Claiming a Site for a Spring Covenant

Games Discussion Ars Magica
41

Perhaps vis site registration is in the peripheral code of your saga's Tribunal, but it is not a part of ours--nor is it discussed as a tradition of the Mercere house in HoH:TL or the ArM5 core. In fact, we argued quite vociferously at our last tribunal against the registration of vis sites on the grounds that it made poaching that much more possible. Some Redcaps are also members of covenants-- what, other than their honor, prevents them from learning what registered vis sites there are and then sending people out to steal the vis?

By not registering the sites, they're kept secret. Secrecy helps keep them safe. Again-- if you've irked your neighbor and he knows you've registered a standing stone as a terram vis site, what prevents him from somehow influencing the local priest, getting him to go turn that standing stone into a carved cross, leading sermons from it, building a graveyard there? Suddenly your vis site is enveloped by Dominion, and your power is reduced. And are you sure your enemy arranged it? You can't be sure unless you go... wait for it... interfere with the mundanes. Welcome to the show. Does this deprive your magus of magical power? Sure...but how do you prove it? You can be certain it won't be a cakewalk.

If vis sources are unregistered, then certamen becomes a completely fair and valid course of action when two magi arrive to harvest the vis at the same time. Again, it might just be the tenor of our saga, but I prefer hidden away to out in plain sight.

Assuming you figured out the how and the why and the wherefore of your mundane troubles in addition to extricating yourself from them and replacing the resources those problems deny you, then, yes-- those magi could have a tough time at tribunal. But then that also assumes that you can make the case stick, and that it isn't first resolved by the Praeco's arbitration. Proving that an enemy performed subtle magics on, say... a group of stonemasons might be pretty tough. I think such sabotage would be much easier to do that it might seem at first glance.

If you're the junior covenant in this exchange, then I have the feeling that hunting for arcane connections is low on your list of priorities. Acceptable refuges, on the other hand, are probably right up there.

But again, the idea is to avoid these unnecessary issues-- and how do you do that? By quietly setting up shop and quietly telling the Redcaps when you're ready.

-Ben.

42

But, if that worries you, nobody is forcing you to register your vis sources. You get to choose: if you are more worried about other covenants claiming them and taking them from you you can register them, and if you are more worried about other covenants learning where they are through the register and managing to spoil them, then you don't register them. Registering them is an option, not a duty, IMO.

But getting an AC to you might be high in your opponent's list of priorities (before declaring war), which might make for an interesting story.

About the war you are right, of course. A war against a senior magus is a good way to end up dead. Hiding would probably be the most usual reaction. However, I'd say a weaker but resourceful magus who wants to try and set a trap might have his chance. IMS, aggressive magi might be quick to declare a Wizard's War against a weaker opponent, but most magi would prefer to find a different solution, if possible, because there's always a risk (and because declaring wars too often can cause some political problems for you).

Yes, that's what I would do. However, any potential rival covenant in the area will find out you are there sooner or later, and they might be unhappy about it, even if you are already settled.

43

One man voting alone loses every time to a group of people voting the same way.

44

Ummm, no. It's nothing like that.

The Oath gives them a vote no matter what. That whole third clause about abiding by Tribunal and getting a vote at it. If you have ties to the Tribunal, you get a vote. There's nothing there that differentiates between the Grand Tribunal and regional tribunal.

What ties them to the Tribunal? Glad you asked, let me explain...

Vagrancy! Or more appropriately, not being accused of the low crime of vagrancy. What's vagrancy? Why that's when you don't have a home Tribunal. A magus is first considered to be a member of the Tribunal where he passed his gauntlet until he establishes himself in a new Tribunal.

You establish yourself in a Tribunal by notifying the Redcaps there of the method by which you can be contacted in the case of suits being brought against you. Haven't done so? You're not a member!

Once you're a member, you get a vote. That's the deal. Perhaps you're confusing eremites with vagrants? Eremites are solitary magi who either chose to roam about the Tribunal or set themselves up in some quiet spot with little or no interaction. However, they're still members of the Tribunal, they may vote, they have all the rights of a magus in a covenant, but they often choose not to do so, because, well, they're eremites who don't really care about what everyone else is doing. That's why they're off on their own in the first place. However, the Redcaps know where to find them when they need them; that's the key.

