OOC During this time, they are to be investigated by the members of the covenant to determine the character of the Pledge and to decide if they will add a value to this covenant. Each member may test a pledge once, and the forms permissible for this inspection are as determined by the Council of Masters.
What happens if a test is failed, what if a test is unpassable like a pagan demanding a christian mage speak prayers to their pagan deity? what limits are there on these tests and inspections. The whole issue and fighting that you are getting is you are adding in unrestricted scrying into someone's affairs and almost no mage would agree to it. Saying that it is for council of masters to decide is not corect, it should be limited.
This is why when I wrote charter for our face to face game: it was seasons of service, vis payment, or some other proof of earnestness but it is a task of deeds by the council, not sabotague potential by any single mage and there are limits even to that built into charter (for example, no more than 2 seasons of service selected by applicant though approved by council)
Q - What happens if a test is failed?
A - People form opinions based on your performance I suppose. Theoretically you could fail every test, and they decide to vote you in anyway. And you might not always know if you passed a test or not. Maybe you were supposed to fail the test.
Q - What if a test is unpassable like a pagan demanding a christian mage speak prayers to their pagan deity?
A - That isn't a sort of test the current members would allow. If it is, then it is perhaps designed to challenge your faith. I can think of a scenerio where someone instructs you to do something wrong as a test of obedience, and if you do that thing you fail because it was really a test of moral ethics.
Q - What limits are there on these tests and inspections?
A - I purposefully kept some things vague, stating that the Masters (current members) have the right to decide what sort of test or challenge is permitted or not. If it gets to the point where the members (players) start permitting cruel and sacraligious tests, then it is time for everything to be destroyed.
I am dodging the issue and passing the buck. Octavian, Falls, Fixer and Scott. They don't think that sort of thing should be permitted, so it won't be a test any of them approve of.
Versimilitude. Even if I agree with you I still don't want to change it because it doesn't seem realistic. I keep making referance to the old description of Doisettep in ArM2 Covenants. It was very much harsher and much more strict. The Flamens (Masters) has the power to order Saracedos (Journeymen) around like slaves virtually, none of their time was their own. The tests and challenges to get in were grueling. Rarely did they open call for membership, but there was always a long line waiting to get in.
This covenant is based upon the traditions of such old-old covenants, but has evolved and become more liberal and progressive. But this is still a tiered structure. You start out as an Associate (Journeyman), eventually you become a Made Man (Master)and maybe a Capo (Bishop). If your career is magnificent, you can maybe become a Boss (Pontifex).
Mark, please give a heads-up when you start a new thread--it's bad enough that half the time the forum site doesn't bother with notifications of new posts (email or RSS), but it's absolutely impossible to know about a new post in a thread I'm not watching because it didn't exist before.
Viola, in any case, is deeply suspicious of this exercise of drawing social distinctions.
Sorry. I announced the new thread in the last thread, so I thought you would be notified from that. I figured also that you were busy with end of school year activity.
I Apologize
OK, sorry, I didn't see the announcement in the last thread (which one?). It would help, obviously, if the notifications actually worked.
Viola doesn't see a pressing need for establishing different degrees of membership, let alone Code-violating magical inspections. She might be convinced of the merits of a probationary period, though.
The magical inspections portion has been dropped. It is you, Viola, who has the authority to decide what forms of testing are acceptable, and if you say "no Intellego inspection", then there shall be none.
The different degrees of membership got to stay though. They have been a part of the covenant since the start, and I want to emulate old hierarchical style covenants. Can we compromise there? Keep the ranks, chuck the inspections.
The other option is to hand-wave. It isn't that I want to make you guys go through all this stuffat all. I just want it written into the description of the covenant. I mean, pretend it is a covenant from a published sourcebook. There is a feature you don't want to play out and I don't want to remove. We just wave the magic wand and say "blah-blah-blah" and everything works out anyway. We never have to specify exactly how it all works out, we just all have our own separate versions in our separate imaginations. We just pretend, which is what we are doing in the first place anyways
OOC: Yet several of the members have already said they don't want Ameline, so if this is approved, there is going to be issues, esp if she wnats to pay off her service to covant in healing spells (tire her out, but save covenant loads of corpus vis) instead of vis or full seasons.
I am in favor a covenant hierarchy. I'm still thinking about the current form of it, but in favor of hierarchy in principal as a player. Ludo doesn't like having someone above him obviously, but I think it is certainly IC and adds to the setting.
The inspection issue, by the text of the new proposal, is actually worse IMO.
The 'testing' is left entirely at the discretion of the council of masters and that means it can be anything and is set by the bylaws of the covenant... without restriction by the charter. This even more of an open ballgame that before and much much much more open to potential abuse.
This could be solved by, from the hermetic perspective, by saying none of the tests can in any way violate the code.
From the perspective of Ameline, and Ludo for that matter, the 'tests contrary to faith' problem is not something I think the code protects. That is just something either of those characters would have to 'deal with' when it comes to the attitude of the existing members of any covenant they wanted to join.
Antonio seems to like portraying himself as tolerant, but we shall see.
OOC: The revised version of the charter is much more acceptable. I've never had any objection to a three-tiered membership system. That is an established arrangement in many older Covenants and even Tribunals (e.g. the Rhine).
I believe that it should be stated that the tests cannot violate the Code of Hermes (this is an essential, if assumed requirement), should be reasonable and survivable (e.g. no requirements to challenge Phillipus Niger to a Wizard's War), and, if deemed in extremis by the Pledge, can be appealed and replaced by a new one if a majority of the Masters or a Pontifex agrees.
Also, the unanimous approval requirement will make new membership progressively harder, as it becomes more difficult to meet with the approval of everyone in larger groups. Obviously, with diminishing resources relative to each new addition, this is a legitimate factor, but something to be considered (not a "breaking point" issue).
Everyone gets to administer their own test, but it must be deemed acceptable to the Council of Masters. It would be a majority decision, and it seems that most people are against Intellego inspection, so we are in the clear.
Most of those characters who oppose you are not members yet. They are guests and applicants, like yourself. Most of the people that have a vote support you, and you have the backing of the Pontifici. You have little to worry about
Rodrigo, the quiet one, is the more tolorant and liberal
The fact that these tests cannot go against the code goes without saying. Nothing of the sort would be allowed. Remember, we are by no means isolated. House Mercere is a firmly rooted presence here, and what we do is well observed.
OOC: Realised one other thing that should be taken into account.
There should be a finite number of tests to be passed. Why? Because as the Covenant grows there will be more and more who can demand them, making it both more difficult to please that many and more difficult to complete all of them in an allotted time. Perhaps if, say, three tests might be required, and who gets to issue those tests is based upon lot, a vote among the existing members, Certamen, or some other system it would result in a coherent number of tests, making their passage more feasible. Other members who do not issue them could still have questions, or "interview" the Pledge in order to reach a decision, and could certainly request that one assigned the issuance of a test take certain factors into consideration.
