The hermetic legal system such as it is, isn't much concerned about minor technicalities like if the magic came from a spell you cast, or from an enchanted item you had given to a grog.
Did you, directly or indirectly, spy on another mage? Was magic used for it? If yes to both questions, you are guilty of scrying.
If a grog is caught spying, they may just execute him as a spy and be done - if he isn't a magus he has very limited protection from the Code.
Core rule book, page 16
The rulings also make it
clear that any magic sold in this way to a non-
magus must eventually lose its power, whether
because it is a charged item, or because the
effect has a limited duration.
There are some important technicalities involved, so read the whole section.
Are we voting? Or is it frequency and volume that counts? Personally, I prefer to let arguments stand or fall on their merits - I don't generally expect debates on forums to be swayed by #s, unless the #s are massive. Though I know it happens. I don't see much reason to chime in with, "I think so and so is right."
I don't think anyone has put their disagreement in precisely this way, so I'll try it: Yes, you're right about the rules as written, if a few lines are taken more or less literally, and all context, both historical and as provided by other book, is ignored.
I see no reason to think the Q's are so intent on enforcing the letter of the law, and only that, that'd they'd refuse to recognize the commonly accepted ties between people, or ignore easily-predicted cause and effect.
I mean, heck, there's that time my mage experimented and made a bunch of CrIg wands that would go off for virtually no reason and gave them to the turb. Then the House Verditius Primus showed up and was killed.
At the trial the Qs argued I was at fault, but I persuaded them that I was so stupid that I never could have predicted what happened. So the Qs couldn't execute me, especially after they found out the Primus died not from a firebolt, but of apoplexy when he found the grogs playing with the wands and was told where they got them.
Anyway, everyone stood and clapped. The Qs did fine me with the loss of my familiar, but that was OK because I owed it money.
A lot of the reason the debates about the culpability of a magus for the actions of a grog subsided is because I was/am willing to make a very profuse point of "this may vary by tribunal and you might need additional layers of deniability in those cases". there is a huge difference, however, between the degree of culpability of a magus for a grog 9whom he can at least order around even if the grog ignores the orders) and the responsibility for a magic item no longer in his possession. When you start arguing that a magus is criminally liable for the acts of a person who stole a magic item they made from the person they sold it to then you have passed the point of absurdity.
I think the rules are different for Verditius than for other magi. A Verditius craftsman can make and sell a magic sword to a noble lord and not be prosecuted for meddling in mundane affairs. (Though they are encouraged to put in expiry limits, I think.). Another mage might get into more trouble for exactly the same deal.
My opinion is that for general rule for enchanted items is: were you being sensible? If your ring of invisibility was in a locked chest and stolen by a master thief, you are probably in the clear. If you lost it in a dice game, and it's misused, you will probably face a penalty to encourage others to be more sensible: but probably less than if you used the dice game as a pretext to deliberately pass it to someone with plausible deniability.
My impression is that the order does not have different rules for different houses 9except the ones in the oath for Bonisagus) and you would likely to find more difference in how the rules are enforced between one tribunal and another than between one house and another, and personal popularity will matter more than house (though this again modifies issues- house reputation likely matters, and if you are a Tremere acting on behalf of your house you have got some pull). As a practical matter magi are allowed to sell or gift magical items, with caution that it does not interfere with mundanes 'thus bringing ruin to your soldales'.
We can spend forever arguing hypothetical cases, but my central point remains that the best way to avoid charges of scrying upon your soldales is to buy the information from someone else.
At the same time, and wizard who relies exclusively on the code to protect their secrets from scrying will find all finds of folk wizards and magical creatures all up in their business. Or rather, won't find them.
For what it's worth, I don't find the contention that Magi have no responsibility for their grogs or the products of their magic particulaly compelling. But there's honestly not much to engage with in the argument since it seems to be mostly subjective assertion. Please don't take my silence as agreement though.
If, for the sake of argument, the grog with the free invisibility ring who seduced a rival mage's wife and found the mage's magical secrets is the only one punished, with no charge of scrying considered, in such a setting my 3rd party mage would have a few questions.
