Why isn't it going to be accepted, if true? Did the investigating Quaesitor simply not know Frosty Breath of the Spoken Lie, despite the core rulebook saying "it is a very poor Quaesitor who is without it"?
I mean, let's quote HoH:TL, p 37:
Unlike modern trials, a Hermetic trial is not seen as a place to test the facts; rather it is a place to test legal merits. Conflicting testimonies as to facts are forbidden in the same trial. The private hearing should minimize these conflicts. The Quaesitores have spells perfected over centuries to discover the truth, so knowing perjury is normally a foolish tactic.
If the grog testifies under FBotSL that he wasn't acting on behalf of the magus, and then the magus testifies under FBotSL that the grog wasn't acting on his behalf, that's that (absent, sure, a situation where the minds of the grog and the magus were both altered by magic). Nobody at the Tribunal has to judge if the deniability is really plausible; the story's either been proven true or false before it ever gets to Tribunal.
Frosty Breath of the Spoken Lie is not the end, but only the beginning of analyzing the grog's testimony. Quaesitores can use the procedures of Endorsing Testimony (HoH:TL p.64ff) on the grog, too, if his testimony is looking fishy.
And if after that procedure there is still any doubt, the magus employing the grog may be asked in private hearing or even in front of the Tribunal to submit to Endorsing Testimony as well. Refusal would influence the judgement of the Tribunal.
Not on topic exactly but here is a funny point from city & guild p.28 "Unlike the country, where populations are small and everybody knows their neighbor, towns are relatively anonymous and a character may attempt to literally get away with murder. In fact, murder is not the most serious crime in Mythic Europe â thievery is. This is because murder can be a âcrime of passionâ â and therefore primarily the fault of drink, demons, or another momentary madness â while thievery, burglary, and robbery are all only ever premeditated acts and hence worse sins.
Case closed, indeed - it's a clear case of scrying.
Regardless of whether the "grog" is a servant of yours, or just a "grog-level character" who has no relation to you or your Covenant, your magic has resulted in you learning secrets of another magus. If you can convince your peers you had no intent to do so, the punishment might be more lenient, but you will still be held responsible ("If there was no intent, but secrets were revealed, damages will be awarded" - HoH:TL p.52).
In fact, I would argue that if your magic results in anyone learning another magus' secrets, it still counts as scrying on your part. In this sense, note the language in both the Oath and HoH:TL p.52 ("secrets were revealed"); and the fact that, without this broader interpretation of the prohibition, magus Primus could use his magic to expose the secrets of magus Secundus only to magus Tertius without Tertius using any magic of his own.
Plausible deniability of "I was having a dalliance with the pretty chambermaid. Once I finished, when looking for the privy while invisible, sorry to digress, but being invisible was the style at the time, I accidentally saw stuff useful to my lord", isn't going to be accepted.
If offered under frosty breath of the spoken lie it will.
For mundane authorities it wouldn't be just accepted but it would be considered plausible.
The rule is that you may not scry, not that your magicmay not be used for scrying. If you sell a ring of invisibility to a noble having a tryst who swears a magically binding oath that they will not use it against any magus, and someone else steals that ring and slips into a covenant your magic was used for scrying but you have no legal liability.
Now on the other hand, the thief of the ring could be in some serious trouble because the primary point of the code and the oath is not to enforce the law but to protect those who are members from arbitrary retribution from others who have sworn the oath. The grog in the original example and the thief in the latter one need no quaestor because they have no such protection. If the noble you sold the ring had a son who inherited the ring instead of it being stolen then the only trial would be who might be guilty of interference with mundanes- the mage who sold the ring or the mage who slew the son (with a possible outcome of "well no harm done")
Hermetic investigation is pretty simple and straightforward- the grog goes in, he either succeeds, and nobody knows he has the information, or he fails, and is either dead or interrogated by the original (spied upon) mage (Mage A henceforth)- no need for a quaestor to deal with a grog.
