That's the "interesting point" (in part, at lest) - whether they do or not. Afaik, there's no word on it one way or the other, but it seems that the need is invited at some level.
If a Tribunal vote is grossly manipulated and a decision given that runs directly and obviously counter to The Code, there is no appeal process short of the 35-ennial Grand Tribunal. That's a long time for a wizard to be unjustly marched with no higher authority available.
I find nothing extreme in the position that without a specific contradiction, canon from a core rulebook doesn't change by indirect implication and supposition.
"may"? As if I may not know what I meant? Whatever.
I didn't. I clearly said "I think...", which means the words are coming from my mouth. I then went on to explain why I thought that's what he meant. Don't make false accusations.
(If T did indeed mean "War", perhaps he'll comment on that and explain why, but that doesn't change what I thought, nor why.)
"Tending"? Sorry if I was unclear. Allow me to dismiss it outright and directly, and almost entirely, at least based on citations that have been provided so far. You're assuming that the vis requirement says something significant about new covenants; I'm saying (now that you bring it up) that the vis requirement says nothing about new Covenants, not one way or the other. It discourages them indirectly, but it really only addresses new residents, not new Covenants (hence the use of the word "residents" rather than "covenants"). By your implied reading, individual existing residents could band together to form a new Covenant and not change their outlay of vis - yet the phrase from the core (4th ed) book still exists as a statement directly counter to that.
So, until I hear something more relevant than what has been provided about residency, yes, I'm sticking with the simple statement in the core book.
Since you like to quote me out of context, I'm done with this. The core book has been superceded, either through a supplement of the same edition, or by the 5th edition which doesn't mention it at all. As with all things you can decide whatever you want for your saga. Whatever. That you're interested in picking and choosing only what you want to do is completely obvious. It is apparent that you do it not only with Ars, but with discussions of Ars.
I said: "You may have meant Marched, fine. Don't put words in someone else's mouth. He said Wizard's War. That has a specific meaning, and I take it on its face until otherwise corrected. I have seen the terms used incorrectly, but I would still take it on its face until corrected." Since it's apparent that you either chose to disregard the rest of the paragraph let me explain it, as I meant it. You speak for yourself, Tellus said Wizard's War, and I take it he meant Wizard's War, based on the context of how he wrote it, declaring it. Since you can't be declared renounced, you have to be tried and convicted.
In the future, I'll just remember to avoid having a discussion with you, since you have a reputation and a tendency to cherry pick your points, and discount the points of others. Thanks for playing.
Wow. Nice over-reaction. (Did someone recently mention taking things to an extreme?)
Since you quoted everything that I just wrote, I have no idea what you think was taken out of context. I believe I was simply addressing specific points - quoted separately, but all perfectly in context as I read them. As is approp in responding to posts longer than a sentence or two, and as I am about to do again...
Afaics that is the crux of our disagreement. Point in fact, you haven't presented anything that "supercedes" the comment in the core book convincingly. Vis is required for residency (new or existing), but that says nothing one way or another about new covenants. Doesn't reinforce that they are banned, but nor does that state clearly that they are allowed either. Without something more clear on the point, I'm far from convinced (and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not the only one). Why are you throwing a fit about that?
You're more than welcome to interpret that passage as you see fit for your purposes in your saga, but I thought on these boards we were discussing what is actually stated, not what is implied or interpreted, except when specifically qualified as such.
As for reputations, I speak what I believe and make no apologies for that - it was you who chose to respond and without any clearer citation to back you up, and tossed in some personal attacks (which I rarely abide - my bad). If you believe you are only "cherry pick" material, then perhaps the mistake was mine, as I thought you were able to support your stated position and not run from a different opinion. I'll be more gentle when I challenge your position in the future (altho' in fact I did start out so).
But if you (or anyone) can find in SoI something that more clearly addresses new covenants, I'm all ears.
To get this back on topic, it strikes me that what the OP's described scenario could become is a border struggle between Tribunals, which happens on occasion. If (big "if", depending) the Alps wanted to allow in a new covenant that provided its own land by gerrymandering the existing (and often poorly defined) borders, that may put the covenant in the middle of a power struggle with all kinds of headaches for the PC's.
But I don't think they can last long without declaring one or the other. The best they could hope for is to be in a "backwater" and away from traffic, relying on geography to put them out of the awareness of their immediate neighbors, and so hope to stay out of politics that way. But as I described above, that could well backfire if they do not speak up and declare, and choose the winning Tribunal in such a conflict.