Vagrants, on the other hand, get (iirc) until the tribunal after they've been found guilty of vagrancy to establish themselves in a Tribunal or face being marched. Two very different flavors of magus.

Ummm, no, they don't... they all refer to what the unhappy neighbors of the newly established covenant might do in response to the Spring Covenant's founding. They're all reasons why, as a new covenant, you want to keep your location secret as long as you can. If you're a newly minted magus without a tribunal past your gauntlet under your belt, then I can't really give a good reason for pestering other more experienced magi with either certamen or suic---wizard's war.

Sure...again, depending on the particular peripheral code rulings of your saga. Not every Tribunal cares where you plant your flag and draw your circle-in-a-square. Some just say, "Who're you? Oh, ok. Great. Nice of you to come to the meeting."

-Ben.

45

Something I wonder here, perhaps I am off topic, or maybe it has been overlooked. In medieval europe there are no vast tracts of territory just waiting for a wandering tribe of wizards to move in a set up a power base. It all belongs to someone else already. If it isnt in the possession of a particylar landowner, then it probably just belongs to the King, prince, bishop, pope, royal agent or whatever.

Medieval society does not operate in such a manner as you can pop down the estate agent and procure a piece of land. Moreover, even less chance you can procure it in such a manner as to avoid interference from feudal ties, royal dues, and papal interference.

I would imagine one of the greatest obstacles to founding a new covenant would be obtaining such a 'deal' with the regional power base without breaching any obligations to the order about non-intereference.

This is far less of a problem for an established covenant because one can reasonably assume such agreements already exist; also rumours and superstitions already exist. For a new covenant in niether case is that true.

Just thoughts.

46

Well, you're saying two things here. There ~are~ large empty areas that simply are too wild to be inhabited, but, yes, even those are technically all claimed. (Whether or not it's monitored by the claimant, and how closely, is another matter.)

And while you mention the larger entities, often a simple knight or abbey might be the only authority that needs be dealt with, directly at least.

I would imagine one of the greatest obstacles to founding a new covenant would be obtaining such a 'deal' with the regional power base without breaching any obligations to the order about non-intereference.

Keep in mind there's a big diff between interaction and interference. Striking a deal is not a problem. Striking a deal that includes magical support is. So, the only trick is either to appear mundane, or keep the Order aspect of things at a respectable distance.

47

You're very right-- you can't really just drop in and legally claim the real estate. There are a few options, I think...

With a "tame" noble companion, you can gain some legitimacy...

You can set up shop in a fairly remote location...the less people in your nearby region, the less chance anyone will arrive to contest your settlement anytime soon. When they do, well, that's a good story...

You could establish a commune in a roman ruin or along a trade route and work to purchase a charter through mundane proxies. Money is not usually a big issue for magi.

A lot of this is dependent on the region where you're trying to found a covenant. We know what the rules would be for Rhine and Normandy. We can guess at the guidelines for the Transylvanian Tribunal, given the dominance of the Tremere there. Ruins are common in the Levant, Theban, Loch Leglean, even Stonehenge tribunals, so the squatter possibility might be an option.

just some thoughts, but yes, it's worth further research on that point.

-Ben.

48

Well, if it helps any, this is what I have done and what I have seen done in play. Now, keep in mind that none of these situations was flawless, just adequate enough for us to deal with and have some stories based on our struggles. This also represents the evolution of my understanding along the development of the game through various editions. Hopefully this may be of help to newbies and for others it can be fuel for philosophic debate.

Ravens Blood Saga (3rd/4th edition, little experience, Transylvanian Tribunal)
I designed a haunted corrupt winter covenant. All the PC's were vile blackguards. The covenant was inhabited by a Tytalus Diabolist and a Tremere who insisted he was not a vampire. 3rd edition hack and a crop of newbies. The PC's were either related to one of the two senior npc magi, or were invited because of needed skill. That saga didn't last long. My hope was for the young magi to revitalize the winter covenant, but being evil themselves they spiraled into corruption.

