[Code of Hermes]: Magical Money Issue

[DIREWOLF75]

@Vrylakos

@DIREWOLF75

If they havent actually claimed them then they dont really have a case. Or at least an extremely weak one.

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

I dont have that book so i couldnt say for sure, but if thats the local rule, then yes at least that part might be successfully prosecuted. But how they got their hands on it, not worth the effort to even try most likely.

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).

And if that other covenant knows of this while the tribunal overall does not, they might use this to "tip the scales" against the PC covenant regarding the Vis sources. Perhaps some sort of informal settlement might be a preferable idea?

[Cuchulainshound]

@Vrylakos

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.

That rings a bell (likewise, no access to book atm), but I believe the context of that statement is regarding the "over population" of the Normandy Tribunal, that a day's ride from a Covenant is trivial, but may well put you on a similar doorstep of several other Covenants, depending on the geography of your neighbors.

Giving gold to a noble, who then uses that to fund a border war that then causes chaos in an area where vis is harvested would be "depriving of magical power" (regardless of any lack of intent or expectation of such), which is a back door into cause for a case, but a perfectly sound one.

There's a reason the "Intrigue" skill is out there. 8)

[thrakhath]

@Vrylakos

NEW WRINKLES AS OF LAST GAME:
The covenant lies in a labyrinth beneath a small castle ... AS OF LAST GAME, the Count of Poitiers arrived with a small group of men. All but two of the covenant's magi are on a journey to ... He called upon the companion knight to aid his lord, King Henry, in overthrowing the Visconte ... The companion knight noted he had little money and no men-at-arms apart from the few who guarded his castle. The Count of Poitiers, upset by this laggardly state of affairs, then told the companion knight that the army of King Henry would be using the castle as a staging point for assaulting the rebel visconte's lands.

So they have had their covenant invaded already due to the state of war caused by the rival covenant funding the Visconte. No actual loss in magical power, but definately a case for bringing harm on sodales.

[Edit: although this invasion was due to their own mundane obligations that they had themselves set up, and then failed to meet, so the case is much weaker]

@Vrylakos

At present, the troops of various vassals of Duke Henry are garrisoning the castle as preparations for battle and siege are being made. Potentially, depending on the next game, there may be a battle wherein the visconte seizes the covenant's castle - though he does indeed know wizards live there. He might try and arrange a "peaceful conquest" whereby the gates are thrown open so that his his wizard brother and his sodales are not harmed.

SO, in any case, it may be that the covenant that suffers and thus proves the case could be the player's own

Even if the visconte makes sure the magi are not harmed there going to be voilence and damage to the covenant structure, which is depriving another magi of their power.
"Beyond this, a covenant's mundane resources, including personnel, are also protected to a degree as these are required for study. However, attacks on mundane assets are normally brought as low crimes" But unfortunately it would be the visconte depriving them of their power, not the rival covenant. Covenant A's complete ignorance and non-interferance with the visconte actual war plans would probably protect them from charges of deprivation. General harm on sodales could be proved, but not culpability in specific damage.

The stealing of vis from sources within a covenant exclusive zone as defined by the local Tribunal would be deprivation as a high crime but likely only to lead to a fine.

[DIREWOLF75]

So they have had their covenant invaded already due to the state of war caused by the rival covenant funding the Visconte. No actual loss in magical power, but definately a case for bringing harm on sodales.

Not caused by it, possibly aggravated by it.

[Edit: although this invasion was due to their own mundane obligations that they had themselves set up, and then failed to meet, so the case is much weaker]

Almost nonexistant. Not quite, but weak as heck.

[Marko_Markoko]

@Andrew Gronosky

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 refer to old cannon for this one, the Periphrial Code rulings from WGRE. Trentus of Flambeau was acqyitted because he proved that there were no witnesses left alive to identify him as a magus after he was finished with them. Thus, with no potental ruin being brought upon his sodales, he was acquitted.

Just keep in mind the eleventh commandment; "Thou shalt not get caught".

[Marko_Markoko]

@Andrew Gronosky

@thrakhath

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.

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."

If a Flambeau did it, he was probably right. If it was a Tytalus, March Him!!

No, seriously, no evidence, no foul. Perfectly legit. Is that a workable legal principle? Not at all. But magi are but men, and human law codes of the era are not sound to begin with. Otherwise, culture would not be headed for the tremendous clash and change of the 14th century.