If you were a Quasitor, what would you recommend as the proper punishment for a mage who was easily duped by a ghost into setting a demon free onto the covenant at Vienna?
Easy: I'd have him get rid of the demon.
Plus a fine to cover the damage done at the covenant until the demon is disposed of.
He may pay another magus to do the job.
Given that he was duped rather than willfully malicious in his causation for the sordid affair, I would concur with Fury that at minimum he should be forced to singularly (if powerful enough) or as head of a dedicated group assembled for the purpose, dispose first of the demon.
Next, I would order that he also dispose of the deceitful ghost as he had the demon.
Thereafter he would owe a serious debt (likely vis and/or a period of service) to the damaged covenant.
This of course is suggested without knowing the full extent of the damages caused by his actions. If any magi or familiars or even apprentices were killed in the demonic attack then additional penalties such as the forfeiture of his own familiar or apprentice (former to be killed, latter to be given without recompense to the injured covenant) might also be justified.
He should offer one of his testicles in gratitude... no, wait, that's a different thread, sorry.
If it was the mage's own covenant, I'd say not much- the act seems to have been his own reward, and his sodales will determine the restitution. If the mage refuses, or if it's not his own covenant, then complete restitution for all damage (and any future damage, if the demon is not dealt with). If the demon has vacated the premises, this may be a long, drawn out subplot, or just a vague, unspoken menace somewhere over the horizon, something to drop hints about but never(?) actually reintroduce, as the SG prefers. It's hard to track a single demon, or to identify it as the same one as before if it doesn't want to be identified.
There was no willful act, only ignorance - and no mage is proof against that.
As for the "you idiot!" factor, that punishment, I'd suggest, should be left to the redcaps, and their excellent grapevine of gossip and newsworthy stories. Not every negative reputation need be taken at CharGen. The running joke of jabs and snickers will be punishment enough for the character, and ongoing OOC restitution for all other players concerned...
Umm, I think its his pet who have to offer the testicle, no?
Did just change Animal Vis to Corpus Vis? <- Hermetic breakthrough
And was that Cuchulain's hound or Cuchulainshound who did that?
Good ideas, all. I particularly like the thing about the recaps gossip. I didn't think of that.
Okay, what's with the testicles?
LOL! A not so subtle reference to comments bantered about in Santiago's "Original Research" thread.
I think the question is wrong.
"What kind of stories would you reccomend if" is the way to start the question. And the answer depends on your group.
Do you want a mystery?
A dungeon crawl?
A political drama?
An emotional story (when it possesses someone they love)?
This is the question, not what "makes sense" for the quaesitor to say.
I'm guessing BD asked exactly the question she wanted to, and has a firm grasp on this story in her saga. Just as a guess.
The story is what the story is- there's no confusion there, and she wasn't asking for a recommendation for storylines. The question is about the "appropriate" response of an NPC, as a representative of Hermetic Authority, within that story.
The decision of that Q. could and will send the story in one of several different directions, depending, and that's a consideration, but that wasn't the question.
Quaesitores will judge the situation based on the Code, and whether sections were broken. With regard to this situation, (listed simply in the order they appear in the Code, not by any priority), they'd be looking at:1) Whether any magi "were deprived of their magical power"- a subjective judgement.
Whether any magi were slain. (Even accidentally, this trumps #1, and makes things much more serious.)
Was the Order "endangered" by his actions? (Sloppy, stupid actions can easily endanger the Order. Releasing (average sized) demons is a small direct threat to the Order as a whole, but indirectly threatens it by marring its reputation in the wider world if the demon does escape.)
Did he "deal with devils"? (Doesn't sound like it.)Those would be the salient points that any inquisition would base a judgement upon.
(and, yes, the aforementioned reference is to Xavi's comment, and the ensuing responses.
And I misquoted him- he suggested both, not just one. My bad.)
CH, that is exactly what I was getting at, thanks.
This is a brief summary of what happened.