Andorra Saga (3rd/4th edition, some experience, Iberian Tribunal)
A long running saga that still influences my games to this day, I went for the "revitalize-the-winter-covenant" idea again, and was much more successful. The key here was to empty the covenant first. The players were invited by their parens and other elder magi to take on the challenge of restoring an old covenant to it's former glory (none of them wanted to waste their time on it). Purely by accident, the level of difficulty versus the level of success was balanced just right.

That is the key to any new saga, spring/summer/winter or fall. That's also the hard part. You need to set the level of difficulty at just a high enough level to keep people interested, and grant enough success that they don't get frustrated.

Let's see...

Covenant of Zealand, that was a Spring Covenant (4th edition, more experienced, Ultima Thule)
Originally, Herot was just a saga idea. In ArM5 it is an official covenant of the Rhine Tribunal. Our saga takes it's place. We handled land by making the companion of one character the local Hersar. This was munchinitis really, because no one ever played that character. It would be the ArM5 equivalent of Tame Nobleman. What else? We built our labs virtually from scratch. I made all the labs -3 and stated that they needed to be completed. We all started with a sawhorse and a beaker :laughing: More munchinitis, because those points got shifted over to a larger library. But basically, in order to make it work, the premise was that we had our respective parens and other patrons to thank. They in turn intended for us to be pioneers. Again, more powerful magi getting youngers to do the grunge work for them, but rewarding the youngers for their work as well. That saga continues on in 5th edition.

Rockford Saga (I don't know it's name, but my friend runs a 4th ed saga that I have sat in on a few times; Stonehenge Tribunal, experienced sg new players)
My friend had the players create the classic spring covenant by the book (his personal alignment is Lawful Neutral, :laughing: ). These guys succeeded by being uber-cooperative. They were veteran AD&D players, used to the tight knit team like dungeon party, and they applied their team philosophy to their covenant. Unrealistic, but it worked. Every book, grimoire, item containing vis, acquired interesting item for the lab's pantry, right down to what they ate for dinner based upon what their food source was that year. Not my style really, but it has worked fantastically for them and the saga continues (never upgraded though).

I honestly haven't been able to start up a new 5th edition saga. I have upgraded the Zealand Saga, but the few times I tried a new 5th ed saga it was beset by misfortune. Nothing to do with the material, just bad luck, people move or switch jobs, etceteras.

This is what I have seen done in play. Like I said, each was flawed in it's own way. I'd be interested to know what has worked for others in play, the in story reasons it worked or failed as well as any metagame reasons.

49

One of the things I tended to use as a resident problem is the idea that the church in my games tends to be fairly invasive. If you establish a community of any size, even a few farmsteads and a manor, then they are going to expect you to retain some sort of priestin that community.

The obvious trick is to have an itinerant priest in your pocket already, but no matter how you handle it - the church is gonna want its cut of your mundane resources and unless you truly are in an entirely remote location they are going to find out about it eventually.

The dormant nobleman has been the common escuse in the past for my way around the 'fiefdom' which is the covenant, but I realise other charters are available - but whoever granted them is a story hook of one form or another. Even noblemen owe alleiance to someone, at least until the development of bastard feudalism in the 15th century.

50

That is mostly true. Some of the Spanish nobility had allodial title to their land. This was common in both Aragon and Castile. Carve out a fiefdom on the borderlands or in some abandon territory, and it's all yours. The Fueros and Alodial Barons had a great deal of autonomy. That's why Navarre kep fracturing into smaller kingdoms, and why modern Portugal forms a separate kingdom.

Church and State get handwaved alot. This isn't such a bad thing because these aren't the stories we are interested in. However, to be realistic, these are probably bigger obsticles for a Spring Covenant than anything other magi are doing.

51

Ben, you are not entirely right according to RAW, but neither entirely wrong. So when endavouring to "explain" make certain to check the references.

Look at the paragraph "Voting Rights" on page 49-50 in HoH:TL. It states that it "guarantees all magi the right to cast their single vote, according to their will, on all issues brought before their residential Tribunal and the Grand Tribunal", and thus not just any Tribunal. Moreso it states that "Most Tribunals impose some formal residency requirements" and that "These are often linked to membership of a covenant recognized by the Tribunal" as well as that "For most Tribunals, the key requirement is the ability to be contacted by the region's Mercere".