If following these events Mage A suspects Mage B of sending the grog then the quaestor asks mage B to submit to frosty breath of the spoken lie. "Did you order the grog to spy on Mage A with the ring of invisibility?" If the answer is no (and truthful) and maybe confirmed, then that path goes no further- generally.
Maybe teh quaestor suspects that Mage B is being evasive and asks follow up questions. "Did you give the grog the ring" "yes" "Why did you give the grog the ring?" "Did you ask the grog to get the information?"
There will obviously be configurations of those questions which will be brought to tribunal- if you gave the grog the ring so he could do his job better and neglected to mention it should only be used to investigate mundanes and then asked him to investigate the magus in question, assuming of course he would not use the ring, then you are likely going to be in front of a tribunal.
There are configurations that will clearly not get you in trouble. I gave the grog the ring years ago when I inherited it from my parens and I had others lying around, I gave the grog money to purchase the information from someone else to avoid breaching the code, apparently they decided to pocket the money and investigate for themselves- almost certainly in the clear. better yet would be if someone else gave the grog the ring, since most grogs work for the covenant not individual magi.
But as a matter of general principal the easiest way to avoid charges of magical scrying is to get the information from someone else who is not covered by the code. Don't tell them to scry, just offer to buy the information if they can obtain it.
Because infernal lies can't be detected by magic, I assume.
There are also possible approaches to this problem where you commission the theft and then PeMe yourself so you can honestly answer that you know nothing about it. Quaesitors have to worry about these tricks too.
Grog level NPC's can get their hands on Magical objects. Some Covenants might grant grogs some objects for a mission or as a reward for an especially "job well done" event but in general, I'm aligned with you. Independent Grog level characters should not have hermetic items.
Still HoH:M p.112 states "Several critics even claim that Verditius magic items weaken the Order, since many of them are sold to mundanes." & "Verditius magi also have venditores, or âselling agents,â men and women who interact with the mundane world to distribute the items enchanted by the magus."
"The Code of Hermes covers neither forge-companions nor venditores. While they are members of covenants, they view themselves as servants of the Verditius magi for whom they work. They are protected by their patronsâ magic, fame, and reputation. They are particularly susceptible to other Verditius magi, however, who may target them in vendettas or attempt to make them spies, leaking information about their masterâs activities and magical predilections. The Peripheral Code makes little mention of them. Most tribunals have ruled that a Verditius magusâs staff is neither covered by the Code of Hermes nor considered mundanes, but that they reside in a gray area without legal protection." ... "Occasionally feuding magi attack each othersâ forge-companions or venditores. This is rarely done directly, but rather, is usually executed by a feuding magusâs own assistants. Vendettas have resulted in the deaths of forge-companions and venditores, because the Peripheral Code holds that killing forge-companions and venditores is not âdepriving a magus of his magical powerâ nor âinterfering with mundanesâ.
As per above, we can derive that
Mundanes Hermetic Magical items. Mostly the wealthy and powerful Companion/Magi level NPC's I would say
Over the hundreds of years of practice of selling items, there can be a significant amount of them out there
The Verdi Hubris means that many of these items will be quite powerful
The Verdi have not been marched for their practice so crimes committed using their objects must have limited liability
Two Magi who enter into a feud won't be received by a Quaesitor for crimes that normally would be prosecuted as if they were in a proper Wizard War... up to and including the killing of close grogs
In a campaign where it is enforced that Magi are responsible for their items, I can see the Verdi being very unhappy to have to restrict their commerce significantly and all Magi would probably abstain from creating objects that could lead to scrying such as invisibility effect and Intellego effect in general. This would add back a bit of value to the rituals of scrying which never get any lime time.
Sure. The basic Oath says that you will not use magic to peer into the affairs of other magi.
But the Peripheral Code as per HoH:TL, interprets this extensively in two important ways.
First, if your magic is used indirectly, it still counts as you scrying. For example, if you make someone invisible, and send him to reveal the secrets of other magi, you are guilty.
Second, even "accidental" scrying counts as scrying, though your punishment might be more lenient. Hence, if you make someone invisible for any reason, and he ends up revealing the secrets of your fellow magi, you are still guilty though you may face lesser penalties.
