I think what is being missed was that the maga was gravely wounded. If the magus in question took her blood rather than casting some stabilizing spell on her (Bind Wound) then you at least have a cast at Tribunal. The argument would be that he denied her her magical power by endangering her life through inaction (letting her bleed out).
This denial of magical power through inaction would likely be a new precedent in your Tribunal, but I see it as a reasonable one. It would have taken him essentially no effort to spont a second magnitude spell (if he's an old magus his CrCo must be very good for Longevity purposes). He then could have legally collected her blood from the ground.
If Tribunal accepts this argument then I, were I the maga in question, would magnanimously accept a lesser punishment instead of a vis fine. For instance, he could return the arcane connection he gathered while my life was at risk
This is obviously highly dependent on the political conditions of the Tribunal, but its a tack to take. If the magus in question is more powerful magically and politically than the maga then, well, she's screwed.
I disagree. The elder magus here seems to be committing a dangerous mistake, he's giving the younger no ways out -- backing her into a corner. And nothing is more dangerous then a person/animal who feels trapped.
If the younger is a Tremere, Flambeau, or other house with a strong sense of comrade, she can probably run to her house for help, pointing out what bullying this is. Otherwise, she'll have to take matters into her own hands.
"If the mage is more magically powerful, there's nothing she can do." Is not strictly true. Unless the older mage has wards against wood, metal, animals, fire, etc etc (basicly everything). It's not a great challenge to equip a grog with everything he needs to arrange the older mages death. This is doubly true if the older mage is arrogant enough not to have such wards -- a single sniper is all it would take.
The younger maga does have one legal recourse that has not been discussed. The elder mage entered another's lab and destroyed something. It really doesn't matter what was destroyed. He had no way of knowing what the "something" was being used for. (Though he can assume that it was being fixed as an arcane connection, he had no actual proof.)
No mage that I know of is going to accept the argument, "Well, I thought it was going to be used against me so I destroyed it." The precedent being set in the peripheral code (that it's OK to enter someones lab and destroy anything that you can claim might be used against you) is never going to be allowed to happen. With the right political spin (from, say, an older and more powerful father figure), the older mage is potentially in great trouble...
And destroyed something that was his in the first place. He destroyed an item which had been stolen from him. He didn't touch her lab notes, her vis or her summoning circle. Just the remains of his own chair.
And yes, the direction of the blade is less relevent to the person being stabbed assuming they survive. As regards to the respect accorded the attacker in Hermetic circles, however, it matters a great deal. The Flambeau will revile a coward whilst the Tremere will be admire a strategist and the Tytali will question what they're trying to engineer from the consequences.
The item having been stolen is irrelevant. The theft of mundane items is not covered by the code. Reducing a maga's ability to perform magic is. When the item was destroyed it was in another mage's lab and obviously part of some magical process. Destroying it was in clear violation of the code.
I disagree. Firstly, ownership is important, and since the code acknowledges ownership with respect to magical potential, it is valid. The item belonged to the magus, much as a vis source illegally harvested belonged to the owner. In the latter case, a Tribunal would rule that the Vis be returned to the owner. Likewise, the chair was his and his to destroy. The fact that another maga had carried it fifty metres to the left is irrelevent.
Secondly, an arcane connection does not count as part of a magical process and cannot. Your clothing, your voting sigil and your talisman are all arcane connections to you. Likewise, a sliver from a table in your council chamer. The fact that you intend to use it magically to enhance or direct another spell is irrelevent. If you ripped out someone's hair at a tribunal and then cast a spell to make their hair glow blue (using the hair you stole as an AC to penetrate), no tribunal in the world would rule that you owned the hair and that the magus targetted was wrong to try to grab it back. Everysinglething in the world is an arcane connection to something. Making arcane connections protected by law is suicide from the hermetic perspective unless ownership and just cause are otherwise established.
If someone steals the final draft of my new Summa and uses it to cast a baldness spell on me, they have deprived me of my magical potential an might, and also attacked me. I have ample call to reclaim it, and indeed to declare Wizard's War on them. If I reclaim it, what grounds do they have that I hindered their magical potential and power? By that logic, Durenmar (by requiring magi to justify their access to the library) are eternally in breach of the code.
Bullshit. If you get shot in the face or in the back, you got shot.
