Quick question: If a Quaesitor comes to the door of your covenant, tells you he's here on official business to conduct an investigation and asks you for casting tokens for himself and his two hoplites - do you give him one? Is it required by your duty to cooperate?
If he needs to cast a spell, he can ask for a temporary token sure and I would give it to him but remain in its vicinity to avoid he does anything bad for the people in the covenant. The hoplites? no.
You have no duty to cooperate under the Code. If he wants to investigate badly enough he can do so without your permission, but that is also what forfeiture of immunity is for.
You have a political sensitivity to whether you want the Quaesitor to think of you well or not, and whether you might have any cases before Tribunal any time soon or not. Whether you would like to have a Quaesitor who remembers you well be the fellow adjudicating your own case some time in the future.
You might also simply challenge him to Certamen to demand if he has no clear evidence of a crime he should go away and leave you alone. I wouldn't expect friendly handling by him afterward, but I wouldn't generally expect friendly handling from those defeated in Certamen in general.
Generally speaking I also would expect a Quaesitor to avoid direct investigation at a Covenant if they could think of ways to investigate that let them avoid that. Why? Because if you don't know the identity of any potential criminal you don't want to alert them or any potential friends that you are searching for them.
If the trail of investigation leads directly to a Covenant then that is something to be handled delicately and with political savvy by the Quaesitor. He must balance how interested he is in this case, how urgent he perceives it to be, with any other interests and concerns involved. And how willing he is to reveal his investigation or take any risks involved.
Re duty to cooperate, according to HoH: True Lineages: 'By Grand Tribunal ruling, a Quaesitor in good standing can demand that magi cooperate with an official investigation. Without giving up their legal rights, a magus must assist an investigation if asked... Failure to cooperate with an investigation is a low crime.'
Eh, this is basic questioning. Not a blanket submission to scrying. This is why forfeiting immunity exists, and addresses Qs using it during investigations. Can they cast spells to investigate? Yes. With legal risk to themselves for committing a crime while doing so. Can they demand a casting token and to cast spells on your Covenant grounds? That seems far beyond the line of investigation unless there is literally a violent crime scene there at the Covenant providing a compelling and undeniable reason to investigate specifically there. Otherwise they can fish somewhere else where there aren’t multiple sanctums and the privy secrets to multiple Magi.
While there are some rough guidelines in the books, like many things in Ars Majica, the fine detail is deliberately vague, to give the Story Guide license to do what works in their saga. Were Diedne doing human sacrifice? Maybe. Were Tytalus dabbling with Demons? Very likely. Was Meranita taken over by a high fey? probably.
Back to the point. Some Story Guides may rule not assisting is a low crime. Some SGs may determine it is a bad look to refuse the Quaesitor, and bad for the covenant reputation. Some SGs may rule this is heavy handed on the Quaesitor, and giving the token is considered bad for the covenants reputation.
I have always thought that under most normal circumstances magi are given casting tokens when they visit a covenant. I think it's a bit unusual for a quaesitor to arrive at a covenant with not one but two hoplites, as that would indicate some really serious and dangerous violations of the Code, but they might well see it as a tacit admission of guilt of whatever crime they were investigating if they didn't get the casting tokens.
The critical question here isn't "is it technically legal to refuse?", it's "are you willing to suffer the consequences of refusing?"
Quaesitores effecetvely operate under a political system, moreso than a legal system. They present their case to the Tribunal which then votes. If you refuse to aid a Quaesitor you're risking having the Quaesitor present you as a case to the Tribunal for vote. Do you have the Reputation/political clout to ensure you suffer no consequences? When you've probably ticked off the Quaesitores, who certainly do have the Reputation/political clout to have consequences imposed on you if they want? Moreover, do you want to make your covenant a target for an endless series of Quesitorial investigations since you're obviously hiding something?
Now, if you're a Tytalus wizard or covenant you might want all of those consequences to happen for Reasons. But most covenants that aren't swaying the votes of the entire Tribunal whatever way they wish will not want to risk it, and will want to stay in the Quaesitores good graces. If you think there's something hinky about the Quaestitor and his hoplite your best option would be to bring it to the attention of a friendly Quaesitor.
... You did make it a priority to be friends with a Quaesitor, right?
Thanks for all your thoughts. I don't think this is a clear-cut case, and a lot will depend on the circumstances.
I also don't think casting tokens are covered by the duty to cooperate, and that it's a political question. Can you afford to be uncooperative? Are you making things worse by cooperating, or by not cooperating? I just wanted to get some opinions and thoughts.
