Who cares wether arbitrary or not? The point was that if the inflation effect wasnt BIG ENOUGH, then why ever would a tribunal bother...
Yes its always sad when i bother providing a lot of supporting information which gets promptly ignored or rejected in favour of a myth.
Which is why i usually dont bother spending time on such.
You seem to think that somehow I am trying to convince people to play the game my way. That's not what I am about. I'm explaining a viewpoint that works for me and that I think is relevant to the original post. There's plenty of room for interpretation in the Code in spite of all that has been written about in ArM5. Can you play in a Saga where the Order feels it is sometimes necessary to intervene in mundane affairs to correct the effects of something magi did wrong? If you want to, yes. Could that lead to problems that you don't want to deal with in your Saga? Absolutely. On the other hand, does it make sense that the Order would vehemently reject the possibility of magi making any kind of reprisals against mundanes? Also, yes.
All I'm saying is, explore the implications on your game if you interpret the Code this way or that way. Use a little imagination. But, now that I've made that point both implicitly and explicitly, I don't feel I have anything more to say. Clearly my ideas aren't welcome so I'll keep them to myself.
Mr. Gronosky,
I post these sorts of threads to get ideas, views, and opinions that can inform and enrich my game and help entertain the odd five to seven players I might have playing in my game. I am extremely grateful for your views, despite the sometimes contentious tones that appear here and there.
I hope we can all continue in the spirit of good-natured discourse without anger, name calling, or dismissiveness from anyone. We all play the game in the way we feel best works for our players and our enjoyment and I like to hear all sides and all stories that come from the collected knowledge of the Ars Magica community here.
Again, thanks for responding to my initial queries and adding more ideas to the developing plotline.
Si vales, valeo
Vrylakos
Shameless snippage to reduce post length...
I completely agree with this point, like everyone I play ArM 'my way'. I do feel it is very important though, when responding to someone's request for info that we keep very clear distictions between the canon and personal views. Certainly where I comment on things wya off core interpretations I try to make that explicit, and if I fail to I expect to be corrected.
My issue is not that your interpretation is an abomination - do what you like with your game. My Issue is that it is not explicit that what you are saying is very unorthadox.
As a public forum where people commonly come for advice on rules, I feel this distiction is very important. I myself make frequent posts requesting rules advice. I rely on the accuracy of those replies, and where people have 'in my saga' variations I would expect them to say so.
Anyway, if any offense was given it was unintentional. I was simply hoping to calrify what is a more normal interpretation.
This.
That's fine, but no one thinks you're trying to convince anyone to play your way - we think you're trying to convince people that black is white and the AM5 book is written in actual Latin.
Certainly, never a question.
But your conclusions are so far from canon that I, and many of the respondents, cannot fathom how we can be reading the same book. Or how you could arrive at your conclusions from the material we know.
Because they never swore to uphold the Code? Because the Order of Hermes has no authority over mundanes? Because punishing mundanes, especially nobles, for a "violation" of something they never heard of would possibly "bring ruin upon my sodales", and be exactly what the Code prohibits?
Any of those. Take your pick.
Sadly no.
Let me say this very simply - what is the Order going to do, throw the mundane out of the Order of Hermes? Kill every mundane that ever profits from a significant financial transaction with magi? (And fine the ones who only have lesser transactions?)
Um... yeah! That's it exactly. What right do you think the magi have, except right of might? Point to a law, point to an oath, point to an authority over that noble. And you will never point toward the Order, or anywhere vaguely in their direction.
It would be like the Secret Service knocking on your door and saying "An agent you talked to broke our rules of conduct, which you've never heard of but we live by - so, we have to kill you now". Can they do that? Sure, who'll stop them! Do they have a "right" to?...
Are you kidding us?
No, you must only be kidding yourself, because we sure don't buy it.
This is the only thing you've said that we agree with.
If mere "mundane interference" is enough (which is not how the Code reads, nor how it's interpreted in canon), then you're absolutely right, agree 100%.
But this isn't an "interpretation" of something that could go both ways. This isn't a quibble over what the term "target" or "circle" or "covenant" means in a passage. This is re-inventing the Code, ignoring the phrase "and thereby bring ruin on my Sodales", which is the important part of that "mundane interference".
That's like taking the statement that "Driving without a license is illegal" and just tossing out the "without a license" part. Not... the... same... meaning.
