Casting tokens for quaesitors

Games Discussion Ars Magica
142

Biased and incomplete? I literally summed up my perception of the key opposing points.

So you are one of the low trust of Quaesitors camp.

Clearly different sagas have different types of orders. In a saga where the Qusesitors are known to be very reluctant to use their powers unless they are certain there is wrongdoing; they have a reputation for not going on a witch hunt (pun intended); then seeing a Quaesitor and 2 Hoplites should make any magi in that world be deeply suspicious that someone in the covenant is doing bad things.

In the saga with low trust of Quaesitors, it could easily be a Quaesitor being deployed to weaken, or even remove a rival, and should be met with suspicion.

143

The way you state that seems misleading, even if technically true.

I do not assume that all (or even most, or even many) Quaesitors are corrupt, self-serving bastards. What I do assume is that they are more difficult for a given mage to trust than the other mages in their own covenant.

Every single day 'mage A' can converse with mages B through H (their covenant-mates -- well, except for mage H who we already established is away for a season to study elsewhere). Mage A can know something of their ambitions, goals, motivations, and methods; which books they write, which they read; what lessons about proper behavior they have instilled in (past or current) apprentices; what other folks (magical and otherwise) say about past interactions with all of them; what their attitudes are towards other mages, the Order, the church, mundanes, animals, faeries, and so on.

The Quaesitor is a stranger, a comparative (and perhaps absolute) unknown. Even a high-integrity Dudly Do-Right Quaesitor is handicapped by this.

And a mage who volunteers to sacrifice even as little as a season per year away from their magical pursuits is a little suspect -- how do they intend to keep up with their peers? Is there a short, quick, tempting, easy road to magical power which the Quaesitor is secretly pursuing? If it is so utterly unsurprising and yawn-inducing to discover that a close associate in the same covenant has been keeping Demon-licking secret for years, how much more opportunity for malfeasance does someone outside the covenant have?

I do not treat 'Quaesitor exists, and appears' as an automatic presumption of guilt for everyone else in the covenant. If Dudly Do-Right the Quaesitor shows up at the gates, then how are they to know that I am the only 'good' one in the covenant, and am not neck-deep in the Demon-licking?

Any Quaesitor who shows up uninvited (especially uninvited and in an official capacity) is dangerous, precisely because I may now need to prove that I never did all the things that I never did -- and, because I was busy doing mage-stuff, did not bother to document that I was not involved with all the stuff I did not know about.

144

This is an excellent point. Quaesitores have the (limited) authority to investigate. And even that falls under forfeit immunity. They present what they find in their investigation to the Tribunal.

It's the Tribunal who has the authority to take action. And the examples we have are fines, punishments like loss of a familiar, and Wizards' March. Its the latter for which hoplites are called in.

Quaesitores won't be showing up at your covenant with hoplites ready to blow down your Aegis and force their way in unless there has been a Wizards' March voted by the Tribunal. If a Quaesitor + hoplites show up at your covenant for a Wizards' March declared by the Tribunal you're supposed to aid them because that's part of the Oath. Without the authority of a Wizards' March in effect the Quaesitor is just investigating, and so is limited by forfeit immunity and it would be weird for them to be accompanied by a couple of hoplites.

145

Trust in the Q's is only one factor here. There are others such as Trust (Or Not) in Tribunals/Outcomes, Trust (Or Not) in Coven-mates, Correlating knowledge (Do I know a mage was murdered over the next ridge last month? Or is this out of the blue?), and issues of rapport/reputation on all sides. The Tribunal atmosphere is very relevant besides.

If I'm in the Rhine and the Quaesitor is from a Gild that politically opposes mine, that should be a red flag.

If I'm in Rome and I have a client here looking to make a deal with some vis, a Quaesitor showing up could just be more lawfare over vis and using the system to jockey for advantage/position and strangling one another for resources.

But in general I'd agree trust in Quaesitors is one of the very relevant factors here that some seem shocked is even a factor.

In our particular instance here ... I'd find the assumption that someone in your own house is guilty, because a Quaesitor has even shown up, to be more than a little extreme. Unsettling even. And that is without assuming that the Quaesitor is somehow a bad actor. Unless there is some kind of reason to already think poorly of some of the other Covenant inhabitants it just seems more reasonable to me that they should be more inherently trustworthy. As mentioned before some have a more "ride or die" attitude than others. I'm not sure I've expressed anything that is that extreme (to me that is more like an Amici/Amicus level of bond), but I would certainly expect that in a healthy Covenant members should feel a sense of shared interests and a communal "us" vs "everyone else" sense of identification, without clear evidence.

