I wonder if this is something that is heavily influenced by which media people like and think about when they think of Quaesitors. I decidedly do not think police procedural. As you say there are no warrants. I think Columbo, some of the armature detectives associated with police forces, and perhaps a few of the PI shows from the 80s. Or in written form Brother Cadfael, Marcus Didius Falco, or Gordianus the Finder. They are not a nosy neighbor that you can potentially ignore or tell to get lost. They have real connections and authority behind them if it is more political and social than the immediate threat that a search warrant.
Of course if you think that Tribunals are basically impotent the distinction is unimportant. Similarly there are many ways to view the duty to investigate given in HoH:TL. It boils down to I think that if you are ever going to tell interesting stories about Quaeitors you need to give them some real importance. I think you have to avoid both automatic assumptions of guilt but also automatic assumptions of innocence. Whether they are a PC investigating another covenant or an NPC investigating something in the PC covenant there should be room to have real conflict (social and political mainly but even some magical stuff would be good) and investigation.
You are right; putting it context of other factors of common hospitality customs and expectations may bear on whether a Casting Token is offered, and whether there are limitations on that offer. I still maintain that granting casting tokens is a security issue, and that many covenants will be careful to consider whether or not issue one on a case by case basis. This will certainly be colored by the individual covenant, the particular Tribunal, the mages involved, the culture of the gaming table, and a variety of other factors.
Oops; I am sorry, I misinterpreted your point. I thought you might be saying that lack of player interest in PVP would carry over into apathy about the identities and activities of covenant-mates -- and so secret demon-licking might be one outgrowth of that apathy. I completely got that wrong.
Here you seem to be arguing that any time automatic assumption of guilt does not occur:
1} the Quaesitors 'meddle too much' and / or,
2} the Quaesitors 'act on rumors', and / or
3} the Quaesitors are otherwise perceived as corrupt, inept, or self-serving.
None of those things need to be true for 'automatic assumption of guilt' to be inappropriate. If you agree that automatically assuming that someone (anyone, possibly everyone, but certainly at least one person) in the covenant is guilty of something just because a Quaesitor has appeared is a silly, low-probability saga thing, then we do not disagree.
I have not constructed a straw man of your position, I have quoted you exactly. If you wish to back-track from the quoted stance, and say 'some small suspicion is appropriate' then we likewise have no further differences of opinion to discuss.
In the special case of an Order-wide war, which had gone on for years, and all mages were assumed to be in unanimous agreement. That does not sound like a basis for ubiquitous enforcement powers in all places and times.
Once every seven years, they have a role similar in importance as a glorified stenographer; got it. The 'legailty' is established if
1} all mages in the area of the tribunal have been invited to attend; and
2} enough mages, from enough covenants, actually show up; and
3} all mages present are allowed to be heard, and given (aside from the Praeco) an equal vote.
The Quaesitor may not bar anyone from attending, may not prevent anyone from speaking, may not prevent anyone from voting, may not control which issues are brought (or in what order) before the Tribunal, may not dictate to the Tribunal what the final decision is, nor invalidate a Tribunal because they didn't happen to like the outcome.
'Judges of the order' is defined in the next clause -- we already know that Quaesitors do not decide cases (that is what Tribunals do). Quaesitors investigate wrongdoing (ie, they may question mages & covenant-folk about issues relating to an investigation, and may expect truthful answers), and Quaesitors bring cases before the Tribunal. This has already been covered earlier in this thread; Quaesitors may not compel a mage to submit to scrying, nor detain them longer than required to conduct an interview, nor search through a mage's effects nor sanctum without forfeit immunity -- and in all cases their activities are confined to issues relevant to a particular investigation.
Well, I am not talking about 'Alert the FBI & deploy the wire-taps' sort of suspicion; it is (to my mind) much milder. Jerbitons are known to have a faction which considers pursuing excessive magical power to be unfashionable & in bad taste -- but they are regarded as a little eccentric (even by mage standards), and House Jerbiton is suspected of getting perhaps a little too entangled in the affairs of the mundanes. House Merinta is likewise suspected of getting too deeply involved in events of (if not actually 'molesting') the Fae. Charges of paganism might be leveled at some portion of House Bjornaer, and Tytalus might yet have hidden secrets about past members who delved too deeply into demonology. There is nothing 'actionable' here, but it might attract attention and (sometimes) scrutiny.