And I'm saying that if you read Sanctuary of Ice you'll find that the reason no new covenants are formed is because there isn't sufficient vis for them. It's cheap, $15 from e23. Well worth it for understanding the underlying reason or cause for the effect of no new covenants forming.
There is nothing in the code, peripheral or otherwise that prevents Magi in the Tribunal of the Greater Alps (TotGA) from forming covenants. The reason that new covenants can't form is because of the high vis requirement per magus. If you can't establish residency in the TotGA, in the first place, by being wealthy enough, then you get kicked out. Not having sufficient vis sources to maintain yourself in TotGA is a low crime, and the penalty is guess what: you get to be kicked out of the Tribunal. If the entire lot of Magi of the prospective covenant don't hafe sufficient vis sources, then they are kicked out, as well. Requiring a significant vis source to sustain Magi is the control for population in TotGA, not the formation of new covenants. Yes, the new Magi may be nouveau riche and declasse and may not be entirely welcome within the Tribunal, but the aren't legally prevented from establishing a covenant, so long as they meet the residency requirement. If the vis source requirement for TotGA weren't in place you'd have the eremite situation of the Normandy tribunal to deal with. Eremites in TotGA, if they exist, must be vis rich.
I'm not going to quote significant portions of the book. Within the book there is significant play in the rules for forming a new covenant without even reading very hard. Even so, as with all things, SGs and troups may ignore portions of the book(s) to satisfy the demands of their specific saga. However, in this case, if Hitsumei wants to create a saga of nouveau riche Magi trying to fit into the TotGA, there is sufficient reason to do so. Additionally, if they were an unrecognized covenant of the Rhine Tribunal and had enough vis to satisfy the residency requirements of the TotGA, I can see possibilities for inviting the prospective covenant to join TotGA, or a target for raids from Rhine or TotGA. Either possibility is entirely reasonable, and not in violation of canon, if Sanctuary of Ice is included in canon, and entirely within the realm of possibility based on the books written to date.
What this comes down to, is that you base your argument for preventing the formation on an obscure sentence in ArM4 Edition MRB. I'm basing my argument on SoI, which refines and clarifies the reason why new covenants don't form. The only part of SoI that says new covenants are forbidden is, "New covenants are forbidden in practice..." That doesn't say that it is forbidden in the PC of the TotGA, and then it goes on to discuss the only thing that is enshrined in the PC, is the vis requirement: 10 pawns for residency per Magus, plus 1 pawn each for House Guernicus and Mercere per covenant or eremite.
It does raise a couple (at least) of interesting questions about The Order. One is "how centralized is The Order?" Under one model the regional Tribunals make their own customary law / peripheral code rulings and are generally the court of first and last appeal. I believe only three issues per Tribunal can be raised at Grand Tribunal, so you have to be pretty high priority just to get an appeal heard. The other model would suggest a uniform "common law", regulated by the Quaesitores, who would be able to rule that something "runs directly and obviously counter to The Code".
A second and related question is how much power do the Quaesitores and House Guernicus and how does this fit with the generally democratic structure of the Order expressed in Tribunals? I would not like to see a return to the "Judge Dredd" days of earlier editions where Queasitores essentially did what they liked and lorded over everyone else. One problem is that none of the options for the Order seem particularly medieval, especially the two extremes of open democracy or police state. One possible change might be to make the Quaesitores elected officials of the Tribunals, as per Ancient Roman tradition, and get rid House Guernicus's special role.
I actually agree with you on this - the WW is purely if you want to subscribe to the "no new covenants in the Alps, ever!" hardline. Sorry for making that in any way clear at all.
Emphasis mine.
Simple answer is no. See "The Rhine Corruption" bo insert, top of p. 50, HoH: TL.
However, if you can reasonably argue that you were targetted purely politically, you can likely seek sactuary with someone and try to be re-instated into the Order.
As a note aside, IME too many people give too much power to house Guernicus, but as always YSMV.
The three Tribunal books published for 5th Edition so far all have widely differing political set-ups that differ greatly from what's in the core rules. The Theban tribunal in "The sundered eagle" do take judicial investigation out of the hands of Guernicus, unlike the Rhine and Normandy tribunals.
HoH:TL includes story seeds about Guernicus judgement going wrong, so presumably it is likely to happen but the Quaesitors are well aware of the seriousness of getting fooled by bad evidence.
The question I find raised by the Tribunal books is: are there any tribunals with a political set-up very similar to "the standard" in the core rules?
What is this standard you speak of? As far as I can tell, it only describes what the rights and duties of the Praeco are, whether or not it is a legal Tribunal (meeting). As far as the political structure. Page 15 of the MRB says that the regional Tribunals are established by the Grand Tribunal, but the Tribunals themseleves can set the membership requirements freely.
