Obviously, but it has to be done carefully.
That was intentional (one of the reasons she is referred to as the Archmaga Sarah of Flambeau in later entries). I wanted to show the long time span something like that could take.
He is scrying to see which AC belong to magi by seeing which ACs a forceless casting does not penetrate. Note though, you could also use this to see if any covenfolk have a might score.
And thus, a covenant of player magi was framed for the murder of another covenant. Well done! (Note to self, use ReMe to acquire said hairs/ACs from covenant Launderer, send Launderer on Crusade.)
No, you can conclude that hairs belonging to Philosophus were left in the location. You cannot establish when the hairs were dropped, you cannot establish who dropped the hairs-- unless you saw those things occur, and then you'd have to be able to prove they are the same hairs.
I concur with Jonathan. This isn't a crime. It's shady, and a matter for Certamen or internal covenant resolution, but not a crime.
-Ben.
You are presuming that the sweeping is perfect every time, and that no hair is ever left behind by the process of sweeping, or that the broom doesn't acquire hairs from other locations as they are swept or before the sweeping.
You presume a lot.
If you collect the hair after sweeping, then you know that at some point prior to sweeping, someone brought the hair into the room. You can't tell who, you can't tell when, and you can't tell how.
-Ben.
See the previous comments on forfeit immunity. (Sometimes called the "Make damn sure you're sure" rule in our saga.) In cases of forfeit immunity, scrying is acceptable.
-Ben.
Yeah, and that's why in trials today things like DNA evidence is next to worthless! Exact same logic.
...
No wait, its the exact opposite. I'm still wondering how learning about a Magus's defenses (or lack of), their essential nature, and evidence as to their location is anything other than scrying. I fail to see how preserving a hole in a magus's defenses is anything other than an attack. I fail to see how stealing an arcane connection is anything other than deprivation of magical power. And most notably, I fail to see how you would convince a room full of magi that its totally okay for you to do that to them. "Oh hi, I'm just gonna have a gun pointed at you and a camera pointed at you at all times, but I totes won't use them!" Yeah, no.
Yup, but again this only provides a narrow excuse. Unless the scrier is rather careful, a good questioner can draw out damning testimony. "You scried the library and found the illegal book? Hey, did you see what Mr. Guest was studying? You did! Are you alleging a crime against Mr. Guest? No?" Mr. Guest now presses charges It will both undermine their testimony (although in Hermetic Court trust generally isn't an issue) AND make them reluctant to press charges.
A spell that doesn't penetrate doesn't tell you anything about the magus's defenses (or lack thereof).
Same as above.
Nor does it tell you anything about the present location. Granted it may tell you about a previous location, but the magus who acquires the AC in such a manner already has that information or enough information to predict the whereabouts of the magus who he is targeting. This might, might be a case of using magic to peer into another magus's affairs, but the knowledge is there mundanely, too, so...
If you're going to quibble, it's acquiring a hole in a magus's defenses, but it doesn't have to be used as such. Yes, it's a possible use, but not the only use of an AC.
No mention of theft was made here.
Well, the magi who want to do this would vote in favor of it. But you're making the point that I've made. It needs to be tested and tried at Tribunal, which by case law would extend the definition of scrying to cover it. You may think it's reasonable, but other people may not. And this also ignores another point I mentioned, you can make it a crime, and now you have to prove the crime occurred. You probably get one or two bites at the apple, and then magi will continue to do it and just get better at not getting caught. The Code also needs to allow for exceptions, in cases where an AC is freely given, can that be tested, or is that considered scrying? If you have an AC to another magus and he wants it back, and you cast it on the dozen or so ACs of other magi you have, and he tests it to ensure he is returning the correct one, will he scry against a dozen or so magi? Is that now a trap that can be used to ensnare a magus? These are the kinds of things I was thinking about when I said you're basically criminalizing possession of an AC to a magus, which is a big, huge problem for some Mystery Cults.
I hate that people can burn the American flag in protest, but they still have the right to do it. I could go on and on.
You have acquired an AC. How have you deprived anyone of their magical power? Which power? Deprived how?
An AC is a tool. The use of that tool defines the crime. Simply having that AC doesn't provide you with further information about the magus, their essential nature, or provide any evidence regarding their location. How that AC is used defines the crime.
Possessing an AC is not a crime.
This. Jonathan states the matter well. You make this a crime, and you open up a whole field of opportunities for framing other magi by putting ACs in their possession. No one's going to want that, either.
Prosecute the crimes you can prove. It seems like you're saying possession of an AC is proof of malicious intent, and that's only going to float on a case by case basis. There are too many additional details there which could impact the situation. Better to leave it unaddressed and deal with the matters as they come up individually.
-Ben.
To use a modern analogy...
Possessing an arcane connection to another magus is like having the plans to a bank's vault. It is not, in itself, a crime. But if something has just been stolen from the bank's vault, then having those plans cast a lot a suspicion against you. But in itself, it is probably not enough to get you convicted of the theft. It's circumstancial evidence. You can use it as probable cause for digging further into the person's affairs, to find solid proof.
But going further is risky, as Jonathan Link writes...
The thing I that pretty much the same list of things you didn't do can also be said of walking around a covenant invisibly, which is specifically described as being against the code.