Does this mean magi should be careful about putting dangerous effects into the hands of others - from reckless grogs to power-hungry nobles? Yes, and that's a feature, not a bug.
I disagree. The Tribunal might be lenient because you seemingly did not want other magi to be spied upon, but you still willingly (and rather carelessly) brought into being magic that did reveal their secrets.
The only exception I see is if a magus violates the Code while magically compelled or deceived by someone else, in which case the burden of guilt will shift to that someone. So, if someone casts a ReMe spell on you and as a result you fry the local Quaesitor with an Incantation of Lightning, though technically you have slain another magus, the Tribunal will (probably) acquit you.
Please note the response above your saying nearly the exact opposite from another HOH book.
The line, such as it is, is that if you cast a spell making a grog invisible you are liable.
If an item casts a spell, even an item you made, then you are not.
It isn't "your magic" if it is in an item not in your possession.
And what if...?
Magus A had spent a season in Covenant X 10 years ago.
That time he had met all the magi of that covenant - inculding Magus B and C -, and one of them - Magus D - was his friend.
After some years - and faery manipulation - their friendship with Magus D got cold.
10 years later Magus A learned that Magus D is potentially in grave danger and every day of delay could be fatal. He fast-traveled to that particular Covenant and tried to speak with one of the magi.
A fearie familiar of Magus C disguised as Magus D (the friend of Magus A) tried to convince Magus A in front of the covenant's gate that there was nothing to see there.
Magus A was suspicious, so he used a flying spell cast under the Aegis to fly over the walls of the covenant while screaming the name of the mater of Magus D and shouting that she was in potentialy fatal danger.
Magus B of the Covenant saw this action as a threat and attacked Magus A who was wounded so badly that he had to retreat to his own Covenant Y. After a long season of recovery Magus A went to the quesitor and explained the situation. Now the quesitor wants him to be judged by the Tribunal because he had scryed upon Covenant X - even though no unknown "secret" was revealed and the intention was clearly beneficial.
What will be the opinion of the Tribunal? What is the sentence? Why?
Why not? Ultimately an enchantment is a form of ritual magic (ArM5 p.96) that keeps generating an effect every time some conditions are met. Thus, a device you enchant is not that different from a spell you cast. Imagine casting on a grog a Waiting Spell that holds an invisibility effect activated when the grog rubs a certain ring on his finger. That's not that different from a single-use ring of invisibility!
If such magic ends up revealing the secrets of another magus, it's your fault (while possibly being the fault of another magus too: if magus A makes magus B invisible, and then magus B goes on to spy without any magic of his own on magus C, both A and B are guilty of scrying).
The more you show you took precautions to avoid revealing such secrets, the more the Tribunal will be lenient. It will not prosecute you if you sold your ring of invisibility to another magus in good standing, and said magus did the scrying. It will probably not prosecute you if said ring was stolen from you ... though it will, if you did not take adequate precautions against it being stolen (imagine what happens if someone today steals your gun and murders someone with it - you are partly responsible if you did not take adequate precautions). But giving a ring of invisibility to a mundane without any adequate safeguards is like giving a loaded gun to a child; it's obvious that you created a significant risk of someone getting accidentally shot, even if it was the child who pulled the trigger.
Ultimately, remember what the goal of the Oath is: to avoid magi causing each other trouble, by whatever means. Intent is not nearly as important as outcome (or risked outcome). If you even inadvertently create or contribute to create trouble (or a serious risk of trouble) for other magi, and you could have avoided it with a little care, you need a lesson - or a March!
Well, I do not see how magus A has been scrying. Because he was flying (very conspicuously) and got an aerial perspective of Covenant X? Because by flying he made his mundane lie easier to hear for magus D? It seems a bit far fetched. But even if that ... flies , the precedents are clear. No intent to scry and no secrets revealed, no punishment even where scrying magics might be involved. So, A would get no punishment from me.