Well okay, although a coalition of peregrinatores with a symbolical rather than effective turbula might argue that they do not try to establish a (unrecognized) covenant anymore. A transparent and feeble defense perhaps, but one that might gain them some time, at least.
Generally speaking I'd agree that established covenant probably enjoy Redcaps priorities, over peregrinatores. At least for non-urgent, non Tribunal issued correspondences. But for my saga's specifics, the covenant lured in the interest of House Mercere. Enough to counter that. On the other hand, I do not share your view (if I read you correctly) that individual magi have such a hard time claiming and registering personal vis sources... provided they are resident of the Tribunal, with established sanctum (whether recognized as a covenant or not) near said sources.
All good points. And just to be clear before sharing more of my own - perhaps peculiar - views on Ars below, I am aware of all such difficulties and consequences of establishing an unrecognised covenant. As my initial post implied, I even mistakenly it appears (as was pointed out to me) had a bit too harsh take on it when I wondered about if their right to vote at Tribunal might suffer.
That being said...
[/quote]
I agree. On both points.
I see WW either as a last resort between powerful rivals, or the mark of hot-headed magi who shall soon realize the price of their impatient ways.
IMS, such events might occur between two individual whose dispute has been going on for years, rather than from covenants rivalry. To put an end to the long lasting bickering, I'd envision such generic individual rivals as ones who might even have been finally encouraged into WW by their own covenants' peers, feed up of all the trouble that their sodales brought upon their respective covenants, and secretly hoping to being rid of both grumpy rivals.
Also, as imperfect and still a bit stuck in tradition as it is, as I view it, the Order has matured since its foundation. In 1220, WW are probably considered as a bit vulgar, and yes : too costly, too, for being anything more than rare.
This means that as far as my initial situation is concerned, as SG I thinks Wizard's Wars will not reflect one of the usual responses for resolving covenants vs Tribunal tensions. At least, IMS.
As for a Tribunal March... I don't see that as a probably option, either. Even for non-complying residents. Here's why :
Even in the sketchy 2nd/4th ed. background, the Greater Alps Tribunal is also described as taking pride in its peaceful ways, implicitely even advertising these, if a bit vainly. Though its magi admit that "younger covenants can cause trouble" (and are to be watch), they may seem a bit disconected from the harsh realities of the "outer world" but they are clearly depicted as favoring magical studies over conflict, and occasionally keen to explore the, quote, "myriad mystical areas to be found in the higher mountain reaches" (emphasis mine), rather than watching their borders like their - quote again - "greed-consumed brethen" (of Roman & Rhine Tribunals). Hence, A wizards' March doesn't seem to me like something the TotGA, of all Tribunals, would consider for teaching a lesson to a mere coalition of peregrinatores squating their foothills. Spying, raids (commissioned to their youngest members, as the elders woud have better things to do), intrigue, and other form of harassment for which they'd have ample means... yes. but Marching... I don't think so. As I see it at least, ysmv.
Moreover, even if (as Cuchulainshound rightly point out himself), a March doesn't have to be declared by the Order as a whole, it effectively cast one out from the Order. Consequently, I'd argue that if this practice were used merely to deter eremites too-stubborn-for-their-own-good, the Order would dangerously fuel an already effective divide between established covenants and eremits.
Even unsettled Peregrinatores would frown upon such intransigence. With consequences.
Sure, most of them would probalby "just" opt for passive resistance by simply never setting foot again in such heavy-handed Tribunal... which would bring too much isolation even for secluded-content Tribunals like the Greater Alps (of which I'd venture that even these aloof magi are not unaware).
Mercere aren't, nor should they be, the only arteries of exchange and communication of the Order. At least not of a healthy Order.
Hence, I don't believe that the Order as a whole would let this pass, not without strongly suggesting other venues first, even if ones more "under-handed", on the fringe of the Code (as might even suggest, too, some more level-headed magi of the very same Tribunal), nor would the rest of the Order uncarefully wait for the Grand Tribunal to counter-rule the legitimacy of such a W.March. The Order doesn't have to be more centralized than it currently, either, to self-regulate itself with other means than the Grand Tribunal.
Again : IMS at least. 8)
And, again, thanks you all for taking the time to coment.
H
ps : @Cuchulainshound : err, no... Nihonjin dja nai, furansu jin dess.
Well, to be Marched, you have to have violated the Oath. Forming a covenant in contravention of the Peripheral Code of a Tribunal is not a violation of the Oath.