A mage, especially a non-Jerbiton mage, who actively chooses to not advance their magical activities or power is a little strange.
It is a security issue, but it is not only a security issue. Some examples:
Your pater comes to visit. Even if he's a Tormenting Master and you cannot stand each other, you may feel obligated to give him a casting token.
An archmage comes to visit. You give him a casting token in recognition of the fact that with or without a token, nothing can stop him from doing whatever he pleases.
A high-status member of your house comes to visit. Even if he's from a rival faction, he may expect the courtesy of a casting token.
In all the cases, you can refuse the token on security grounds. There may be repercussions, depending on the kind of saga you play.
That's what I meant as well. You wrote "a mage who volunteers to sacrifice even as little as a season per year away from their magical pursuits is a little suspect". I believe that most magi do not seek power, but status and peer recognition (whoever they see as their peers). That is why you become Primus or Quaesitor, write books instead of reading them, do great things. Magi who sacrifice time for a worthy non-magical pursuit do it because it earns them respect.
This has already been covered in this thread, going over the sections of True Lineages that actually describes the powers of Qs. So I think it has already been made clear how limited the actual powers are according to the material we have.
Playing assuming broader powers is certainly possible but it isn't simply a different interpretation of the source material if it is substantively adding to the source material. Play how you want, but don't pretend you aren't changing anything if you are when questions are about the canon universe as described.
Try the section actually about their powers?
Here we agree. My impression in canon even is that this is highly individual, per each Q, and the Qs are not a uniform body regardless. They have internal factions, differing views of the Code, of broader Order politics, and involve themselves in matters to very differing degrees.
What, because evaluation based on realism of the universe as described is somehow something that comports to my personal political/moral views? That does not seem like a reasonable connection to make.
Simulationism is a gaming philosophy, not a personal world view. It shouldn't be difficult to tell the difference. Pointedly simulationism shapes the evaluation of what is desirable here to being framed by an evaluation of realism being based on the material we have and what it describes about the world and culture of the Order. If anything simulationism rejects shaping that to suit myself and my own worldview (or that of someone else) and instead strives for authenticity.
(Or as much authenticity as we can achieve pretending to be wizards on the internet. But I digress. )
Granted, also, others don't need to be simulationists to be playing Ars Magica, and they aren't "playing it wrong" by doing so. But if they change the world and material to suit themselves, their saga has varied, as they say. Which ... that is ok. But it isn't the canon universe.
Here I believe I've already agreed with you, more concisely.
Which is also part of what I was referring to as moralizing.
Something, something "antisocial" or "abandon all community" ... remember those? There have been several instances.
Not of expressing disagreement on what the canon world is like, based on source material, but on social judgments of in world things based on their own views. Kind of like what we just went over that we both agreed that people were doing, yes?
Here I must concur, and also I believe there are multiple instances of such back through the thread beyond just that one.
What one intuits their own position/argument to be vs what they actually express it to be are not always the same thing, and that isn't an uncommon problem to say the least. The expressed argument is all anyone else has to interpret however.
Agreed. Yet that isn't really the nature of the disagreement as it has occurred.
The polarized discussion here has centered however between the camp that asserts the security issue (associated with casting tokens) as being serious and reasonable to be concerned about (and hence why they would answer the original prompt in the way they did) vs the camp that dismissed it as completely unreasonable and has been insulting and moralized while presenting arguments as to why it should not affect decision making at all.
Largely due to being attacked and/or the expressions of pure incredulousness of the anti-security crowd at the contrary answers to the prompt.
(The goal posts and forms of these arguments have repeatedly shifted yet if you read the thread from the beginning this is not so subtle.)
Which is not the same as saying everyone ought to be equally concerned about security, and in all circumstances. I think it has been said clearly several times (including by myself) that there is variability/room for nuance there from the security perspective. But hey, why stop a good argument for the petty trivialities of what people have actually said, right?