If I were assumed guilty by my Covenmates based on some flimflam and later proved my innocence, I'd very likely be strongly considering my decision to be a part of that Covenant.

146

That is fine. In your saga the Quaesitors clearly meddle more than they should and are willing to act on rumours. I do not know how many times I can say sagas vary, though.

A saga with a very trustworthy Quaesitor organisation, who have a reputation for not doing anything with a fair degree of evidence, then yes, the Quaesitor bringing muscle should make someone suspicious of their fellow covenant members. At least a little.

147

That is a mis-represenatation of the position. Even Dudly 'The Order Is Mother, The Order Is Father' Do-Right the Quaesitor does not warrant the instant assumption of guilt of, well... someone, anyone, potentially everyone, but certainly at least one covenant-mate.

Sure, a storyguide is free to choose to build an Order where every single covenant is rife with demon-licking dark secrets, every non-Quaesitor mage is a mutant, communist, member of an illegal secret society -- and every single Quaesitor is Dudly 'The Order Is Mother, The Order Is Father' Do-Right; absolutely infallible, totally loyal to the Order, and with always acts with perfect integrity. But it tends to fall apart under scrutiny; where do all these Dudlys come from? Why do they not instantly resign the moment that they realize their very presence is toxic to the trust and community which are the essential building blocks of the Order? Why do they not simply declare a New Schism and seek to wipe out all the dirty, untrustworthy non-Quaesitors?

Maybe squaring the circle is possible, and building such a world could be done without it being an exercise in esoteric futility; I don't know. But however it is done, I don't think it can be reasonably characterized as 'the average saga in the default setting'.

If you wish to discard the 'instant presumption of guilt', then it does seem to get easier; but 'always trusts an outsider' is a difficult thing to sell, and 'always trusts an outsider above all others in the covenant' is even more difficult yet.

148

This seems neither necessary nor arguably sufficient for what I've described. Which ... if anything that would make this highlight instead the differing ways that we see the underlying factors here. And that is ok?

I think the real polarization in the discussion seems to be an outflow of differing game priorities and other sorts of social preferences that also affect play.

As someone who leans simulationist the question of whether something feels more "real" or not is almost (not quite exactly) the same question for me as to whether it makes for a better game or not. I grant not everyone looks at things in the same way. The reactions of many in more moralistic (for lack of a better term) terms makes it clear some others have very differing lenses and senses of priority about some of these things, which do not seem focused on realism or depth of setting/simulation.

My critique of the assumption of guilt is based on it not seemingly credible or realistic to me. Yet granted ... people can and do arrive at conclusions others find startling and unbelievable. (Truth is stranger than fiction perhaps?)

Different people certainly can also disagree on what sort of world they would like to play in, for any number of reasons, and simulationism doesn't have to be even on their list of concerns much less at the top of it.

I tend to see the default setting and play assumptions of Ars as leaning more detailed, grounded, and simulationist (one of the things about the game that I find appealing), but I think that doesn't hold perfectly true across all of the setting material that we have in various sourcebooks. Notably the Tribunals make for significant differences that sometimes I have difficulty accepting. But I'm sure others can and do have quite different perceptions of the various Tribunals than I do, to say the least.

149

Yeah; maybe that was a cheap shot. My bad. [Edit:] Nope, it was totally warranted. [/Edit] Sagas certainly do vary.

I tend to find a similar take on simultionism very relatable.

150

A Quaesitor can call a Wizard's March when a magus poses a threat to the Order that requires immediate action, and as long as the Quaesitor is able to justify the action with compelling evidence it will be ratified at the next Tribunal. No Tribunal has ever ruled that a Quaesitor called a Wizard's March wrongfully - see True Lineages p.62.

151

We're moving the goal post here. If that Q tells the local magus he's calling a Wizard March, then maybe he'll get his tokens. But that's not the OP question anymore.

Players have offered more than 12 ways this event could play out. We should respect that diversity of opinion instead of pushing for the desired "my way or the highway" resolution.

152

One presumes that to call such a march the Q should/must have "smoking gun" grade evidence that should make the matter largely unquestionable. And be willing to present or at least materially describe, or somehow give a convincing view/account thereof.