There is a signal difference between saying "This is how I play" and "This is how the rules read". I'm confident in suggesting that most readers on these boards would rather you not claim the latter when doing the former.
Hey, rewrite the Code if it works for you and your Saga, happens all the time, works fine for those players, lots of fun. But don't point to the one in the core book and claim it says anything other than what it does. Or don't expect the above flak not to happen every time you do.
Hey all,
Thanks for the change in tone and for clarifying your positions.
I knew I was going out on a limb with the idea of the Order stepping in to intervene "undo" the damage, but I threw it in there for the sake of discussion. So, sorry for not being clear enough (ahem mentioning at all) that this is a kind of off-the-wall idea. Clearly I did not raise that subject in the right way. And it's true, one should make a distinction between what's supported by canon and what's not. (Though lack of support in canon is IMO no reason not to use an idea.)
There are two questions here: what is mundane interference? And when if ever is it appropriate for the Order to take official action that does get involved in mundane affairs? Since the latter question is a bit of a hot button let's get back to whether funding this noble is mundane interference.
I still say it looks like a serious and major case of mundane interference because over 10 years the entire mundane political landscape of the region has been transformed by this "arrangement." Consider: if the magi were just giving this gold to the noble and asking nothing in return, would that be mundane interference? I think the Duke of Aquitaine would say "yes."
The covenant claims they were doing everything right and this was a commercial transaction (clearly allowed). That however is their defense, not a fact that is established yet. There's enough evidence of interference that a Quaesitor should investigate. It's possible they never meant to stir up a rebellion, but rebellion is what happened. It's also possible that rebellion was the real goal and their story is just a smoke screen. Now if rebellion were the real goal, wouldn't that be worthy of a Wizards' March? Even if rebellion was not the goal, I think you could make a case that the covenant took a reckless risk. Does "bring ruin on my sodales" mean mundane interference must cause actual harm, or only the risk of harm? (What would the Duke of Aquitaine do if he found out where the gold is coming from?)
The possibility (certainty, in my Saga) of an investigation does raise an interesting question. How do you determine mundane interference? I am not aware that canon mentions it at all, but logically, shouldn't you get the opinions of some mundanes who are affected? In other words, is the testimony of mundanes admissible at Tribunal? I think this depends on your Saga because on one hand it makes a lot of logical sense (mundanes are the best judges of whether their affairs have been interfered with). On the other hand it is risky to discuss with mundanes how magi may be interfering in their affairs because that can create ill will, to say the least, and is headed in the direction of "endangering the Order."
Generally speaking, how far should the Order go in its investigation? Should members of the covenant be forced to testify under Mentem magic? If you mind-probe some mundanes instead of questioning them directly, is that admissible?
I still think this is a textbook case of mundane interference because before the magi got involved, there was a stable mundane political situation, and due to their involvement, it's totally screwed up. I do not think the canonical Order would just accept that, shrug their collective shoulders, and move on.
That is a perfect analogy! Yes, what I'm asking is, is the Order like that? Depends on your Saga. I think there could be magi within the Order who think that sort of thing is justified and necessary. I call them "villains" by the way. 
Edit: afterthought -- are we sure that determining "mundane interference" by whether there is any blowback that affects the Order is a good idea? Imagine a magus who decides to take some vigilante action to eliminate a mundane, and doesn't get caught. Did he break the Code? I think, "obviously," but someone said earlier it only matters if the mundanes can attribute the crime to a magus. I disagree with that but it's a nice argument a villain could use to justify his actions.
"I will not interfere with the affairs of mundanes and thereby bring ruin upon my sodales."
You have to use the full text of the law in the Code not only the first half when you are prosecuting crimes. As long as no ruin, no crime Hermetically.
Well, the tree from Sub Rosa's Northwych Yew scenario is close to the covenant, and was harvested by the same member of the covenant that spilled the beans on the gold. That was never claimed by the covenant, but is definitely within their rightful harvesting domain per Lion and the Lily's peripheral code.
Now, the vis sources they've been paying off the visconte to access (without explaining exactly why they wanted these things) are likely close enough to the player covenant to be easily claimed by the players (The region the vis sources are in being about 12 hours away by cart on a road), if they can put two and two together and realize they exist. Thus far they have sent the visconte's magus brother to get a sample of the magically created gold, and he may ask what he gave the "bandits" in return - if the magi can ascertain that access to an old well, free reign to hunt in the visconte's forest, access to the castle's chapel, and access to an abandoned quarry might be potential vis sources, then they can likely press that case.
