Interfering with mundanes.

So, are they in trouble?

  • Yep.
  • Nope.

0 voters

So, um, not that it means anything, I am just asking for theoretical reasons, but...
Let's say your covenant discovers that Robert from Guardians of the Forest, the infernalist that lives on Pfalz island, is indeed an infernalist and kidnaps and executes him after beseeching him to repent and such (without bothering any church officials with such a small matter). And lets say his dad, Lord Shoenburg (SP), finds out his favorite bastard has been executed by a bunch of wizards who live in a tree. So does this seem to lead to political and legal issues, or do you think we are, or would be, OK?

If something like this happened, not that it did.

(if this makes no sense, see my blog)

As with most things of this nature, it all comes down to the "Golden Rule".

How many votes can you muster?

Perhaps we should add the "Silver Rule",

Have you annoyed someone sufficiently for them to press this at tribunal?

And finally the "Bronze Rule"

It's only illegal if you get caught.

Therefore, in this order

  1. make sure you don't get caught.
  2. if you do make sure there is no one that hates you enough to bring it to tribunal
  3. if there is someone like that, beg, lie, steal, threaten, bribe, cajole, trick and generally wheadle enough votes to win.

Legality is entirely in the hands of the guy with the most sigils in Ars.

IIRC, some Iberian covenant wanted to establish in the Peripheral Code that demons were enemies of the Order. Instead, what got voted, from fear of widespread infernal retribution, was that demons couldn't be friends of the Order. Meaning that you don't have a Code-mandated duty to strike (non-hermetic) infernalists down, only to not to deal with demons yourself. It follows that if you do hunt demons down, aggravating them and they take revenge on other magi, you can very well end up charged with "dealing with demons", and rightly so.

Therefore, Gribble's politicking aside, I am of the opinion that the fact that Robert was an infernalist cannot be used as an excuse for your bringing the wrath of mundanes upon your sodales.

I thought it was a Loch Leglean covenant, but then I hunted around a bit and found it on p.27 of Wizard's Grimoire Revised. It was the primus of House Jerbiton who "moved that all demons and their servants be declared enemies of the Order in perpetuity" in 1063. The response was exactly as you say.

I voted "yep" but I believe that issues could be avoided with sufficiently powerful damage control measures. (such as re-writing memories and finding the diabolists who were "actually responsible" or some other such.)

A good SG will not let you be ok with that. I would start cooking up a REALLY good-
*sob story about why you had to kill that guy in self defense
*escape plan
*alibi/ scape goat
and also all the things that gribble mentioned.

Also, don't forget about the demons! :smiling_imp:

I voted "no", only because, as Gribble t. M. implies, they are neither "in trouble" nor "out of it", not yet.

I'd say that the act itself is not a breech of The Code, since he was a diabolist and, well, someone had to smoke his ass. However, the fallout can vary widely depending on exactly how they handled it.

In ancient Sparta, the young warriors in training were fed very little, and encouraged to steal from other camps. If caught, they were punished, not because they were stealing, but because they were caught.

In many situations, Those In Charge don't come down on lawbreakers because they broke The Law, but because those caught were clearly too stupid not to break the law quietly, and now there is no choice but to make an example of them.

A corollary to all this would be exactly what sort of pressure the father of the deceased could bring to bear. If he alone is pissed... meh. If he gets his buddy the Archbishop and his pal the Baron involved, and they in turn get Rome and the King interested... good luck, guys.

I couldn't say either way really.. I don't think anyone would necessarily reproach them for killing a diabolist.. .. but I'd say you -might- get in trouble.. depending on how you'd then handle the Lord.. .. if you bring down trouble on the order from him, you'd get in trouble.. if not.. no worries.. what do they care if you kill some guy's son? ^^

In short, the act itself isn't a breech of the code or causing any trouble.. but it gets the attention of the Lord.. and -he- might bring the trouble

Nah - don't mix legality and punishment. Law is law irrespectively of you getting caught and possibly punished. And since the Code offers no time limit on prosecution this can always come back and bite you... In the light of the 'Golden' and 'Silver' rules mentioned this means that you'd have to keep avoid making enemies of the sodalis in the know and of the Tribunal in generel.

This goes even if there is a culture of promoting illegal acts and lauderating uncaught law-breakers.