I chose the word "worry" carefully. This model of governance doesn't break the Code at all. But if the boss chooses to break the Code, no one in the covenant will stop them, or tell the Quaesitors. That makes it a higher risk than (say) a covenant full of bickering mages who would love to rat out their rivals to the cops.
In my head, the Quaesitors spend some time thinking about which covenants and magi are more likely to break the Code, to help them anticipate problems, and I think "boss model" is one of the danger signs (alongside others such as "feuds with many other magi", "good friends with local lords" and "member of House Tytalus").
At this point we are arguing fine distinction. Is it absolute guilt, a significant degree of suspicion, some suspicion, no suspicion? I've always said it's either a significant degree, or some degree, depending on how trusted Quaesitors are in the saga.
I will agree there's little benefit in discussing further differences of opinion. I consider I have said the points I have wanted to make, and maybe too often, to the point of bloating the thread a bit.
Except the Order has no Kingly authority at the top of the social order, unlike the majority of Europe. Instead it has the Oath of Hermes from which all authority is effectively derived and guaranteed rights distributed.
One magus/maga, one vote. Iceland is possibly the only place that has a remotely similar social setup in ME.
So going back to the original post, you have 3 "visitors" (who have the same rights as you do) not requesting, not waiting for you to offer hospitality, but instead demanding without explanation that you surrender certain aspects of your household integrity and privacy. I would think many would consider their "rights" being unfairly "infringed" upon.
You might want to ask what is your mage's attitude to Tremere bullying prior to the Sundering?
Addenda: I should have said that a lot of it was implied rights rather than guaranteed.
The duty to train an apprentice to a certain standard, implies you have a right to have apprentices. The duty not to imperil other magi implies you have a right not to be imperiled, etc.
The Order seems more like a republic than anything else: a mutually interested group of relative equals all vesting specific responsibility and authority in officials. Official authority is not highly concentrated or broad. That's comparable to the Roman Republic, where the magi are loosely similar to senators and the officials are elected by a process, not necessarily popular vote.
Quaesitors have authority, derived from their appointment by Tribunal, cross-authorized and monitored by other quaesitors.
In the OP question, if a quaesitor asserts he is here on official business to conduct an investigation, and asks for a token, is it given? Is granting a token required by duty? To expand, is a token habitually, or automatically given, or is there some level of trust required?
Note that it was a "Quick question".
I continue to think it's a question shaped by context.
Is the Q at least neutral and apparently in good standing and both respectful and respectable? I'd grant it.
If the Q is a known pest, I'd require explanation.
It is entirely possible that the Quaesitor IS on official business -- but not to here. The actual destination is still a week or more travel away; and showing up at the covenant is just hoping for some hot food and a day of rest before continuing on. Refusing to discuss 'official business' might mean declining to comment on an investigation which is underway on another mage, and a wish to avoid slandering them if the investigation turns up no wrongdoing. The casting token could be something desired to allow some form of magical communication to other people close to the investigation scene.
It could all be perfectly harmless, with no ill will towards anyone in the covenant at all -- and jumping to conclusions about 'obviously someone here is a secret demon-licker', or increased suspicion of any sort, is unwarranted.
But the 'duty to cooperate' does not include automatically issuing casting tokens; so if the Quaesitor is being rude and/or threatening, he can go kick rocks.
It is an interesting view, and I can certainly understand having that be one element in how your table builds a fun saga with great stories. But my perception differs a little -- the original agreement was between thirteen parties, and today is an agreement between just twelve. It is not 'The Order' which has grown, it is the individual Hermetic Houses.
While the internal hierarchies of the Houses have developed and become more intricate over time, the agreements between Houses are more difficult to modify -- not least because there are more mages in each house to object to any shift in the status quo. Tribunals do have some authority to accomplish these sorts of things, but the no-change mages can stump up support and representation with equal (and maybe much greater) ease than pro-change mages.
