Apprentice of a Marched Wizard

Games Discussion Ars Magica
21

I was and am only talking about a single Magus being Marched.

Marchers are basically bounty hunters. They have no special exemptions under the code to demand anything from another Magi or a group of them (Covenant). If a Marcher is denied entry into the Covenant they have no standing to legally force it and if they attempt to then they are an invader which means any actions taking against them on the grounds is self defense. Damaging any part of a covenant (not just buildings, but people, resources, materials, income, etc) damages the Covenant's ability to function.

If a Marcher was denied entry and went into the Covenant anyway, they can't even claim self defense if attacked since they are the "offending party". And if anyone shows up demanding to be let in with a "spoils of war" claim, they can justifiably be told to pound sand.

Quaesitors on official duty are the exemption. But even they need to 'ask' to be let into the covenant if the remaining members are still Magi.

What type of covenants (other than some Spring) can even be entered without going through security and defenses? Most established covenants are hard to breech without performing 'hostile magic' against them.

And that is not even counting the ones which go out of their way to be defensive, such as being setup in sealed regio with massive AotH. With those the only way you are getting in is if allowed or you attack it.

2 Likes
22

Interesting discussion.

I wonder how marches go when the (not yet) marched maga shows up at Tribunal to plead her case. I can certainly see a Jerbiton or Tytalus showing up because they believe that they are very qualified to advocate on their own behalf.

When the vote is counted and announced is it just instantly open season? That seems a horrific (and dramatic) end to tribunal.

23

See HoH:TL p.60 Wizard's March:

Normally, magi that the Tribunal has voted to cast out have until the end of the Tribunal before they can be legally attacked. Until the Tribunal is ratified and declared closed, the magus is not officially cast out. This helps ensures the sanctity of the Tribunal grounds. However, if the convicted magus makes any aggressive act, the assembled magi can respond as they see fit.
Magi that are a clear danger to the Order, like diabolists, are slain beforehand, with the Tribunal later endorsing the action. In the rare event of a magus being cast out at Tribunal, the situation is tense. Many Tribunals asked outcasts to leave the Tribunal grounds immediately. In most Tribunals this period is seen as giving a sporting chance to the outcast.

Briefly: tricky and specific to a Tribunal - but most ones have customs and experience with them.

3 Likes
24

You argue as if we are dealing with absolutes, when we are not. I do not dispute that an uncooperative covenant cannot simply be overrun, but there are another key observations.

§1. The properties of the marched magus do not belong to the covenant, even if they are in a sanctum, in said covenant. (Only the joint property of the covenant does.) We know this because canon describes Hermetic inheritance law, which would favour filii and parens and not the covenant in the case of intestation.

§2. While the other members of the covenant are still protected by the code, it is no leap to suspect them of collusion with the marched magus. Seen to hinder the march, they could easily be marched in the next round. While property disputes could easily be deferred to the next tribunal, access to the sanctum to collect arcane connections and other leads would be urgent.

§3. The comparison with the quaesitoris acting on suspicion is not very relevant to the case of a conviction. When the March is declared, the tribunal is also able to rule on the execution of the march, which could include access to the magus' properties and places of frequent visits.

§4. As I think others mentioned, nobody but the marched one would compensate the marchers for their efforts. If we scrap the spoils of war thesis, it may be hard to recruit the hoplites needed.

§5. If the property goes to the heirs under normal inheritance law, the inheritors would often be the first to be expected to slay the outcast. Not fit for the task, they are quite likely to use the inheritance to the pay the hoplites, effectively converting it to spoils of war.

§6. If the marchers has a claim to the property in the sanctum, denying access would deprive them of their magic power.

In short, any disagreement we may have over what ought to happen, can easily be dissolved by tribunal decisions.

2 Likes
25

§1. Personal possessions, not properties, belong to the marched magus. The properties belong to the covenant. While the rooms (or small building, depending on covenant layout) making up a sanctum are under the sole control of a magus, they are a property of the covenant. It is very possible that there are things like enchanted items and books within a sanctum that are possessions of the covenant.

§2. So on pain of possible march, the covenant has to let anyone who wants in in and allow them to take whatever they want from the sanctum? If they take something they shouldn't have or damage covenant property, oh well the covenant has to wait till the next tribunal.

§3. It very much is. The only people that should be let in to gather arcane connections, leads, and possessions which will go to the successful marcher are the Quaesitoris. Otherwise you risk things like contamination and looting. The Quaesitor will want to secure the scenes. What you do not want is a random collection wandering about doing whatever they want.

[The Quaesitor can, and most likely will, allow so of the Marchers to go in with them. However those Marchers are observing. They should not be gathering things, casting spells, etc unless asked to by the Quaesitor. They for sure should not wander off to do their own thing.]

§4. I never said scrap the "spoils of war". However the spoils go to the victor rather than any randoms who show up first and "demand access". With anything left behind in the sanctum it needs to be determined what belongs to the marched and what belongs to the covenant. It needs to be held until the march is completed rather than risking bits and pieces disappearing into random marchers pockets.