Personaliy there is nothing I like better than to insinuate to my players, in or out of game, that sooner or later there will be a reckoning for their clear breaches of the Code... but keeping it at that, letting them squirm on the rack for a while :smiling_imp: . And when the skies finally falls on their heads it might not be that bad - but the excrutiating wait often offer much better opportunities for angst and pathos-filled scenes, then any trial in itself. But alas, since we are ourselves playing a tribunal tomorrow, the time for reckoning might be at hand.... :confused:

(Listening Frakel...? :wink: )

The father of the guy is a baron. Thjat means he is not an all-powerful being: he can be dealt with. How, depends on your players

  1. he can be convinced that Robert was a jackass and that you did him a favour removing a taint in the family's honuir by dispatching him. Unlikely to be acceptable if presented this crudely, but with sopme ornaments, this story can be made good. He might not like it, but defending the honour of a monster is difficult if the church gets involved. You might get a spanking for beingf witches, but the Baron might get it as well (read. lose title and lands) for having spawned such a creature. Ergo, it is in yopur mutual interest to keep the thing quiet.

  2. Lie like a monster and pretend to tell the true story, where Robert, your friend, died when you were battleling some diabolists together.

  3. Try to ensurethat it is kept on a local scale: the baron and you sort out your differences quietly instead of geting flashy spells and armoured knights charging in the middle of Cologne.

  4. Basically, learn how you can deal with the baron and do it. Blackmail, forging a non interference pact, helping him in other issues, or whatever you can in order to get your butts out of trouble.

If all else fail, start gathering votes and a nice assassination spell. The assassination spell can be a bunch ov vis to pay an other magus to kill the guy for you discretely.



The whole issue depends on how the father feels toward his son. And does he fear the power of magic?
These are the basics.
And these are up to you.
I cannot imagine what political actions can be made against "a bunch of wizards who live in a tree". Omg! In a tree!
If he is angry and want to do something against them he will take 50-100 soldiers and 3-4 priests to burn down that tree. If he succeeds it is ok. If not he will do nothing more but the covenant will get some reputation in the royal court something like "the wizards who killed Shoenburg's bastard son".

Well, they actually live in a castle inside a regio which is behind a tree.

I'll disagree.

While it's true that the Law as a philosophical discussion is not dependent on punishment, the Law as philosophical discussion ends at the classroom door. Once we are in society, in "(mythic) real life", the realities of law, what is merely "technically illegal" vs what is "actually punished" are quite, quite mutable. And involved in that practical (vs. theoretical) social distinction are such variables as popularity (do we care about this one?), personal interest (ie, "do we really care?"), practicality of enforcement (ie, "is it really worth the trouble/effort?"), practicality of prosecution (ie, "yes, we believe/know they did it, but can we prove it?"), and cost/return of such prosecutions (ie, "Do we have better things to worry about?"), and other, practical concerns (not the least are political and social considerations!).

On another board, I once got into a heated debate (:shock:) with someone who claimed to be a lawyer, but seemed to be oblivious to the fact that real, living breathing people decided which cases to prosecute, and which to ignore, people with prejudices and headaches and careers and all the things that distinguish theory from practice.

A mage innocently casts an Intellego spell on a group of peasants. In that group is a disguised Hermetic Mage. Has that first mage broken The Code, by using Hermetic Magic to peer into the affairs of a fellow mage? Technically, yes, absolutely! Do we think much will come from prosecuting him? No, not so much.

Another mage casts the same spell on purpose on a suspicious character skulking about their covenant, a character who seems to know magic. NOW do we care?... Meh... it depends.

The same 2 magi, but the first casts it while the second is in his home covenant, minding his own bussiness. NOW we care.

Why? Same rule has been broken in each case, but... it's never as clear cut as it is listed in The Code. "Illegal" is not an issue that stands as virginal from practical realities as it at first pretends, and it never was meant to. It gives guidelines, not tight definitions. On the one side, there is latitude for forgiveness before it even goes to trial, and on the other, there is wrath for someone who gets cute and thinks that sophism can provide an exception to the spirit of the law.

The Code is Swiss cheese, but that doesn't mean it's broken. It just means that you don't want to get close to the boundaries it sets, OR you need to accept the possibilities if you get singled out. * :wink:

(* Which gets back to the whole idea of being smart enough to "not get caught", or at least not be blatant about it. If you don't send up flares, a Tribunal is less (relative term!) likely to deem you a danger to the Order; if you bungle, then censure is more likely to be meted out, if only as preemptive self-protection.)

I just wanted to write what the lord would think. :wink:

Btw sorry I missed the thing the guy is his "favorite bastard".
In this case the lord will surely do something against the magi. His personality is important. If he likes to intrigues he will do it. If bloodthirsty and the man of weapons he will act this way.
But bastard or not killing someone is a sin even in mundane terms so if the land is not in anarchy the legal procedure may start.

I do not think the magi will be accused by the Order. Only if they act badly or the circumstances turn against them.