A player in the game I recently started, who we shall call... Firth 5, (the character's name is Glaukos) has the flaw supernatural nuissance- ghosts. A ghost conned him into breaking a circle in which a demon had been imprisoned by some mages at the covenant in Vienna. The demon thanked him for his help and then took off to take out his revenge on Vienna. When this is investigated, it will look like Glauko's best friend did it. If he lets his friend take the wrap, he will gain the flaw "dark secret". I haven't decided whether gaining the favor of a demon is a virtue or a flaw. (any thoughts on that?)
As far as what kind of story I want, I tend to let the players decide that. Whether this is going to be a bloody mess or a mystery or a political drama depends on how Glaukos reacts to this problem he has caused. So I pick all your guys brains because you all have great ideas that I wouldn't think of by myself.
It's a story hook, so a flaw. (Doesn't really matter, after CharGen. It does what it does.)
Any time a demon claims to be your buddy, that's a "bad" thing. See Quaesitore criterion #4, above.
Also, if the demon wants to have fun, it can set up circumstantial evidence to make the mage look guilty re that point. Demons have that kind of sense of humour (just one more thing in common with SG's!).
I was just about to point out how funny that was- I mean funny to me because I'm the SG- and I noticed you had edited your post.
Forget what I did write in my above post. This is an entirely different case!
The magus in question is not guilty! He is not to be punished.
I can hear several people screaming "WHAT????", so let me explain:
Imprisoning demons may be acceptable if a mage needs time to prepare for a proper banishement. But keeping the demon around just like that, is certainly not allowed by hermetic law.
The people that are responsible for all the troubles are those magi that bound the demon in the first place, and neglected the neccessary steps to dispose of said demon. Probably they forgot to set up guards as well, or put signs saying "Danger! do not set free the demon! We'll be back for banishement soon!"
If only these mages suffered from the demons vengeance, well, no damage done, its their own fault. The quaesitori will investigate for diabolism...
The magus that broke the circle did only undo something that was forbidden by hermetic law.
An interesting point, and not one without merit. But I think that an angry Covenant, a nervous Tribunal and a typically non-sympathetic Quaesitore may equal the need for a scapegoat. What you suggest seems like a defense at a Tribunal, (and, perhaps(?), a desperate one?)
No one said those who bound the demon were Hermetic magi- maybe so, mabye not. I think all wronged parties will take the position that He who opened the door is responsible for what gets let out, regardless of who put it there in the first place, or whether that ancient action was wise (or legal.)
Committing a modern crime while undoing an ancient crime will just not fly, especially since he was clueless while doing it. Can't claim "just cause" if it's all accidental.
The townsfolk, the church, the reputation of the Order, certainly won't draw a similar distinction.
The demon was imprisoned by three mages in Vienna. They were trying to destroy it but the infernalist maga that tricked Glaukos has protected the demon by imprisoning part of its might in a jar using a nifty little spell I got out of RoPtI (and I wish I remembered what it's called right now but I'm at work and my books are at home.) They can't destroy the demon until they find out where she put the jar. She used the same sort of spell to protect herself.
Please feel free to poke holes in my story.
They could have put up signs but instead they put the demon in a remote location that no normal human could ever find. Who was going to wander into an infernal aura in a remote location in the forest and find a way to span a 100 ft lake? They underestimated the demon. As a storyteller, that seems very human to me.
And, to me, perfectly within Hermetic law. The original magi did not "deal" with the demon (well, perhaps in any sense of the word, ahem.) They did not "make a deal" with it (there, better.) And, while they did actually destroy it, they did succeed in stopping its actions - laudable, if less desirable.
As for not putting signs up - warning signs could be temptations or invitations to non-hermetic diabolists. (Now, once someone got that far, into Regio and onto the island, etc, I'd think they would know where they're going, but...) If the Order knew what had originally been done, I doubt if there would be any hue and cry for punishment. Maybe a sign would have been "better", but hardly a crime.
Sounds reasonable to me!