Now, magus B might get punished. Unless there's some additional stuff boiling in the proverbial pot, attacking another magus just because he's flying around shouting that the mater of one of your sodales is in danger is unjustified. It might be construed as an attempt to slay magus A, and if it did make A bed-ridden for a season, it probably constitutes deprivation of magical power. I would vote to punish magus B with, say, 2-4 seasons of service or the equivalent in vis etc.
Magus C might have some guilt too. He is responsible of his familiar's actions, after all. And while using magic to deceive is not against the Code per se, if it can be shown that such deception contributed to magus A being shot down from the sky, then Magus C should share some of the punishment of magus B.
Your arguments regarding magic items fly in the face of RAW, as well as, from what i can tell, every other person here. The way an enchanted item differs from a spell is blatantly obvious- once someone else has control of the magic item, you are no longer to one taking an action or in control of casting the spell. You might as well declare someone guilty of scrying because the casting tablet they made was used for scrying, or because they published the spell and someone else cast it. If it is no longer your magic item (not in your possession and control) it is not your spell. Repeating absurd arguments ad nauseum does not change that.
I disagree. I quoted the rulebook. And for what's worth, others seem to agree with me.
The idea that you control the magic you cast, while you do not control the magic produced by your enchanted devices in someone else's possession, is a fallacy. You can certainly put the magic of your spells under the control of someone else. The Waiting Spell is one example I gave. Harnessed magic is another example. A MuVi "Pass the Reins of" spell is yet another. But even a simple invisibility spell cast on someone else, ultimately, is partially under his control: if he chooses at all times to make himself conspicous - by loudly announcing his presence, for example - no scrying can take place. On the other hand, a magic item given to someone else might constantly collect information about the holder's immediate environment and relay it to you or some other third party - without the holder of the item even knowing about it.
More in general, any magic you produce is partially controlled by external circumstance - including the environment, the actions of others, etc. If you recklessly create an Ignem deflagration and another magus is caught within it, whether you end up slaying him and/or depriving him of magical power depends on his magical protections. If you Tether a version of Treading the Ashen Path to some person or animal, whether it will molest the Faeries depends on whether said animal/person decides to take a stroll in a Faerie forest. And so on.
But because you could have avoided creating such magic in the first place, in general you do bear some responsibility for any trouble (or risk thereof) it creates. How much depends on how much you could have predicted the possibility of such trouble, took precautions against it, and someone else - e.g. a magus in good standing purchasing the device you enchanted - takes responsibility, indemnifying you. This is an almost universal principle across legal and ethical systems.
Well, it's not clear if a casting tablet, or the Lab Text of a spell you invented, counts as magic. I'd say they do, but others may differ, in which case no magic no scrying.
The crux, however, is that those can only be used by other users of Hermetic magic, and if you give one to a magus in good standing with (reasonable) assurances it will only be used within the Oath, you are transfering responsibility to him. But if you give a casting tablet to your apprentice or to a renegade, and he uses it to scry on other magi, sure, you will be charged with scrying. Similarly, if you give to any magus a casting tablet or lab text of a spell to summon demons, and he uses it, I bet you will both be charged with trafficking with demons - because it ought to have been pretty obvious to you that giving such a spell to someone else invited trafficking with demons.
You have the option of placing your magic under someone else's control.
Once a magic item has left your possession you have no control over it.
All other arguments against my position have been of the nature that a grog is considered an extension of the magi's will and thus if your grog has a magic item it is considered yours. I have responded to those claims with a variety of points and those arguments have mostly subsided. You are the only one arguing that if I make a magic Item I am eternally responsible for how it is used regardless of whose possession it is in, which are, as William Ex pointed out with extensive quotes, factually contradicted by the text in HOH:MC
All of the rules you have sited regard casting a spell, not enchanting a spell.
As I said, RAW disagrees with your position.
They might be the one saying it, but several people agree with their statements. Me among them.
On a somewhat related note, I seem to recall a rule about not selling magical items that don't expire outside the order, but I couldn't find a source on that. Anyone else know where that might be from?