It doesnt matter the slightest. If i go up and punch you in the face then take your wallet, thats better than if i pick it out of your pocket when you dont notice? Sorry thats total rubbish.
As long as they were not OFFICIALLY feuding, ie wizard war, then its completely irrelevant for any legal issues.
NOT relevant????????
Of course its enough to charge either or both.
Its easily possible to come up with interpretations that charges either, but the only consistant interpretation is that both gets charged or both doesnt get charged.
Legalistic, hardly. Corrupt, maybe. Self-serving, only until someone stronger than "you" decides to give your character something less to worry about... Like life.
Sure, and the maga might claim she accidentally broke her chair and -knowing he´s ever so sweet and wouldnt mind, i borrowed his. Both excuses are laughable and unlikely to do any good at any tribunal were they to get charged.
Irrelevant? One is just a weakest possible AC while the other would allow easy penetration of the maga´s Parma.
Dont be absurd.
The problem there being that one character is much more powerful than the other, want to be on the outcome?
Ill give you 5 to 1 odds on the maga to win!
If this was for real, i would happily be the "lawyer" for the maga, because unless political influence affects things too much im at least 80% sure i could the mage convicted to the limit and the maga either off completely or with a not too serious fine.
Thats actually a potentially interesting argument as well.
Oh yes, any case like this will be determined first of all by the side that can get the most political support.
Oh drats, i totally missed that one.
Yes you´re probably right, while id say the mage´s theft easily tops the maga´s even if not by great margin, actually destroying something inside someones sanctum goes a big step further still because not punishing such a deed would put the order itself at direct risk.
Its bad enough allowing mages to gather ACs against each other ( especially in the same covenant! ) as that cant really be used for much else than nastiness, but outright destruction within a "protected" area, thats clearly a breach without any ambiguity at all about it.
I don't think I am. The arcane connection stolen was weak, but even the weakest still allows a hefty boost to penetration, makes scrying possible and offers the opportunity for fixing. In the short term, one is more deadly, but after 3 months, both are equivalent and must be treated as such.
I'd give her sensible odds for hiding. Or she'll die. That's her problem, not in fact a problem for the law. If your enemies are more magically powerful than you, don't attack them magically. If they wield more political power, don't attack them in tribunal. She clearly chose a bad tactic.
Property within the sanctum is not protected by the code. Magical property is. Property that the magus recognised from having sat in it for three years whilst plotting his evil and knew was not magical can't count. It opens the door for completely unprovavle accusations - magi could be accused based on the desires of a magus to enchant an item, rather than whether or not it was enchanted or any visible plans had been made.
And if she'd been there, she could have nuked him and had done with it. As it is, however, the sanctum is where a foreign magus' rights are lost, not where the owners rights are enhanced. One Frosty Breath of the Spoken Lie later ("Did you steal that chair from X?") and it is instantly established that the maga was in the wrong and the magus was only operating on his own property.
As such, the tribunal throws them out, the maga dies in Wizard's War, the magus develops a terrible reputation and noone will invite him into their covenants or sancta and won't let him near their libraries.
Regarding the gathering of arcane connections, would you see anything wrong with a Merenita gathering a stone from the path leading to a magus tower, using it to allow teleportation spells to visit him more easily?
I'd be interested in seeing you two post up opening statements as if presented to the tribunal defending/accusing from your perspectives.
The way i see it is thus.
In stealing the blood, the senior magus (lets call him Tenebrous, as that's his name) did not breach any article of the code. He freely confesses it was a dishonest and nasty thing to do. Further, since he DID then heal the maga and return her to the covenant (the wounds she had sustained actually came from falling off the magical flying horse he lent her to return home, it was he that then went looking for her when the horse returned without her) no charges should be pressed here.
In then hanging onto her blood he did no wrong. The maga could have offered to buy it back off him but chose to demean his person with crass demands and even veiled threats.
In stealing his chair the maga (lets call her Vienta) did not breach the code, however, her actions immediately led to a situation where most of the covenants magi destroyed their own chairs and now just sit on random chairs, rather than the beautifully carved personal chairs they used to sit on. She thus made the covenant an uglier place and although not against the rules, is clearly just as dastardly as Tenebrous.