It is enough to make one really wonder what sort of clear evidence would be roughly the cut off point of meeting this standard vs not. Given the need to ratify the decision at Tribunal I'd generally assume a Q "should" want that evidence to be well beyond just "enough" if you will.

Not at all.

Very much so.

Repetitively adding assumptions to exagerrate the "complete compliance" line of thinking, and strawman any dissenting view.

153

The discussion keeps going all over the place, so I thought I should go back to the original post

In my Saga the Oath of Hermes is treated like Americans treat their Constitution.

In many ways the Oath of Hermes gives each magus/maga the right to do whatever they want without interference so long as they don't endanger/overstep the boundaries of other magi. Not unlike a simplistic analogy to the American Constitution and the attendant Bill of Rights.

There was a scene in the Borat movie IIRC where the character managed to get invited to a Southern Dinner Party and behaved atrociously. The hosts were scandalised but tried to keep hospitality up. In that case Borat would never, ever be invited back.

Going back to the original post and imagining the same Southern household, the post seems to say that a circuit judge (the post doesn't specify if they are local) rolled up with a couple of heavily armed LEOs (maybe even SWAT members) and claims he has the authority to conduct an investigation *(*no rationale posted) and demands that the household allow the 3 of them unfettered entry to the property and allow them to trample all over the household expectations of privacy.

I know that different Americans will behave differently in this circumstance, but I doubt any will be happy about it, and many will oppose that unexplained demand to surrender their rights to some degree or other.

There may have been nuances left out of the original post that really shouldn't have been left out.

154

And this is where the key differences are. In a sage with a very trustworthy Quaesitor, the appropriate analogy would be if a couple of police show up with a search warrant and a sniffer dog, and ask for your room mate. You think you know your room mate well (and for the sake of the analogy, no, he does not have a basement meth lab), but a search warrant? Sniffer dogs? This is bad.

And this difference is fine. The decision between "I suspect my covenant colleague has done wrong", or "I suspect the Quaesitor is way out of line" is a combination of the prestige (or lack thereof) of the Quaesitors, and how well the magi get along.

What they then do also relates to the level of willingness of the magi to submit to authority. There are some magi who would always fight. There are some magi who would throw their colleage under the carriage to save their skin, even if they though the Quaesitor was out of line.

155

The irony in the use of mis-representation is entertaining. It seems you are suggesting I am suggesting the Quaesitors are the only just people in an order rife with villains. At least make a better straw man. An order full of villains will clearly not trust the Quaesitors.

Lets look at the modern world for some inspiration. I live in Australia. We have a reasonable relationship with the police. If someone shows up with a search warrant, I know a lot of investigation was required before that warrant was given. I am really worried someone in my house has done something wrong.

Am I certain? No. And I have never said that the magi should be certain the Quaesitor, with hoplites showing up means guaranteed guilt. In a saga with high trust in the Quaesitors, only the most trusting of magi, does not at least wonder if their sodales are hiding something.

156

As a counterpoint I try to think of it in terms of feudal relationships and medieval guild politics. The Oath, Code, Peripheral Code, and the norms and traditions of the various Tribunals don't define the rights and freedoms of the individual magi but instead define the duties and responsibilities up and down the relationships with much of it structured to maintain an orderly set of affairs that is fair enough that the lower levels don't chafe too much but mostly benefits the upper levels. The individual magi have expectations of freedom from interference from other individual magi but such freedom is not an inherent and inalienable right but instead is an agreed upon right similar to the rights conferred to guild masters in trade and craft guilds.

The generic Quaesitor isn't questioned merely for devoting a season to acting in that role. Instead he's viewed as doing his duty. They are the traveling representative of the Tribunal and ultimately the Tribunal is the overlord of the Covenant even if it can be a distant one. Of course individual situations vary with some Quaesitors being legalistic busybodies, slackers, or what have you. Similarly OP's specific scenario of someone not well known locally showing up armed for bear is a very special case. But the general case would, at least to me, be that they would be treated similar to any other situation of a lord or lord mayor of a chartered town hosting the representative of the king or whomever is their overlord.

Which ends up with a situation closer to what Lee is suggesting. General trust in Quaesitors and a feeling that your covenant mates are often like flatmates or work friends in a small company not ride or die best friends. Sure you support your covenant mates but you don't know everything about them. Influenced a little by the bit I paraphrased from HoH:TL earlier - the Quaesitors have a duty to investigate. I read that as meaning that they end up doing a fair amount of dealing with things that end up being nothing but were formally presented to them. Again, OP's case doesn't seem to lean that way with Hopilites and so forth, but in general I don't view the magus (or covenant in general) to Quaesitor relationship is nearly as confrontational or oppositional as the many current US citizens view their relationship with the police.