Part of the Oath is to "abide by the decisions of the Tribunal" --- the Peripheral Code is just the accumulated decisions of the Tribunal. So, contravening the Peripheral Code is violating the Oath.
Of course, the Tribunal doesn't have to March you for this. It can fine you vis or some similar punishment. Or the Tribunal can formulate a new ruling which means that what you did is in fact legal.
True, but the Tribunals generally designate High Crimes and Low Crimes. In the Alps, if you're there without sufficient vis, you're guilty of the Low Crime of vagrancy, whereupon you're asked to relocate out of the Tribunal. Not abiding by that decision of relocating would be the High Crime of not abiding by the decision of the Tribunal.
Of course. But whether something is a High crime (punished by Marching) or a Low crime (punished by, say, a vis fine) is largely a saga dependent thing, and possibly a case-by-case decision for the Tribunal. The existence of Low Crimes at all is only a Peripheral Code invention --- under the Oath the only punishment given is being Marched.
Sure, that is one way it could go. Equally, the Tribunal could (if it wanted) rule that a magus present without sufficient vis is failing to abide by the Tribunal's earlier decision that a resident magus must have sufficient vis (and therefore is a High Crime). Whether you are Marched or not for a particular breach is just a Peripheral Code ruling, and therefore can change from Tribunal to Tribunal and from circumsatance to circumstance (and out-of-character from saga to saga).
All that makes me wonder if peregrinators have ever set up a "virtual covenant", to give residency rights to magi within a Tribunal who don't actually want to live together or have much to do with each other at all. Just like Ex Miscellanea is really a shell organization for everyone who doesn't want to be in another House, imagine a "Domus Peregrinatori" that all the hermit magi in the Rhine belong to.
Magi living in Chapter Houses are "residents" of the "mother" covenant, but are actually living at a remote site (possibly alone --- or at least without other magi).
It seems like the obvious solution if a Tribunal gets pedantic about requiring Covenant membership. It's not as if there's anything in the Oath about Covenants anyway.
Yes, but the solution only works for magi who are working within the established structure of the Tribunal. A bunch of random magi can't suddenly say "we are a Chapter House of Fengheld". Fengheld has to say "those magi living there; they are Fengheld magi living in one of our Chapter Houses". The magi in charge of Fengheld, of course, will have their own ideas about who is suitable to be a member of Fengheld, and where are good places for them to live, and are also keeping an eye on what the other established covenants think about Fengheld having "too many" Chapter Houses. So, while being a Chapter House "solves" the political problem of residency, it does create other political problems (if the troupe wants).
Yes, but the Oath requires you to obey the Peripheral Code of the Tribunal.
The obvious argument for a March would be so as not to lose authority by not exercising it, to highlight weakness by making a decision and then not following through. To make a ruling and then let it go unheeded is to encourage more breeches in the future.
But I can easily see a bunch of entrenched old guard nodding and harrumphing about the need to do something, and then tabling that issue for a later committee rather than actually taking any action themselves.
I think it's a case of House G having the authority in theory but not the power/political clout to wield it at a practical level.
Zactly. Never said a March would be called because of the formation by itself. The March would/could be called if those magi then ignored a formal Tribunal ruling to disband that illegal covenant.
(In large part and upon reflection, that may be why I'm not embracing the reworking of the core description. One unique quality of the Alps is - well, was - that Spring Covenants simply were not present (unless a Winter made the turn back again), and long-standing neighbors were the only neighbors one ever had to deal with.)
And that's the question - each Tribunal seems to have established some fairly unexpected standards in one way or the other. This is great colour, but (almost?) every player first envisions a "vanilla" Tribunal from reading the MRB only - and going down the list (altho' some of that goes back to 3rd ed), that just ain't out there.
I think the reality is that some are vanilla in one way or another, but none is across the board.
Thanks for both. That does make things a bit clearer, and make more sense, that the "contradiction" is specifically addressed somewhere and not simply "implied" indirectly. That's more what I was hoping for (in specificity, if not necessarily content).
Urgh! Don't remember ever running across that ugly bit of bureaucracy in the P-Code - where's that from?
That alone could be the seed for some nasty SG fun, as elements in one Tribunal trump up an issue to bump another from the agenda, one that they don't want to see reviewed. The PC's could be on any side of that one, or just sucked in as the ever-popular swing-vote.
Well, The Order is not always a model of medieval thinking. But more, "medieval" covers a variety of sins, and influences from the Byzantine, Islaamic, Nordic and tribal worlds as well as ancient Rome/Greece could all serve as inspiration, bastardized as needed. I think where ever you need to get, there's a way to get there without too much of a stretch.