In destroying the shard of his chair that Vienta was fixing as an AC, Tenebrous was not breaking any article of the code. The chair lump belonged to him, its was his to destroy or not as he wished, just as the other magi destroyed their chairs, he was being thorough in destroying his. Although he violated Vienta's sanctum, she was not there and had been careless enough to not guard her lab and merely entering another's lab is not against the code. Vienta is of course perfectly free to try and enter tenebrous' lab, although she should be warned that he is more thorough in protecting his possessions and she might not survive.
In all of the dispute, Tenebrous has maintained the possibility of Vienta earning her blood back by service or purchase, but the maga has chosen to be high handed. She should remember that imperious demands only work on those with LESS power than oneself, not more.
Tenebrous declines to try and press any charges but asks that if Vienta (or any of her friendly advisors here on the boards) wish to press charges, they make them clear exactly WHAT they are accusing him off and explaining why it is a crime.
Gribble, you did just sum up my opening remarks to the Tribunal. And elegantly, too. I do find myself wondering one thing though - do you run Tenebrous, or does your Criamon merely claim him as amicus?
As I see it, the most important aspect in this whole case is the nature of the Peripheral Code. It is based entirely on precedent. Every time a ruling is made, it is entered into the Peripheral Code and becomes the law of the Tribunal.
Every mage in my saga, including all of the PC's, would vote to convict the elder mage just to prevent the precedent that would follow from his acquittal.
He entered the lab of another member of the Order and destroyed a magical process in operation. This is a clear violation of the code.
"I will not deprive nor attempt to deprive any member of the Order of his magical power."
It doesn't matter that the item destroyed clearly belonged to him by mundane laws. The Tribunal is ruling on violations of the Code.
The elder mage can't even claim that he had no recourse since he could have declared Wizard's War and acted completely legally.
Your Saga may vary, but that's how it would go down in ours...
That's an even more dangerous precedent though - it means that no possessions, magical or mundane, are safe from theft because (for the price of spending a week faffing about with 1 pawn of vis to leave the necessary traces) they can call become the inalienable property of the thief.
Disrupting the fixing of an arcane connection no more deprives the maga of magical power then disrupting her spell-casting. All it does it make her less of a threat to the magus. True, it potentially costs her a pawn of vim vis, but that's her sacrifice to an attempt to gain advantage over her covenant mate.
Thank you, and yes, guilty as charged, Tenebrous is the eldest of my magi. And a fiendish git too.
The conviction however would set a worse precedent. It would say to the magi "if someone has a hold over you, however slight, then kill them. If you steal or sabotage their work, its your head, but killing them via wizards war is fine."
Although one option is legal (wizards war) ant the other is a grey area (breaking/knicking stuff) the order would be aware that rampant wars cannot be good for the integrity of the order.
Not at all. The theft is still illegal. Legal action can be taken. A conviction on the other charge would not affect that at all. If the "case of the stolen chair" was taken to tribunal (or even the covenant council/whatever) then it would have been a clear case of theft and punishable. Heck, it still is.
What cannot be tolerated by the Order is the breaking into a lab and destruction of a magical process.
Again, not at all. The mage who had his chair stolen had several, non-lethal options. There were several paths that could have been taken instead of the highly illegal one that was taken.
This was a clear case of theft. The maga/thief could have been brought to trial, sanctioned by her own covenant, threatened with Wizard's War, or any one of several other options.
Also, Wizard's War does not need to have a lethal ending. It is nowhere written that, given the chance, a wizard must kill the other. Wizard's War simply temporarily limits the provisions of the Code that apply to each Wizard directly involved. If the more powerful mage wanted to take matters into his own hands, he could have done so legally (and not lethally) by declaring Wizard's War.
Well see thats the point here, that stealing blood cant be used for much else than as a preparation for either spying or attacking the other side. If Tenebrous had by that time already declared a wizards war, then perfectly fine i wouldnt have the slightest objection.
But doing it outside of that means he is showing obvious intent of breaching one or several parts of the code.
You´re not considering the politics or (oh dreaded word) paradigm here people(except for shopkeep jon). First, stealing blood in a medieval context, especially by a magi who KNOWS how to use it for what in reality was just a myth but here IS reality is at the very top of the list of "things forbidden and punishable to the limit".
