[size=150][color=darkred]"I will not use magic to scry upon members of the Order of Hermes, nor shall I use it to peer into their affairs..."[/size]
So states the Hermetic Oath.
Yet, what is the limit of such? Is the important phrase "use magic", or "to peer"? Is this judged merely by the presence of magic, or by spirit and intent?
If the mage is checking the safety of the arrival sight, and not specifically "to peer into the affairs" of other magi, that should not be a crime, right?
Even if it innocently reveals something personal? If an innocent Intellego spell is being used, but it reveals another mage or "their affairs", does that same action then become a crime, merely because of an accident of chance, of what was observed?
If that is the case, then what of travel spells that take you rapidly to another Covenant, where you then, as a matter of merely visiting and arriving days earlier than mundanely possible, see another's affairs?
A group of magi are travelling in the dark- Eyes of the Cat are handy, but also would allow a mage to casually notice other magi more easily, and their actions and spells they cast - is that then a crime?
What of spells that protect you from the elements during mundane travel (horseback/hiking), that allow/encourage travel to other covenants, making it easier, thus facilitating "peering into their affairs"? When does magic make the difference, or should it?
It is not so important to address each example, but to take them as illustrative of the larger question- where does the Order draw the line?
It would be typically medieval to ignore any question of intent and simply judge the action, but, if it is merely a matter of the magic, rather than the intent, then, as illustrated above, "using magic to peer into their affairs" is painfully flawed in its lack of limitation. Then, technically, any spell ever cast that led to a later mundane observation could be a breech- and that's just not practical to enforce.