I am pretty sure you're missing a word in there. Maybe two.
-Ben.
actually the letter s
"the thing I" should be "the thing is"
What are you referencing? Who are you addressing?
I'm saying you can't be certain anyone was at Location A just because you acquired an arcane connection to the person at Location A. You can just be certain the AC was left there at some point in the past.
Let's be clear here. Lay it out for me without the previous back-and-forth, as if you were making your case to the Praeco and Head Quasitor.
[i]Are you saying it's a crime to possess the AC of another magus?
If it's a crime, which part of the Code does possession of a magus' AC violate? How does it violate the pertinent section of the Code?
How do you prove the crime was committed?[/i]
Right now, it seems that you're suggesting the possession of another magus' AC can only occur through the commission of a crime, which we can easily disprove. There are plenty of ways to acquire an AC without committing a crime. There is no way, at all, a magus is going to convince the Tribunal that the possession of an AC is a crime (at least not in my saga; ACs are just too useful).
If I were a magus who thought another magus was collecting ACs to myself or my friends, I'd round up a pile of us and consider gang-certamen-ing him (although, with many bouts of certamen in a short period, it runs the risk of being accused of using certamen to bully the magus) into an agreement that he "will not seek, possess, or use ACs to myself and others in a manner which violates the Code of Hermes." With witnesses present, that resolves the issue as binding, so long as I win-- and if I'm that concerned, I hire a Tremere ringer to do it for me. The equitable, reciprocal demand could be pretty rough though; I don't think anyone would find "demanding an AC" as equitable, but I do think "never challenge me about this matter again" probably is.
Then I've established the legality of his actions, one way or the other, and the matter is resolved.
-Ben.
The issue as originally presented was that a magus was found to be going through the sweepings of the covenant dining hall and using magic to test hairs found dropped to see whom they were arcane connections to.
The arguments are that by casting an intelligo spell to determine the arcane connection he is divining information about another magus if the AC connects to another magus. I argue that this is also similar to wandering around a covenant invisibly in that it may not be targeting a magus for information but it is obtaining information about a magus, both in terms of the arcane connections themselves, which could be seen as diving to find holes in his defenses, as well as being able to determine when he was In a given location to the degree that the hairs are dropped within a given time frame in a known location, with an effect similar to sitting invisibly in the dining hall to see who showed up.
This is a trivial case. No secrets are revealed and no privacy is intruded upon. The magus learns the image of an AC's source, and that is all. (See HoH:TL, page 52; Scrying)
An AC does not, in and of itself, reveal secrets or the legal affairs of the possessor. According to the section, "the penalty will depend on the harm done or intended."
In this example, what secrets were revealed or what harm is done? "Lo, I have discovered that Philosophus enjoys ham sandwiches and dislikes mustard! And he eats before noon!"
You have to show the intent was malicious. Where is his malicious intent? Where is the harm done? Are you able to show these things?
As Imaginary Praeco, I remain unconvinced.
-Ben.
(This is why some investigations take years; gathering the proof is time-consuming.)
Would you be willing to assign a quaesitor to investigate what the intent was? Including potentially invading the privacy of the offending magus?
Which is basically, equating possession of an AC to using an AC, which suggests criminalizing possessing an AC to another magus. If you have an AC to a magus, you must have used it! If you used it you violated the code, the prohibition of scrying, when the magus likely has done no such thing. Even stipulating your assertion that testing the AC is scrying, what's the proof that this has actually been done? That the magus is in possession of an AC to another magus?
As I've said before, you need to develop a case, with some basic facts and then we can argue the merits of the case. Without specific facts we can argue possibilities ad nauseum.
No, it does not. It equates gathering an AC in a surreptitious manner and using magic to test the AC for a connection which you could not be certain of because of the haphazard method of collection to be the same as using it. The issue here is not simply having an AC, but about the manner of collecting and testing them. Making an argument essentially as the accused (which is the rule you have taken in this debate) and ignoring facts already established as fundamental is not a defense.
Only if the accusing party can show sufficient evidence of intent and potential harm through other actions or behavior of the suspected individual (thus implying there may be a case of forfeit immunity), would Imaginary Praeco request the Imaginary Head Quasitor to assign an investigator.
As presented, the accused is doing something creepy and weird, but not in violation of the Code. If the accuser wants the accused to stop without such an investigation, make (and win) a challenge in certamen.
Imaginary Praeco still remains unconvinced.
But see? It's the circumstances that matter, the context.
"Oh, I found a guy getting hairs out of the dustbin." is just weird, maybe a bit suspicious.
"Oh, I found a guy getting hairs out of the dustbin. And last week, he was lurking around my sanctum; my grogs and familiar spotted him. And the week before that, he "coincidentally" ran into me on the road near where I gather vis. And before that, we argued about me exercising my right to claim a villager boy as a part of House Bonisagus."
Now it's a party, because I can show that he's escalating the interaction, that there's a motive and possibility of something more going on. It's not just creepy, it's creepy and probably in preparation for something more. Now, as Imaginary Praeco, I'd probably request an investigator be assigned. One example lacks potential evidence of intent, and the other suggests there might be something more going on. This is why the matter has to be adjudicated on a case by case basis.
-Ben.