And secondly, it shows clear intent to go against the code and openly disregarding it. If a tribunal allows this, it means there restrictions on normal "behaviour" is suddenly relaxed monumentally. No magi is safe anymore. Tenebrous has shown himself a clear and present danger to the wellbeing of the order as a whole.
Oh the maga would probably get fined, but Tenebrous would probably get marsched. To prevent orderwide disaster.
Unless as i said, he has massive political support. However, i wouldnt even count on that to save him unless its a tribunal dominated by Tytalus or Tremere. Other magi will see the future implications, the obvious danger in saying that its fine to prepare for attacking or scrying another magi.
Add his willful destruction inside the magas sanctum, well that probably just makes certain that he gets nailed. Not because the crime itself probably, even if that would likely be enough for a "conviction" of some sorts, but because he is establishing a clear pattern of disregarding the code.
Tenebrous is most likely royally screwed.
Sorry not up for a full legalese writeup.
But overall, your char has been acting like a very bad boy, got himself a bad reputation, probably lots of enemies, established a pattern of "-screw you code of the order!" and shown himself to be preparing to break the code. Probably enjoys drowning kittens on his free days as well...
And that puts the final nail in the coffin.
How exactly is he going to prove that the maga´s injuries wasnt intentional, meaning he lent her the horse with a nice little curse on it to make sure he could get blood from her.
His actions overall even makes it look likely that this WAS the case. And then its easily argued that THIS part of his evil deeds directly broke the code itself(as the maga is deprived of work time because of injuries).
Almost every time someone adds something, this "case" becomes ever more damning for Tenebrous.
Id say he gets marsched. Even some degree of political support is unlikely to be enough, and considering him being a nasty fellow overall, its more likely he has plenty of "old aquintances" with less than friendly intentions.
Oh and:
Fhtagn, when was the last time you played and used such wards on your character?
Silent and still cast? While your character is knocked out on the ground? Wont be casting anything then.
And unless you´re paranoid, you shouldnt need to expect treachery from within your own covenant.
Actually, we are considering those. Both of them, especially the politics. We're just placing different weight on different long term implications. At no point does the Code rule out threats, bribery or the strong ruling the weaker. Hell, several houses actively encourage it. Gaining an advantage over someone will get you a bad rep, but it's not illegal.
For myself, I regard "nothing you own is guaranteed to be yours" and "gathering arcane connections which might be used against a member of the order", especially given how broad the latter might be, to be utterly dangerous. No more free(ish) sharing of information, for fear it might be stolen or lead to thefts. No lending of books. No accepting an invitation to someone's sanctum or covenant, for fear you might be accused of gathering arcane connections.
Last session, and the one before that and ... I play a zealously pagan sorcerer trying to bring about the return to power of the Realm of Magic at the expense of the evils of the Divine and the Infernal (and who has ressurected Diedne magic), and have in my covenant a deeply Christian Flambeau with friends in the Burning Acorn Vexhilation. That, and our library consists in part of the severed heads of those who've betrayed or opposed us - the heads of Magi are particularly useful. Add in the fact that we're saddled with a power-mad Merinita who's betrayed two covenants so far (Tribunal saddled us with him to keep him away from older covenants) and it's not paranoia, it's common sense. So yes, loyal servants always accompany me, I keep waiting wards on several items and I've got low level offensive spells and can spont certain defensive ones easily. And do.
Which once again is completely irrelevant to the case at hand.
Ok so you´re paranoid.
And you´re totally delirious if you think that will be the result of a conviction on Tenebrous. Breaking the code because someone else almost broke it, because he probably broke it before, not slapping him down is an invitation to constant undeclared wizard war orderwide. Nailing him for what he did only means strengthening the legal side of the code. Claiming the opposite is ridiculous.
It certainly doesnt, but that doesnt change that the mage in question is guilty of breaching the code. Its as if a court today would say -well ok he murdered someone but he´s an evil bastard and had a grudge against the victim so we will just let him go...
The code would become near irrelevant. And while i generally dont like "slippery slope" arguments, in this case its exactly what happens due to how tribunals and indirectly the code is based on precedent.
If a tribunal absolves Tenebrous of guilt, give it 50-100 years and the schism war will look like a peaceful time, because the order will have dissolved from infighting because the code no longer protects nonhostile relationships.
Unless someone steps in and shouts loud enough and long enough, and probably kills enough people to prevent it.