I don't think this is something we have evidence for. And I wouldn't regard it as "normal" as much as a sign of trust and friendship. This to me is a sign of a serious friendship, likely on the formal Amici/Amicus level.
But then ... your saga may vary. And it also likely would vary from Covenant to Covenant, and across the Tribunals with their respective local cultures.
Well, I guess the alternative to giving them a token is being asked to cast the spells necessary for the investigation, and that is covered by the duty to cooperate. And of course to give formal testimony so your output can be verified.
As @Hyalus pointed out above, its a political system more than a judicial system. But there are plenty of ways of getting a magus to make themselves look guilty if you are uncooperative and unreasonable, even though they may be entirely within their rights to do so.
I think that if a magus went to all the trouble of taking time away from his studies and research to go on a journey to visit another covenant it would also be a pretty big sign of trust and friendship. Of course some magi might be able to zap around the countryside with The Seven League Stride but for many others it would be a considerable undertaking.
Potentially. Yet that presupposes a great deal about a particular type of scenario that goes much further than just "under most normal circumstances" would seem to indicate.
There is no indication that either providing a token or permitting scrying on Covenant grounds without a compelling reason falls under any reasonable sense of duty to cooperate. The section that mentions a duty to cooperate literally only talks about questioning. Much less providing someone to investigate on the Q's behalf upon demand. The Q's are not police level empowered in Mythic Europe and that is very much on purpose.
A Quaesitor appears and tells you he's on official business. You know him, and have a positive opinion of his conduct. He requests tokens for himself and his two hoplites and explains why.
A Quaesitor you've met once appears without announcement, and says he's on official business. He urgently asks for cooperation and tokens and gives a questionable reason why.
A Quaestor you've never heard of appears unexpectedly and demands cooperation and tokens, without explanation but with implied threats of prosecution.
Same situation, different reactions.
It's your duty to cooperate, but you're not obligated to cower, obey, or serve. Quaesitors serve the Order and general good of the Tribunal and law; they do not rule.
I would say yes for the Quaesitor, and optionally for their Hoplites, which would become compulsory in case of some kind of Tribunal or praeco writ.
This is definitely YSMV kind of situation, amd would represent to what extent the Order trust the Tribunals' authority.
One other thing to keep in mind though is that the ability of visiting magi to cast spells within the Aegis can be revoked at any time. So I don't know if giving a magus a casting token does signify such a deep bond of trust and friendship.
I don't think there is clear guidance on such matters that is definitive in canon. I think it is in the realm of interpretation of the setting far more than not.
That said I don't view the Order of Hermes as an altogether amicable or peaceful magical society. There are real reasons that Certamen and Wizard War exist, and it is to resolve the propensity of Magi to conflict with mechanisms that attempt to minimize escalation. The world of the Order is not safe, even when dealing with other Magi of the Order. Safer than dealing with others to be sure, but Hermetic crimes are hardly unknown. And opinions, to say the least, are quite divided on how difficult they (hermetic crimes) are to investigate and prove at Tribunal. Much less the political process involved in winning a vote at Tribunal for any sort of conviction or exoneration. And often multiple years after the crime.
I view the Order as highly imperfect just like every other human institution, only the imperfections are grossly amplified by the sheer power that every single Gifted Magus can wield on their own. It isn't any more or less flawed than any other human society/institution, but the problems can be explosive (literally and figurative both). Certamen and Wizard's War express the idea that in the setting there isn't just occasional conflict, there is a perpetual thread of tension between very powerful individuals, and they settle their differences based on mystical might because that is a proxy for mystical violence. A proxy for discovering who the greater Magus who "should" get their way is, by mystical trial of arms.
Which I think leads me to interpret social amicability and trust in the Order differently than you do. The Order functions to bring relative peace and stability amongst a staggeringly wide array mystical traditions/practitioners in part expressly because it demands relatively little in the way of actual social or cultural conformity or even amity. I sometimes like to joke about Healing Herbalists and Necromancer Death Knights having dinner together, oh my! But I think it is important to realize that it is by design and part of what makes the Order such a diverse magical society. But also one that doesn't have perfect stability or cohesion. Or, in my view, perfect trust.
You are of course free to have a different opinion but I'd be very curious what your reasoning is for a "high trust" version of the Order?
Resource conflict is key. Human's are not inherently horrible. People will help complete strangers, because it is the right thing to do. Humanity becomes brutish when we do not know where the next meal is, or we fear that someone will take our resources, so we will starve in future.
Magi do not have that concern. Nearly any magi can make mundane wealth easily. Magi fight over wants, not needs, and generally a beneficial trade works better than risky violence.
When vis is scarce, and auras declining because extraction of vis, it can be "need".