The covenant will need to do a modicum of investigation to make that leap, methinks.
Vrylakos
Sweet! So Impulsius of Flambeau thinks this whole thing has gotten out of hand, and runs out and assassinates the viscompte. Makes it look like natural causes -- he's a follower of Apromor. No harm, no foul.
Seriously -- do you think that's a realistic and workable legal principle? Have we thought through the implications here?
And doesn't this idea, that if you don't get caught by mundanes then it's not interference, directly contradict the criticism made earlier that magi don't have the right or the authority to put a smackdown on the viscompte? It seems to me that two mutually exclusive principles are being argued here -- with both presented as "canon."
I agree. The word 'thereby' is intended to contrast with the use of 'lest' in the injunctions concerning Faeries and Devils.
It's not about legal principles or about right and wrong it's about protecting the order.
All the Code judges is whether or not the Order is harmed, whether as a total or as individual magi.
Prove that their involvement actually changed the situation AND that it have had direct and severe negative consequences to other members of the order...
Then you MAY have a case. Its still a very shaky case because their "interference" was by ways of a business deal and very indirectly handled.
And the order doesnt care. Otherwise your argument means that there can be NO DEALING between the order and mundanes AT ALL... EVER. Because any dealing MIGHT cause some problem somewhere, indirectly.
Your argument is equal to wanting to prosecute and convict a used car salesman and a bartender for their customers drunk driving.
Nope. IF the rebellion smashes a covenant in its path, there is a case to be argued for it, but its still rather weak.
Cause harm or major problems.
He might smack down the offending covenant and the order would say "Well done old chap!", as they brought it upon themselves.
Or he might demand the order smack them down on their own.
Or, probably by far most likely, he wouldnt care much because people trade and do business regardless of who fights who at the moment, and might request a "token" of good will from them or perhaps merely remember those old geezers with less then happiness. Which they might find out in a bad way if they need to deal with said duke in the future.
Irrelevant. Only if interference has caused problems for the order does it matter, and such problems is the relevant part.
Extremely good idea. Otherwise the order would by default be forced to never ever deal with the rest of the world in any way what so ever.
If they havent actually claimed them then they dont really have a case. Or at least an extremely weak one.
Yup, thats the relevant part.
I would apply a sliding scale there. Offering a moderate risk of attracting the attention of the King to the Order is worthy of prosecution, but causing a farmer with no friends to hike his prices to travellers to the covenant because he hates them isn't. If you punish trivialities, it weakens the Order, but likewise failing to punish dangerous and risky behaviour compromises its security. Where the boundary is drawn is, in my opinion, where the stories are.
Long - apologies. A last response.
(That's what I do, thx.)
Do you have access to Guardians of the Forest (Rhine Tribunal)? This would be the agenda that the Ash Gild believes and pushes, that magi should dominate mundane affairs, not stay separate from them.
Note that if your premise were the case, the Ash Gild would have succeeded and have no reason to push for anything - but they haven't, not in canon.
Wish you had started this way - it's never pretty to beat on someone just because they are confused. (Fun, but never pretty.) 
I'd say the majority both do and have vocally agreed with that point throughout this exchange...
...and I'd also say that you, perhaps, were merely paying lipservice to the distinction between your freeform interpretaion and canon, and still don't understand canon, or at least can't separate it from your "off the wall" viewpoint, because this is NOT "textbook"! 
The degree to which the situation is "screwed up" is arguable. But what is not, what is clear and evident at face value, is that it has no effect on the Order. And that's the yardstick for "caring", and then for action.
No harm, no foul. Not the first time that principal has been used.
So we'll go back and do it one more time. Last time. Then I'm out.
It would not be a hot button if you had not insisted that this was how the Code reads. Where in fact, it reads 180 degrees the opposite. The "official action" means authorized and supported by the Leaders and/or Rules of an organization. The rules say nothing, NOTHING, NOTHING about taking action against mundanes. Zero, zilch, zip, nada, nil, no comment, not there. Nothing.
So it can't be "official". It could, in theory, be agreed upon by a Tribunal, but it's not doctrine, it's not practiced, it's not approved- at least not in canon. It's not "official".
There is a limit.
