Magi have an interest in regulating which wizards live in their territory, no question about it. I would argue that they are less interested in forcing those Magi to live in groups of three or more, with all the other standard covenant attributes.
I was actually suggesting an independent "covenant" as an association of peregrinators, but letting them be hangers on to existing covenants works too.
To be sure Tribunals can be pedantic about communal living. My questions are whether they would want to and whether Magi would resist. Covenants are central to the game because they're the structure for PCs even since first edition. They're less central to the Order as a simulationist entity, as witnessed by their absence from the Code.
There are "wandering" covenants, based around a wagon, merchant caravan or ship, so it's certainly possible. But I always thought that the whole attraction of peregrinatores was the "I'm not a joiner" thing. That, and (in the Rhine, at least) if you're a member of a covenant then you're not a peregrinatore, and some of the rules of hospitality may no longer apply, or not in the same way.
I don't think many magi would object. So long as a mage is a resident of a Tribunal, I can see little diff whether they are a member of a Covenant within that Tribunal or not. If anything, they are weaker for being peregrinatores, so the only objection would be that such "virtual Covenants" would give them the same rights/power as a Covenant-based mage (claiming vis-sources/etc) - something that might irk competitive-minded magi, but hardly a complaint that could be based within The Code afaict.
(It would almost be like another Gild. If too many joined, it might actually find political enemies if perceived as anything but an alliance of convenience.)
I dunno really and it could easily be from an earlier edition, but I think it's from a 5th edition book. AM5 really suffers from spreading the material about life in the Order over a dozen house descriptions in three books.
True Lineages, p. 83 talks about the Redcaps registering vis sources, allowing them to attest to your prior ownership at Tribunal.
Of course, some Tribunals (e.g. Normandy) hold all vis in common, and others may require vis to be owned by Covenants and forbid its ownership by individual magi. The Rhine isn't one of the former, and GOTF is silent on the latter.
Ok, I looked for this tonight and I'll be damned if I can find a complete section on Grand Tribunals in the AM5 books that I have. According to several older sources, as far back as the 2nd edition Order of Hermes, each Magus at a GT can only propose one topic. So, three reps per Tribunal equals the three issues I remembered. The closest thing I can find in AM5 is a reference in True Lineages referring to vetos and saying that "The Tribunal can appeal any veto to the Grand Tribunal as one of their three issues."
Proof yet again that there's no better guide to the workings of the OOH than the 2nd edition "Order of Hermes" book. Beg, borrow, or steal a copy and forget these newfangled HoH books!
Thank goodness we've move beyond that silliness into a world where the Tremere kill with teleporting homicidal hankerchiefs and have spells to summon ghost armies 10000 strong!