[Edit:] Plus, of course, older-and-more-powerful mages can exercise tremendous influence over their apprentices and younger-and-less-powerful mages in their own House. When the number of mages in each house is very small -- like happened at the beginning of the Order -- the older mages might have utter dictatorial authority because it is only them and their apprentices. So it seems easy for new power structures to develop in-House, and not necessarily as easy between Houses. [/Edit]
Of course, sagas are often about how the player characters impact the world; sometimes making drastic changes by playing through stories -- so change is not impossible, just (more often) the purview of the PCs.
After slogging through a long and interesting discussion, a quick answer as I see it.
In general you are not strictly required to give him a casting token.
Whether you do give him one depends on a whole lot of factors:
the general culture of the Order as defined by the individual saga.
the culture of the Tribunal; as others have noted Thebes is very different from Hibernia.
the culture of the Covenant and the personality of the individual magi - just as different players here have completely different perspectives, I'd expect different magi and Covenants to vehemently disagree. In general, Quaesitores know that some covenants are far more cooperative than others, at least on the surface.
the specific situation of the Covenant. Do you have stuff you do not want unearthed? Do you need to clean up a bad reputation?
the reputation of Quaesitores at large, and of that individual Quaesitor.
the attitude of the individual Quaesitor.
The last is extremely important in my view. In virtually all settings save the most dystopian ones, the Quaesitor will not come to your door and say: "Quaesitor on official duty. I require a casting token". In fact, I'd say a Quaesitor is more likely to refuse a freely offered token than to demand one ("By no means, no, why would I need a casting token? Investigative magics? No, of course not, every magus has a - dare I say sacred? - right to his secrets. No, I was just hoping you could help me navigate this unfamiliar environment and clear up a few doubts about a strange situation that has cropped up. Official investigation? Well, technically yes, but you know, it's just because my housemates are a bit overzealous on procedure and want all vis expenditures properly accounted for"). In general, a Quaesitor knows that the trust and sincere cooperation of the host is much more valuable to him than raw magical power. That's why he'll do everything he can to avoid being confrontational, or even just putting the host ill at ease.
Of course, there may be exceptions. If the Quaesitor has already collected sufficient evidence that the entire Covenant is a diabolist coven, and is ready to bring down the full power of two experienced hoplites onto it, he might request a casting token hoping for a refusal that might constitute just one piece of circumstantial evidence against the Covenant and an excuse to unleash unmitigated violence without tarnishing his reputation - the equivalent of firing a warning shot. But even then, he would provide as extensive an explanation as possible, so as to make the refusal look as bad as possible.
In this sense, it's important to note that there are many different ways and degrees of refusing a casting token. If a Quaesitor comes to your door and says simply "Quaesitor on official duty. I require a casting token", you might simply answer "get lost". Or you can say "Alas, what might bring a Quaesitor on official duty to our Covenant? Please come in an explain yourself, while we wait for our sodales to assemble - of course, I have no authority to grant a casting token on my own, we need every member to approve the granting. But if there are any magics you need in the meantime, I would be happy to provide them, if they are within my power [Two days later:] Eh, it looks as if our last sodalis is out on an expedition and won't be back for the season. A terrible pity you did not announce your visit beforehand... Urgent? Is this really so urgent it can't wait a season ot two? It seems hard to believe.".
I can see that as a possibility. It feels wrong to me but I'll freely admit that's probably because of the specific group I was playing with back in 1e/2e times. With less official material and a bunch of history and poli sci majors we focused much more on the regions / Tribunals than on Houses.
You don't think that your personal views color your perception of what's realistic?
If they change the world, yes. But maybe they don't change the world, they interpret the setting just as you do, only in a different way. I'd say that e.g. perceptions of Quaesitors as mostly idealistic or mostly self-interested is shaped by personal views more than by written material.
That wasn't me, I don't agree and I'm not defending that. Nobody here is "anti-social", just as nobody is "anti-security". I believe the discussion would run smoother if we could stop assigning labels.
I only want to state clearly that I have not insulted you, I have not attacked you, and I am not part of either camp.
I am not a historian, but in my mind city councils and guilds are similarly organized. I didn't mean that there are no democratic structures in ME, only that any comparisons to modern concepts should be trated with caution.
)