Sorry, but putting myself in the shoes of a magus, the whole situation implies something perilous.
But that is my take that "Case Closed" is in inadequate response.
Obviously YMMV.
(And hopefully I will stop posting now)
The grog doesn't need to know that "hey these are secrets of cult X" to investigate, he just needs to think "that looks magical and was hidden away, it might be worth investigating'
Reducing a mage's market value is not the same as reducing their power, and "it could be argued" covers a multitude of things that are not actually part of the code.
The key thing is this- if you as a SG really, really want to prosecute a player for something they did you can find a reason. That does not make your argument the standard method of operation for the order. A grog investigating with a magic ring was sort of the most extreme example- an information broker who is also a venditores could simply know a guy who is still trying to pay off his loan for an invisibility ring he bought.
Some hapless peasant who lusted after the magus' wife might have "found" the ring with some faerie guidance (because hey, great story" and then "made his fortune" with the secret he discovered and sold to a rival magus.
There are a literally millions of ways this could happen with the overall point being "buy don't scry"
Barring exceptional circumstances (e.g. magical compulsion, a Wizard's War etc.) you always have the option of (not) placing a magic item under someone else's control, too. You keep repeating there is an "obvious" difference between spells and magic items, but you cannot give an example.
The crux is: depending on the item, or the spell, someone else (e.g. a grog) may be given more or less control over it. But ultimately, it was you who gave him control over it by bringing the magic into existence.
That is not quite what I said. I pointed out that there are obvious exceptions. If the Quaesitores confiscate a magic item of yours, and award it to someone who misuses it, for example, you are certainly no longer responsible for it. But I stand by the fact that, if you give an enchanted device to a mundane, who can quite easily use it to reveal another magus' secrets and does so, you are guilty of scrying.
No. Your imagination does. But the RAW do not.
And while WilliamEx did quite extensively quote from HoH:MC, what he then "points out" is what he (incorrectly, in my view) deduces from it. Let us go through it.
The crucial verb is missing, but I assume WIlliamEx meant either "can purchase" or something like that. I agree, though I would qualify it as "Mundanes can purchase some Hermetic Magical items".
Not obvious at all. "can" is the crucial term here. This is very saga dependent. Objects get used up, lost, destroyed etc. One thing that's worth noting, however, is that the Order does want to keep their number in check, by limiting how many can be sold, forcing them to expire etc. So, if anything, the default seems to be that there are not that many Hermetic items in the hands of mundanes.
Not obvious at all. There are not that many Veriditius magi of high Hubris around, and what's been said above about magic items getting lost, stolen, destroyed etc.
Furthermore, note the difference between "powerful" as "highly tempting in terms of Hubris" and "powerful" as "highly likely to breach the Code". An enchanted automaton in the form of a delicate human-like figure that sings, dances, makes flowers bloom around it etc. can be "powerful" in the first sense (if its Might is e.g. 75) but still harmless in the second sense.
The Verdi? I assume you mean House Verditius as a whole has not suffered the fate of House Diedne. But who is to say that several Verditius magi have not been Marched?
This is a complete non-sequitur, and probably the weakest step in a series of weak steps.
What is more likely, is that most Verditius magi do not sell dangerous items to mundanes, at least without safeguards. The few who do occasionally get Marched (or inflicted lesser punishments), and often enough just manage to evade the Hermetic Law.
The reality here is that if a wizard complains to a Quaesitor that they were spied upon, the Quesitor will likely investigate for traces of magic... and find the sigil of that magic. Which is what they will testify to the Tribunal.
Did you remember to alter your sigil for that magic item you gave your grog? Telling the Tribunal "oh, I gave that as a magic item to a grog who just happened to do that thing" isn't going to convince anyone of your innocence. Even if you tell them to frosty breath the grog. It will look exactly like you were trying to skirt the Oath & Code, and the Tribunal will no doubt vote accordingly.
If you did remember to alter your magic item's sigil... well, that's kind of confirmation that you knew it would be used for something it shouldn't have been used for, isn't it? Don't expect leniency from that Tribunal vote, either.
