We have a magus who wants to use Creo Mentem magic to instill positive emotions towards himself (loyalty, trust, etc.) using target:Boundary rituals on a rival covenant. We are debating what the legality of this wound be under the Code of Hermes. It seems like it should be illegal but there isn't a part of the Code that stands out to us that would forbid this. If not forbidden by the Code itself, are there any canon peripheral code rulings that might be relevant? I suppose my questions are:
1: Is there anything in the Code itself that would forbid this (and make it a high crime)?
2: If not, are there any canonical peripheral ruling that would be relevant?
3: If yes to 1 or 2, how clear-cut are these breaches? In your opinion, would any honest Magus vote to convict or would it be subject to legitimate debate?
4: In no to 1 and 2, on what grounds might a magus argue to set a new precedence to criminalize this act?
Between our group we have a few interpretations but we would like to hear some other opinions on the matter.
It would probably depend on the fallout of such a ritual.
If, for instance, you did this in the Normandy tribunal and a bunch of mundane workers left your enemy covenant for yours, I think you would be okay because it wasn't magical deprivation (and the Normandy Tribunal very strictly interprets resources as having to be magical to warrant a high crime).
If, on the other hand, one of the covenfolk effected by the spell could be considered a magical resource, you could probably be charged for such a thing.
indirectly stealing someones apprentice in such a way would probably lead to a charge too.
Another potential issue of course is that it could be construed as scrying if said coven folk feed you information. Note could, not would- it would be a subjective call. Also it will be impaired by the aegis, and seen as a hostile act regardless, so it is pretty ballsy and could result in a wizard war, or multiple wizard wars, being declared.
Your magus is clearly trying to skirt the Code by not targeting the magical resources that would make this a clear violation. Covenfolk traditionally aren’t magic resources, but of course some of them are.
I think much depends on what the magus does with these loyal, trusting covenfolk once they exist. If the magus solicits information from them, the covenant can nail him to the wall for using magic to scry. If he lures away covenfolk who are used to gather vis or assist in the lab, he’s depriving magi of their magical power.
As always in the Order, much depends on the age and political influence of the magi involved. If brought to Tribunal, it’s likely this case would go to arbitration by Guernicus; a powerful magus on either side could compel the other side to yield, simply through threat of force. If I were a magus in the targeted covenant, that’s what I’d do: I’d publicize this case to a few select mature magi. “Do you really want to let behavior like this stand? What if you’re the next target?” The risk here is that revealing your Aegis is weak enough to allow this kind of crap is both dangerous and humiliating. Tytalus magi might support the case just to see it resolved, clarifying the Code.
The target covenant needs a stronger Aegis to prevent this sort of thing.
I think the simple consequence that if it is not illegal with this covenant, then anybody can do it to any other covenant of the same tribunal would easily sway the majority of the magi to consider that illegal and forbid it.
Also, the spell won't differentiate between mundane and magi when cast, so unless every mage is out during the ritual casting, the casting will also target mage, triggering their parma. And this is also another case to be investigated for casting a spell against a sodales.
Of course, investigation will have to show that their was a harmful effect, but considering that the purpose of the spell is to sway against their intentions the targets, Quaesitoris and allies of targeted covenant should relatively easily build a case.
And if any of the magi's MR isn't up to snuff, then they're taking Warping from a presumably level 30+ spell. Twilight Prone magi will have to check for Twilight and that could seriously harm a magus' Gift, which is generally regarded as worse than death.
And taking Warping can always be argued to the Quaesitoris as a harmful effect.
I believe, the best possible outcome (for the PC) to the worst would be:
miraculously, nobody noticed the spell effect until it wore off, so as usual, you are not guilty if you are not caught. Do you want to play again
no, it was not illegal, but from now on, it is illegal. Thus becoming part of the Peripheral Code. And this is for me the real best case scenario
a significant covenfolk was influenced, thus it fall within "deprieving a mage form his magic" - depending on the loss, appropriate fine and/or punishment will ensue
a mage was affected, direct violation of the code. Depending on the consequence and the political clout of each side, it could go as far as being Marched.
Any of the three last cases could still trigger a Wizard war, targeting the mage who cast the spell, or the whole PC covenants, regardless of the judgement.
I also believe that no sane mage would ever believe that casting such spell would be perfectly fine. Any mage would at least know that he is flirting with illegality if not doing something downright against the code.
The thing is, hermetic justice is not driven purely by the letter of the word, but also by political weight and influence. So what could look clearly illegal could be downplayed to misdemeanor - for example, the NPC covenant is widely hated and does not have much support in the tribunal. The reverse is also true: PCs are new to the Tribunal, their arrival threaten the political stability of the area, they secure vis sources that was unofficially harvested by another covenant, etc... several covenants might hold a grudge against the PCs and they will see an opportunity to reverse the situation. Then suddenly a misdemeanor could end up much worse.
