - who are protected.
A marched magus will no longer have a sanctum, since he is no longer a magus. His former sanctum, and its contents, will most likely have become the shared property of the remanining members of his covenant.
That's not obvious by RAW. There are at least two other interpretation. One is that it is handled under common inheritance law, as it would if the magus passes under any other circumstance. The other is the spoils of war interpretation, alternatively that it claimed as restitution by the tribunal as part of the verdict. But I agree that leaving it to the covenant is a possible interpretation too, but more likely after the march is complete and no need for further leads is required.