Edited to add (many hours later) - Please read the above as a longwinded way of saying that I think there are multiple ways to view the Order not that my way of viewing it is perfect, canon, or even something I would push if I joined someone else's sage.

However part of the reason I love Mythic Europe is that it can stretch my imagination to think about what it means to have a medieval mindset. Certainly there are modern ideas that I don't want to play without especially those dealing with sex, gender, and race. But I'd rather attempt to think about how the Order would structure itself and what other institutions it might be influenced by than assume a 21st century view of an Enlightenment model as the automatic default.

157

I am clearly articulating the problem that I am arguing against: The automatic assumption of guilt, arrived at from the mere arrival of a Quaesitor. To the degree that you think an automatic assumption of guilt is silly, we agree.

To construct a saga where the automatic assumption of guilt is reasonable takes all manner of mental gymnastics -- and an Order full of non-Quaesitor villains not trusting the Quaesitors is yet another problem; good job on identifying it. I appreciate your help in pointing out the many-layered silliness inherent in the 'automatic assumption of guilt' world-building.

Mythic Europe is not modern Australia. Quaesitors have no authority approaching police serving a 'Search Warrant'; they are more akin to nosy neighbors, perhaps as part of a police-affiliated 'neighborhood watch' program.

It is really important to understand and use the feudal lens when trying to decipher Medieval Europe, but it is inappropriate to use it with the Hermetic Order. Mages do not have a King (who owns everything, and is the ultimate source of all authority) nor a Divinely Ordained 'Head' like the Pope. Tribunals and covenants are not fiefs held in trust in exchange for pledging loyalty and service unto death to a liege lord, and they are not subject to having their 'production' skimmed by those in layers 'above'. Bonisagus did not found the order with overwhelming force, compelling all the other founders to bend the knee in servitude -- the Order was founded by delicate negotiation and compromise among (mostly) equal peers. They only barely agreed, and seemingly did so by making only the very smallest possible concessions to limits on their actions and power.

The section of the Hermetic Oath which refers to Tribunals implies that all mages have an equal say, and no single mage has absolute authority. Instead, mages must (minimally) constrain their actions to things which are not objectionable to the group / community. The fact that Tribunal only convenes once every seven years implies that it is intended to exercise influence with only a light & occasional touch. The day-to-day running of an organization as large, powerful, and spread out as the Hermetic Order would certainly require far more involvement than this, which suggests that Tribunals do not (and are not intended to) 'rule' the Order.

Again, Quaesitors are not 'Police', and do not have anything like the power granted by a 'Search Warrant'. At the most extreme, a Tribunal can enact a Wizard's March -- but it is NOT clear that individual Quaesitors can (or would be wise to try to) do so. Short of that, they operate under forfeit immunity -- more like nosy neighbors (who are allowed to ask questions and expect truthful answers, on topics limited to an ongoing investigation) than constables or SWAT teams.

158

I like to ask myself in what spirit medieval hospitality was granted and how guests were treated, and in my mind that certainly has an impact on whether casting tokens are granted.

I meant that especially PC covenants are high-trust, because most players are not interested in PvP conflict (and of course their OOC trust bleeds into the game).

Why would Quaesitors worry about internal checks? That's the business of the covenant, and nothing in the Code proscribes checks.

159

Another straw man. My position has never been definitive assumed guilt. My position has always been anyone but the most "Ride or Die" person would at least be suspicious of the others in their covenant, provided, and this is the big qualifier, the Quaesitors have a high level of trust in the saga.

In your saga. Others differ.

If you are insisting the base setting presented in the rules has Quaesitors as an overhyped neighorhood watch, I've got some excerpts from the core rulebook for you to read.

"The Quaesitores had been able to enforce the Code during the final stages of the War, as all members of the Order were theoretically united against a single enemy."
"A legal Tribunal must be attended, in person, by at least twelve magi from at least four different covenants. There must be one Quaesitor present to oversee the legality of the proceedings,"
"Members of this House are the judges of the Order, investigating wrongdoing and bringing cases against those who transgress the Code of Hermes and the Peripheral Code."
"The House is sometimes known informally as House Quaesitor (KWAE-see-tor), as 'Quaesitor' is the title of those magi empowered by the Order to investigate crimes."