§5. Agree. If any possessions remaining after the Victor(s) take their due would be doled out under inheritance law.

§6. Marchers have no claim to the possessions in the sanctum. Only the Victor(s) do and if done properly those items would have been documented and preserved by a Quaesitor.

There is a distinct difference between Marchers and the Victor(s). Anyone who chooses can be a Marcher, but just because they are does not grant them access or a claim to the Marched possessions. If such access if granted then many of those possessions might go missing and there is less to compensate the Victor.

Anyone "demanding access" can and should be blocked. Any doing this are likely to be the type in which random things "disappear into their pockets".

The Quaesitor is not going to demand, since they will not want to antagonize the remaining members of the Covenant. They have the authority to force it so will not be denied, which is why I said they will "ask" earlier. Doing it politely will get cooperation, questions honestly answered, and information not asked for offered up. They are also the ones with the specialized magic needed.

Open season bad. Controlled access good.

2 Likes
26

§1. I did also not include the real estate as personal property.
§2. They are sodales of the Order, aren't they? Why would anybody cause damage?
§3. Having a quaesitoris on the marching team is very likely. I never implied anything about who they would be.
§4. Another role for the quaesitoris. I did not imply anything about what order all of this would occur in.

It seems that we agree. My argument was simply that property (possessions in your wording) are not safe from marchers even if they are in the covenant. If they need to bring a quaesitoris, they bring a quaesitoris. (I think non-quaesitores could get sufficient mandate from the tribunal, but this is rather irrelevant to the argument.) You are of course right that looting is reserved for successful marchers. and that is of course relevant to the apprentice which was the concern of OP.

Now, there is a separate concern about the apprentice. The tribunal and/or quaesitores may have to make sure that the apprentice is not corrupted by the traitor. If times are rough, they may well decide to slay them to be on the safe side, or the quaesitores may want to foster and monitor for a few years before turning them back to a trusted magus of an appropriate house. Again, this is a question for the tribunal or the quaesitores at the particular time and place.

27

Several things can happen. In no special order of priority:

  1. A covenant mate may take the apprentice, possibly sending them to another mage (of the original's House) later.
  2. Any apprentice of a dead magus can be claimed by an interested magus: a complete stranger or even one of the marched mage's slayers might claim the apprentice. Seems risky for the claimant, especially in the second case.
  3. If no one steps forward, the apprentice might be awarded to another magus, or even auctioned off.
  4. A mage might will the apprentice to another mage, probably of their House, possibly of close lineage. Apprentices are similar to property, and even if in a close relationship with their parens, custody arrangements are possible.
  5. Even if the apprentice is claimed by a mage, a close lineage relation might appear to claim them. The True Lineages are not likely to tolerate an apprentice being taken out of house, nor would the Mystery Cults. Drama is likely to follow.
28

I think the big question is if an arrangement made with the marchee just before the march would hold any weight. A claim to an apprentice is only confirmed upon the first season of training. Once the March is real, the apprentice is not only property, they are also an agent presumably loyal to the marchee.

29

This seems circumstantial.

Would an arrangement hold in general? Maybe, depending on the magi involved. Strictly speaking, the apprentice is forfeit to the magi who slew the marched mage, but if there is fear of the apprentice the reasonable choice is to either slay the apprentice or find a more distant new parens.

Is an apprentice an agent of their parens? Who are we discussing? In the case of the near-Gauntlet apprentice in the case above, maybe. A less advanced apprentice, maybe not.

Of course, if a mage willed an apprentice to someone ahead of a March, that inheriting mage might find themselves under scrutiny.

30

agent = someone capable of acting, that goes for the apprentice as for any other human being

of their parens = belonging to the parens, which has been established without objection already in the thread, by the apprentice is property argument

Yes, it is possible for an apprentice to act against their master, but that is unusual. This was a Jerbiton and not a Tytalus.

31

An apprentice only becomes an actual apprentice once their Gift has been opened, at which point they are legally an apprentice of the mage who opened their Gift.
But after that I don't know of any special requirements when selling or otherwise transfering "ownership" of the apprentice.

If their master gives them away to another mage, they are that mage's apprentice from that moment on.

Apprentices are not assumed to be loyal to their master - and often are not. They are assumed to be under the control of their master.

If a magus is marched, he is cast out of the Order, and no longer as any legal claim to any apprentices. So any transfership of the apprentice must happen before they are convicted and sentenced.

1 Like
32

AFAIK there is no documented precedent either way, making it house rule territory. The idea of having to train the apprentice to claim ownership applies not only for first opening the arts, but also in the case of an abandoned apprentice.

i.e. they are supposed to act loyally, which is sort of the point.

33

Peasants and enslaved people are supposed to be under control of their lord or owner. Mundane (civil or traditional) law may assume that they'll be loyal. I suppose Hermetic Code might assume that, too.