If, at some point, it becomes suspected that "magic" is involved, then the risk of "blowback" is too great, and the Order takes action. At some point, as we move up the mundane ladder towards Kings, the Church or non-Hermetic magic comes in and all bets are off. At some point, playing with fire is too dangerous for everyone concerned, even if no one has been burnt so far.
So, yes, before that happens, before there's even a risk of that happening, the Order will take action. But we aren't even close, as described.
No such concept, no such term. You invented it. Not used in the Code or by the Order in any "official" capacity. To use that term presumes it has legal weight - and it does not. It... does... not. (Don't make me use the cases and colors again!)
Canon doesn't mention "spell casting materials" or "mana" or "aether" or "lay lines" either, and there's a single reason for the absence of all five terms. (I'll let you guess what that is.)
And the Duke of Aquitaine can suck my sigil.
The Order does its best to stay separate from mundane politics and concerns. Individual magi may meddle, and if they meddle at the high end that can be deemed as "unacceptable risk", but the Order doesn't care about inconveniencing mundanes, only magi.
Sigh.
In your interpretation, yes. By canon, no. If the Order isn't ruffled, if the Order isn't in danger of being ruffled, then the Order doesn't care. Start there, then get back to us.
Now THAT is the first "canon" concern you've demonstrated!
If that were to happen, this would suddenly become a serious crime. But because they are so far from that happening, it just isn't.
Huh?
To get back to my perfect analogy, you're suggesting that the Secret Service should poll 3rd party players and bystanders in their little games, and base their policies and actions on the feelings of those pawns, puppets and hospital patients?
"Excuse us, sir - we're a shadowy organization and would rather no one suspect we're even remotely involved, but we'd like to ask you a few questions so we can base our next course of action on your personal feelings and unenlightened impressions of what's been happening..."
The Order does not care if some magi gave gold to Noble A and now Noble B is feeling poopy.
Sure! But charges aren't brought just because random testimony is admissible. Charges aren't brought on the premise that, if the Order explained everything to the mundanes, then the mundanes would react, and that reaction would be "bad".
Ya think?! (See, ya go and say something like this, and I feel there may be hope yet...)
So long as we agree that in canon there is no investigation...
As you keep saying (recently), it's your saga, you decide. You're way outside the lines - paint with whatever colors look good to you.
Well... I think you're wrong.
The Order might take a look, maybe a good look, just to make sure nothing was on fire, and then do exactly that. But as far as Mentem spells on magi? There has to be evidence of a crime first, not the off-chance of one, and this is not a crime against the Order at face value, or even on closer examination.
If they thought the covenant had actually started a war they might have a problem, for the very reason that some other covenant, somewhere, would be hurt. But this ain't that.
And I'm out. 8)
I believe that the according to Normandy Tribunal law, all vis sources within a day's run of a covenant are owned by that covenant, whether they know of them or claim them or not. Discovering a vis source within the province of another covenant and NOT reporting it while you harvest it is a crime. Book's not with me at the moment, but that's my recollection.
Vrylakos
If that is the case, you have an issue for tribunal.
You also have an issue with the magus blocking the door of the castle in a blatant magical way to intervcene in a mundane war. That is not clear cut, but can be argued for mundane interference if the pissed off nobles start asking for magical assistance against the enemy sorcerors helping their rival (something likely to happen).
Xavi
So I checked my books and I stand by my statement that financing the viscompte is a High Crime. HoH:TL page 51: "In particular magi need to avoid supporting one faction of mundanes against another." I think it's pretty clear that is what's happening here, whether intentional or no.
I've started a new thread for people who wish to continue to educate me in the 5th edition canon. I am seriously interested in how you came to your points of view.
Any covenant in an area will, by financing itself, introduce money into the local economy. This will always strengthen the local mundanes against their enemies. The crime is in being seen to do so deliberately, and thereby bring the wrath of their ally's enemies upon the Order. If a covenant is known to keep the local dragon bound and asleep, then this generates goodwill towards the Order and protects the local noble from one threat. This is not, however, an Hermetic crime, high or low. Binding said Dragon and commanding it to attack your ally's enemies is treading very dangerous ground but could be successfully defended with mitigating circumstances, especially if the covenant generally keeps a low profile. Riding said dragon during the attack and yelling, "I, Unsubtle of Jerbiton, am your doom!" as the castle burns is not wise.