Rules lawyering what may or may not be permissible under the Code by using a proxy that you've given an enchanted item is never going to work, because when the matter comes up in Tribunal it'll be a political vote by magi who take a dim view of shenanigans that someone might try on them expecting to get away with it.
I wonder if we need a specific spell to detect traces of magic from Items... I think we do so the Q would testify that he saw your sigil on traces left by a magical object.
Also, even Quaesitors have limited ability to see traces of momentary effects. A Q testifying he has seen the trace means he was probably already "hunting" you down actively meaning it ain't your 1st offense. You probably got warnings that you were under suspicion and given all the time to fix your mess yourself before having the Q commit his time to address the issue.
W
Edit:Seems that the core book p.157. "However, unless specifically stated otherwise, the spells do not affect magical items, only the effects that they produce." Which tells me that any spells that see's Magical Sigils will see the sigils of effects from an item.
Also he would equally see traces of your magic if a mundane who bout a magic item from you (even a harmless one) used that object in that area, possibly even at a different time. Finding traces of a magi's sigil really isn't the smoking gun you imagine it to be- it is the start of an investigation, not the end.
Ars Magica books keeps the setting lose in purpose in order to allow individual campaigns to set the tone themselves. Keep in mind that minor items and charged items cannot benefit from expiry. Also, if a Verdi does use Expiry for his Major items, they will not only be powerful but he can make more of them. Conservative numbers of Verdi Magi out there. 600 years of OoH. 100 Verdi Magi. 2 Venditores per "Active" Verdi in good standing = 300 years x 50 Magi x 2 Venditores = 30,000 verdi objects in Mythic Europe. Even if we cut that in half again to account for Expiry & lost items, that is still a lot of Verdi items in the wild. Add to that the objects of the other houses...
Well.. take the current concerns of the house: "... Next in line for Primus was Stouritus, a personable man whose main interest is to increase the amount of goods House Verditius can sell to mundanes." HoH:MC p.112
So most tribunals limit the Verdi sales to Mundanes to one per Venditores per year. Not only does the current Primus of the house think that selling to mundanes is not a problem, he wants it to become even easier! No talks about any risks of Marches or any cases being taken to tribunal.
"Powerful items are more precious than all the gold in Spain and are jealously retained and guarded. If these items are for sale, the price is quite high.Though the item might be gone,
the emotional attachment lingers. It is not unheard of for a Verditius magus to engineer the theft of a coveted item previously sold for an enormous sum." HoH:MC p.112
Does not sound like that powerful item, sold to a Mundane, has an expiry.
"A Verditius magus’s creations are precious, each produced by the sweat and toil of its maker. Some go so far as to claim them as children; an enchanted sword is a son of its creator, while a magical brooch might be referred to as a daughter."
It would take a sick father/mother to bring into creation a child that is designed to die early (Expires). I seriously doubt that any Verdi in good standing would create an object that will expire unless under duress and ordered by a tribunal.
I'd argue that the Hubris of the house is well set in and the "Machine" is running at full steam. It is not about the most dangerous or not. It is about creating the object that will fetch the highest price which will allow the Verdi to be in better standing. Some might try to go for the Artistic value but in my view, the bigger catches will be the most powerful/dangerous items. The Verdi have a whole minor under Order of Roland who's specialty is in weapons & armour. I doubt these swords just look pretty (but I'm sure they also do).
Verdi Hubris is a goal for the Magi of that House. They all have it and strive to be "better" at it.
"Progressing through the Inner Mysteries bears a price. As Verditius magi learn more Mysteries, growing in power and abilities, they also grow arrogant and egotistical. Hubris is the mark that scars Verditius magi, an unavoidable consequence of learning the Founder’s magic."
W
The Church p.105 has a story hook that give Templars all the ressouces of an ArchMagi
"The Hermetic Confrater A once-powerful archmage of the Order of Hermes, approaching Final Twilight, decides to become a Templar confrater. In doing so he hands over his enormous Hermetic wealth to the Poor Knights, including his vast magical library, enchanted items, and land."