Actual loyalty may differ.

1 Like
34

I'm curious, where in the sourcebooks is there a detailed look at hermetic inheritance law? I'd like to check out that kind of thing for a saga I'm planning.
As for this question, I'd say pretty much anything goes when it comes to the apprentice of a Marched magus. Another magus could immediately claim the apprentrice as his own, and that claim might be immediately contested or disputed - I doubt anyone would argue with a revered arch-magus who claimed the apprentice, for instance, whereas a young magus of ill-repute just a few years out of apprenticeship himself would probably face a few serious objections.

35

I don´t know about detailed. There are several mentions under the elaboration of the Oath in the Guernicus chapter [HoH:TL], but the essence is that local tribunals determine inheritance law, and leaving it to the covenant may be commoner than I thought, even though it remains non-universal. I am sure that I have read that making testaments is common enough, but I cannot remember where.

The most interesting mention is probably under «Duty of the Parens» [HoH:TL:53], which confirms that the duty to slay an outcast follows the inheritance chain ... this obviously means that if the covenant does inherit property from the outcast they also have the first duty to slay them and would liable to prosecution if they don´t.

it is rare that the inheritor strikes down the outcast. This leaves them liable to prosecution. The slayer can charge the inheritor with failing in their lawful duty and settle the case by acquiring the inheritance rights. In 1220 this convention is so established that no one normally bothers with any legal formality.

36

It's slightly different.
If the covenant is the inheritor of the parens of the outcast (and said parens has passed away or into Twilight), then the covenant has a duty to slay the outcast and is liable to lose the inheritance if it fails to do so. One cannot inherit property from an outcast, because an outcast is no longer a magus and as such cannot own any property to leave to anyone.

37

The text in the Guernicus chapter implies that there is an inheritance from the outcast, even if it is unclear when they refer to the inheritor of the outcast and when to the inheritor of their parens, or if they simply confuse them. It is certainly not obvious that «Many allow covenants to inherit the estate» refers to the inheritance from the parens; why call it an estate if the point was inheritance of the duty to slay?

1 Like
38

Not as I see it. Let's just look at the whole text - which is about the duty of the parens to slay an outcast filius, and in particular about who inherits such a duty when the parens is dead or in Twilight:

The Oath demands the parens be the first to attack an
outcast magus. If the parens is dead or in Final Twilight,
the inheritor acquires this duty. This is often the eldest fil-
ius of the parens.

It seems to me that here "the inheritor" cannot mean "the duty's inheritor" or the sentence would read effectively "when the parens dies, who inherits the duty is he who inherits the duty". Instead, "the inheritor" means "the general inheritor of the just-mentioned parens, he who inherits his estate upon his death or final Twilight". This is confirmed by the fact that said inheritor is typically eldest filius of the parens, not of the outcast.

If there is no other filius, the duty is
passed to the magus with the closest relation. Ultimately
the House Primus is responsible if there are no relations.
The exact inheritance chain is actually the province
of regional Tribunals. Many allow covenants to inherit
the estate.

It is pretty clear that even in this last sentence the text is talking about the inheritance chain from the parens (of the outcast) since that's what it's been talking about until now - aligning inheritance of the estate (that belonged to the parens) with inheritance of the duty (that equally belonged to the parens).

However, it is rare that the inheritor strikes
down the outcast. This leaves them liable to prosecution.
The slayer can charge the inheritor with failing in their
lawful duty and settle the case by acquiring the inheri-
tance rights. In 1220 this convention is so established that
no one normally bothers with any legal formality.

Only after this point do we learn that the inheritor (of the outcast's parens) must repay any debts the outcast had. If we were talking about the inheritor of the outcast, why point out that he inherit the outcast's debts too? That would be automatic - when you inherit from someone, you inherit both assets and debts (that's the estate). It's only because the estate we are referring to is that of the parens that it must be made explicit that the debts of the outcast, too, come with it.

The
inheritor also inherits any debts the outcast had. So if the
Presiding Quaesitor awarded the outcast’s victim dam-
ages, the inheritor must pay from the inherited estate

39

You seem to imply that the slayer has to pay the debts of the slayee out of the estate inherited from the parens of the slayee, typically many years later, while somebody else can claim the estate of the slayee. Thus the victims of the crime may have to wait half a century or more to get their due compensation when the parens of the offender dies.

To me, that's sufficiently absurd to review the start and insist on a different reading.

40

The scenario is possible. And the result is actually easy to deliver in the way nobody, but covenant magi may claim her. Easy legally, very hard emotionally, as it requires the fellow magi of the covenant to slay the marched magus on the moment of the verdict passing on Tribunal. This fulfills the Code totally, and gives nobody, but the investigating Quasitore split of the property of the magi.
The other easy option is to make it a Tribunal ruling who gets the apprentice in the case magus is marched.

1 Like