AFAICS, the real issue is the purpose of such a conspicuous ritual with its considerable vis expenditure, long casting time and high penetration.
Once it is detected and identified, the affected covenant will interview their covenfolk. Did they tell the CrMe-magus something about the covenant because he was so trustworthy? Allow him access to something because of that ritual?
Then he violated the Oath's "I will not use magic to scry upon members of the Order of Hermes, nor shall I use it to peer into their affairs." Bingo: scrying can be persecuted as a high crime.
on the other hand if they used it to jump into bed with the prettiest non-magus covenfolk just to tweak the noses of a rival covenant, then I don't see any violation of the code. Just to point out the other extreme. Of course that is a lot of vis and effort to put into a seduction (or several seductions, they have a year...) but if it is their vis to waste...
And the enemy covenant's reputation affected (negatively). Well worth the investment in the political arena.
Hope you are ready for retaliation, though.
Great feedback everyone, thanks. A lot of things brought up we had already considered, but some new things to consider as well. Before I reply to anything specifically I want to get a little more clear on what the magus is doing, or planning on doing, as well as interpretations of the rules that might be relevant that we use that may or may not be the actual intention of the rules.
Assumptions:
Momentary Creo spells may be made permanent with rituals (and thus vis). We have assumed that would include Mentem effects such as creating emotions or memories, not only the boosting of mental characteristics. This would allow a spell of (Base 4 +1 Touch +4 Boundary), level 25 and thus not causing warping on the targets. It also means that while the feeling is permanent, it is not maintained by the magic and so can degrade naturally through the actions of the magus. There is a similar ritual in Covenants, p.41 that uses a year duration instead of momentary, which could be evidence that our interpretation of permanent CrMe rituals is wrong, but it seems to most of us that the year and momentary durations could both be valid options. The year duration would be better in some cases because it maintains the magic, keeping the covenant loyal even to the Blatant Gifted, reckless Flambaeu for the duration, no matter how many houses he "accidentally" sets on fire.
The spell will be cast forcelessly, thus having a penetration of 0, which should prevent it from affecting any magi as well as apprentices covered by the master's Parma. This of course requires the ritual to be cast from inside the target's Aegis, so that it's own magic resistance is bypassed. This will require that the magus can cast the spell with a penalty equal to half the target's Aegis.
As for what the magus is planning on doing after instilling loyalty in other covenants, he's not sharing.
He has said that he doesn't plan on using it to gain knowledge about other Magi or to influence the covenfolk to steal resources (magical or otherwise), as we all agreed that these would be clear-cut violations and high crimes. So is the act of casting spell illegal? Obviously it would allow or ease the breaking of laws, but is the spell itself illegal?
Even so, as some of you have said, Magi are not going to like the idea of their covenfolk being affected by another magus's magic. While a wizard's war would be on option regardless of the law, I would think that waging war against a magus who your entire covenant feels loyal to could lead to some difficulties. I would think that some Perdo Mentem spells would be able to reverse the affects of the spell easily enough, though it would probably need to be subtle - I doubt covenfolk like the idea of magi manipulating their minds.
Also how could the target covenant detect the spell? Obviously the Magi would feel the spell on their Parma, but how could they learn what the effect is, who was affected, etc.? As a momentary spell the magnitude of it's residual magic quickly drops to 0 after being cast and then decays into negative magnitudes at a rate of -1 per year (True Lineages p.71). That would give a covenant a year to investigate before needing more exotic InVi spells to detect the spell. However because there have be hundreds or thousands of magical effects used in the covenant, how might they pinpoint the affect used by the Mentem magus? Finally, how can the true sigil of a spell cast with the Disguised spell mastery be divined? From what I can see it looks as if a magus can identify a sigil as not genuine but can't determine the true sigil. If there really is not way then I think we will have to house rule a way in because that seems absurd to me.
This is interesting. Is casting spells that target other Magi illegal, even with 0 penetration? The books say that Intellego spells are often cast with 0 penetration to prevent accidentally scrying on Magi. However the target of an Intellego sense spell is usually the caster, not those being sensed, so a spell isn't being cast targeting other Magi. This spell IS targeting Magi, even if not specifically. Even with 0 penetration, would this then be a violation of the Code itself?
The magus specifically wanted the spell to be non-warping, reasoning that if the covenfolk were warped by his spell and it negatively affected their ability to perform their jobs, then it would be a deprivation code violation. Not sure if caution in that aspect is warranted but the spell is invented now.
I like this. The magus doesn't attempt to gain any information from the covenfolk but one of them volunteers the information after being affected by the spell. Even if the Magus doesn't act on the information if another Magi learns that the covenfolk shared the information with the Mentem Magus, he could then be held liable, potentially years after the spell is cast. Seems like fun.