W
Lords of Men p.39 has a good description of the status of trade of Magical objects
"In most Tribunals there is some sort of limitation on how many magic items a magus may sell to mortal rulers. The commonest is that a magus may sell at most one magic item to a mortal per year, provided the system of mundane intermediaries is maintained. In some Tribunals the regulations are far looser. This lack of regulation causes frequent problems for individual magi, and sometimes for the Order, and in the near future, such problems are likely to become worse. The current primus of Verditius has declared his intention to push for even freer access to mortal markets for magic items. Other Houses have declared that the current system of sale makes a mockery of the concept of non-interference, and have threatened to seek a Grand Tribunal ruling to restrict what they see as a hazardous practice.
"...Some mundane nobles have used potent magic items against others oft heir class during war..."
Recap can be that objects, including powerful objects, are in the hands of Mundanes. Many within the order do not like this but the code does not prevent the sale of such objects to Mundanes. Use of these objects by Mundanes does not immediately mean that the creator is at fault and in breach of the Hermetic Law but if direct intent and damage are proven, penalties may apply. i.e if you sold a sword of death PeCo40 with Pen and sold it to a knight on the condition that he vows to kill your Hermetic enemy, Jim the Funny Ex Miscellanea and it happens outside of a legal wizard's war, you are in trouble.
W
At which point our magus, if he's genuinely innocent of "trying to skirt the Oath & Code"? He asks the Quaesitores to endorse his testimony (HoH:TL p.64-66), putting him through magical truth verification. And this isn't simply verification that is testimony is literally true, it includes "thoroughly discuss[ing] the testimony to ensure that there is nothing misleading about it".
The people who can successfully testify that they weren't "trying to skirt the Oath & Code" in any way under such an examination are only 1. the truly innocent; 2. a magus who "has devoted his life to deceptive magics" (HoH:TL p.65); or 3. someone being aided by infernal power (HoH:TL p.66).
So, the Tribunal doesn't have to vote in our grog-gifted-a-ring case based on what things "looked like", or worry about a flood of magi to come using the same excuse falsely. If the magus got his testimony that he wasn't doing anything underhanded endorsed by the Quaesitores, a sensible Tribunal votes that he's innocent. (Maybe he's a genius at deceptive magic or a diabolist, sure; let the Quaesitores worry about that.) If the magus didn't get his testimony endorsed, it's because he knows his story wouldn't hold up under extensive discussion under magical truth-testing, and so a sensible Tribunal votes guilty.
Good points. Though I have some reservations. Here's how my group interpreted things.
For 1):
We assumed that the more powerful or just useful the item, the more likely it is to be stolen or destroyed by any number of opposing mundanes or magically-connected actors, including both other mages and the Church. This severely cuts into the number of such items still in mundane hands.
For 2):
We assume that V. can and do make items intended simply for sale. Hubris often kicks in, but is focused not on creating the best item possible, by the usual standard, but instead on getting the most milk with the least moo. So to speak. So a ship full of gold for a batch of single-use tchotchkes would be a coup worth boasting about.
For 3)
Even taking into account our #2 above, I would agree that the Machine seems to be running full steam. But we took that to be a fairly recent development, and that for most of the Order's history the Vs were more constrained, both regarding #s of items sold and especially regarding the power of the items. So Vs selling relatively high numbers of relatively powerful items is more current story hook than a force that's been re-shaping Mythic Europe.
Getting back to the thread's main topic: I completely agree with your "recap." I think it's worth also explicitly pointing out that intent, while vital to deciding degree of penalty, doesn't matter when determining a mage's guilt.
I think where the Vs Hubris has led them into trouble is that, while they are correct that what they want isn't against the Code, and they likely have no ill intent, what they want does risk violating the Code, and the more they do it the riskier it gets. While there's an argument that they are breaching the Code, in that they "endanger the Order through my actions". But unlike dealing with demons or Pope-poking, the actual degree of danger is hard to quantify or prove. Nothing terrible has happened so far ...
Of course, perhaps there's been no disaster because magi used to be better about following the (implied) rule.
Frogs won't actually stay in a pot of water as it boils, but people often believe the story because humans very well might stay in the pot, bickering about whether or not fire really exists.