Thus it is clearly possible that simply leaving information of your point of contact with the Redcaps is enough. In some Tribunals. And that is the major point here - that variance can and do exist! In some Tribunals this holds true, but you cannot in such bold terms make this universal, much less argue this to be the one and only truth of voting rights. The RAW clearly makes it apparent that some Tribunals have requirements based on "membership of a covenant recognized by the Tribunal". In the same chain of thought it is thus also perfectly possible that some Tribunals might allow eremite magi (in the sense of granting them political voting-power), whereas others might not.

This is all good and well as it makes it easy to both make interesting differences between regions (Tribunals) of Mythic Europe as well as making individual troupes able to stay within the (unfettered) limits of the RAW and still tell the kind of stories they would prefer.

52

Not meaning to come at you particuarly Ben, and this is not a matter of what you should or shouldnt do in your particular saga, but entirely about what the RAW says subject and on that I disagree with you.

Have a look at HoH:TL page 83 and you'll see that you are wrong in stating that this isnt discussed as a tradition - it is in the lower part of the right paragraph and even has a bold emphasis.

This part speaks clearly about the registration of vis sources to the Redcaps - not as a needed legal measure but as a frugal anticipation of possible future challenges on the ownership and that the Redcaps would then be credible and decisive witnesses and that his would "legally protect their [the covenant's] resources without necessarily making them public". Furthermore it describes the Redcaps to be discret and trustworthy in this matter and that many covenants therefore make use of this option.

Of course this is in general terms, and I could think of many story hooks in this context (not all which would put individual Mercere in a positive light), but the general picture is far from how you paint it.

53

No intent of malice taken. :slight_smile: Fair enough. That's what I get for skimming the section rather than giving it another in depth reading. You're very right, the HoH:TL does appear to show a tradition of vis site registration, and I agree it does allow for stories that might depict individual Mercere in unsavory terms.

Even if the site is registered, though, that doesn't prohibit a challenge for ownership by certamen. So long as the challenging magus had say... a year's harvest worth of vis to place as a matching ante, that is a challenge that would likely stand up in tribunal.

I'd never intended my statement to imply that a magus could vote in any Tribunal-- just that a magus is guaranteed a vote at the Grand Tribunal and his Tribunal of residence. I'm not sure where I might have said otherwise. Being an eremite shouldn't prevent that right to vote, and that was the impression Agnar had left me.

Nothing prevents an eremite from being a covenant of one (as long as a covenant population of two or more isn't one of the Tribunal specific requirements), but they'd still need to meet any other requirements-- so for Normandy, they'd probably be required to have a vis site within the necessary distance of the council chamber. For Rhine we know that eremites are instead the Peregrinatores and that they roam from covenant to covenant until the established covenants approve the new covenant creation or they join an already created covenant. I don't have GotF handy to reference if that Peregrinatore designation prevents them from voting; my first thought is that it probably does not prevent them.

Still, as long as they met the requirements, you could have covenants of one magus in other Tribunals that would have as much validity as covenants with larger populations. And then the covenant of one could wander, so long it's regular return location is known. (maybe a shipborne covenant? or a caravan type?) What I'm saying is that being a lone magus who moves about the Tribunal shouldn't preclude one from participating in the tribunal votes. Indeed, a savvy political-oriented magus might try to rally those lone magi to all appear at tribunal and vote in some preferred way on some matter. I wouldn't call it a simple task, but if your magus was intent and thought it was important enough, that could be a very fun story.

-Ben.

54

True. And in the response to that you left me with the impression that the opposite, that they always can be expected to be able to vote, was the case, whereas contextuality seems to be the rule of thumb.

In some Tribunals eremites (whether connected to a covenant or not) would be possible one way or other, while they wouldn't in other Tribunals. This difference can both be used to make troupe-decision as to what is prefered or it can be used as a political issue (as I did in our most recent Tribunal-based story) or as a simple backdrop spice on differences between regions.

It shouldnt neccesarily preclude one from participating in Trbinal votes, no.

And I totally agree - that is a very interesting story!