I'm sure if I went digging in true Lineages I could find more.

One of the key strengths (or for those who prefer a more defined setting, a weakness) of Ars Majica is most things are deliberately vague.
Who was responsible for the Sundering? Story Guides Discretion.
Were Diedne doing blood magic? Maybe.
Did Guernicus use terrifying old magics to end the Schism War, and does the house still have them? Probably.

Are the Quaesitors mostly a force of justice keeping the Order together, mostly corrupt self-serving thugs, or somewhere in between? Story guide discretion.

160

I really don't see why that would be the case. This reads as if every mage were craving to amass the most power possible. In my mind the Order is very diverse, mages have very differing goals, and "Quaesitors enjoy a privileged status in Hermetic society, but this comes with responsibilities." (HoH:TL p. 61) An Order where community service is viewed with suspicion and everyone competes with everyone else does not square with what I'm reading in the books.

That suggests that you believe your world view is the only correct one and that people who have a different view are "unrealistic"?

I think this points at the root of the problem. We are talking about Europe in 1220. However, every single one of us is fundamentally unable te really understand the middle ages, because we see everything through the lenses of our respective post-Enlightenment, post-WW-II, 21st century backgrounds and experiences. In this thread, I have read lots of comparisons of medieval structures with those of our time, because that is how we make sense of things. We can read up on social structures in medieval Europe, but we'll never come close to understanding the actual experience. There is no police in medieval Europe. There is no justice in today's sense. There certainly are no universal human rights.

So we throw in the completely ahistoric concept of the Order of Hermes, populated by magi we can relate to a little better. In all this discussion, it clearly shines through that we are largely debating our own world-views, projected onto the Order. It should be clear that those questions will not be resolved here.

As I said before, I will not give any more details about the original question, which was intentionally vague. The purpose of this thread was to explore different perspectives, which is what happened.

161

Again, I want to stress that while I do feel my interpretation is potentially more interesting and equally supported by the Ars Magica materials I completely understand the interpretation that OakRover is putting forth. While there is some amount of arguement much of what I am doing is putting down my thoughts as a way to help me understand why Ivgreen's connection of the Oath with a very strict view of the American Constitution did not sit well with me.

Certainly the Order is closer to a guild in structure although the join or die attitude and the structure of defined self governing geographical regions that authorize smaller geographic divisions within them and arbitrate resource disputes have some similarities to feudalism (which itself is incredibly diverse over the area covered by the Order). Plus the Houses that, to me, resemble the collections of Orthodox churches - all fiercely independent and differing in traditions with no Pope figure but only a bunch of leaders each of whom is nominally equal to the others.

Even with the long lifespan of magi the traditional 1221 start has had plenty of time for things to change from a wary compromise between people who were only recently exposed to the idea of a parma. The delicate negotiations were undertaken by the Founders and a few first generation apprentices. As a small group grows bigger over time it generally become more structured especially as it undergoes multiple large, stressful events and significant changes in the outside world.

This could in the form of doubling down on the independence of magi with what collective authority is acknowledged at the smallest level possible (the covenant). Alternately this could see the strengthening of institutions as the Order shifts from being based on personal connections to a more legalist model where the peripheral code, various Tribunal rulings, and even informal norms balance that freedom of individual magi against the safety and prosperity of the order as a whole. A third possibility is a more top down authoritarian model as followed by the Tremere but I that Ars Magica did a fairly neat play by making one House dominate one Tribunal with this idea. That puts it in play but means that we don't have to postulate that the entire order could have gone that way.

Prior to the Schism War my personal thought is that the Order was dominated by the first line of thinking. But I find it hard to see that level of almost purely local authority and emphasis on personal freedom over all surviving the disruptions of the war plus the increase in the number of magi, the further 200 years of increasing pressure over resources in many Tribunals, increasing strength of institutions outside of the Order, (and depending on how you want to spin it) the increasing contact with the Arabic world.

Of course Tribunals have different characters and norms and it's easy to see the very independence minded magi gravitating to the "frontiers" as you might call them. Ireland, perhaps Scotland, parts of Central and certainly Eastern Europe. The places where covenants are farther apart and often younger, resource competition is less of a problem, the lords and the Church are perhaps less of an issue, farther from the Domus Magni and thus for some magi farther from an authority source that they might chafe under, and (at least for me) it is easier to think of the area as wilder and closer to the Magic realm.