This is... quite possible actually. The Magus in question has about a dozen bastards as it is. But it brings up another question.
How much authority do Magi hold over their covenfolk, in fact? Each covenant has their own charter but those charters aren't (usually) recognized by the nobility or church. If Magus sired a child with the covenfolk of another covenant, who has the right to the child? If the Magus is Mercere does that cahnge anything? Of course, if the child is Gifted, that makes it easier, the Order recognizes whoever takes him/her as an apprentice as his rightful owner.
There has been a lot of talk above on how in the Normandy tribunal non-magical resources are specifically not treated as part of a magus' magical power and so are not protected by that provision in the code. However I think it stands to reason that in most other tribunals non-magical resources are mostly considered as part of a magus' magical power and so in most non-Normandy tribunals an attack of this sort would be considered as a violation of the code as deprivation of magical power.
It also worth noting that as you specify that the ritual will be mostly permanent, since you treat it as a momentary Creo ritual the aftermath can go wrong for your Flambeau in many many ways that are entirely outside of his control. What if the covenfolk abandon the covenant en masse after the casting? what if they start rowing about the countryside following the Flambeau magus? what if they decided that he should be worshipped? what if some of them realize what happened and press charges in a mundane court? or if they cause mundane authorities to bother either the Flambeau or the covenant that they originally served? what if someone of the covenfolk evade the casting by e.g. being outside of the covenant at the time of casting and come home to find all of their friends and family acting weird, possibly being taken advantage of by a strange wizard, and the covenfolk who evaded the casting start causing trouble? In my view the fallout of casting this spell is all but guaranteed to cause the mundane authorities to become involved in way that opens up a charge of mundane interference.
On a sidenote: Arent the covenfolk still protected by the Aegis of the Hearth even if they are targeted by a spell cast inside the Aegis as long as the caster was not part of the casting or is in possession of an Aegis token? If so how does your Flambeau magus intend to get an Aegis token from what I assume is a hostile covenant?
I forgot to mention but in terms of defending yourself against a court of your hermetic peers I would assume that a spell with a permanent duration is a lot harder to justify than one that is temporary.
Because the spell is designed to have a permanent effect its really hard to see this as anything less than an attempt to destroy the target covenant. If on the other hand the spell had been temporary it would be possible to argue that its just a stupid prank. Your Flambeau magus has not left that door open to himself.
If he is caught casting the spell, the magi of the covenant could justify killing him in self-defense as he was clearly trying to cast some sort of ritual to affect the whole covenant - how were they supposed to know if he was casting forcelessly or not?
If this is treated as a prank, then it may become open season to prank him back - is there a rule against driving 1000 smelly pigs through a covenant? Is there a rule about using Imaginem magic to create temporary rude graffiti about the magus in question? Before you know it, your magus may have escalated the situation into people trying to see how far the Code can bend when pranking people.
The other covenant may well find out even if they never cast any InVi spells because they notice their covenfolk starting to speak well of an outsider they don't normally meet, which is strange for a Gifted person. However, what if the covenfolk start speaking of this to others, and confess to their priest that they developed a strange desire for this Flambeau? If word gets out, would this count as evidence that they breached "Nor will I interfere with the affairs of mundanes and thereby bring ruin on my sodales"?
if it is cast as a permanent momentary, simply revealing that it was cast to the covenfolk will go a long ways towards undermining the outcome.
it sounds like pretty much exactly what could be expected in a verditius rivalry.
children born in a covenant would belong to that covenant, regardless of who the father is, to the degree that ownership applies.
Momentary Creo spells may be made permanent with rituals (and thus vis). We have assumed that would include Mentem effects such as creating emotions or memories, not only the boosting of mental characteristics. This would allow a spell of (Base 4 +1 Touch +4 Boundary), level 25 and thus not causing warping on the targets. It also means that while the feeling is permanent, it is not maintained by the magic and so can degrade naturally through the actions of the magus. There is a similar ritual in Covenants, p.41 that uses a year duration instead of momentary, which could be evidence that our interpretation of permanent CrMe rituals is wrong, but it seems to most of us that the year and momentary durations could both be valid options. The year duration would be better in some cases because it maintains the magic, keeping the covenant loyal even to the Blatant Gifted, reckless Flambaeu for the duration, no matter how many houses he "accidentally" sets on fire.
This is definitely a reasonable interpretation; I'm not 100% agreeing with it, since I feel Mentem is a bit wiggly with exactly how you affect the mind - might be answered in A&A, I don't know. As far as making it non-warping... well... The specific quote in the book says 'Anyone subjected to a powerful mystical effect gains a Warping Point... “Powerful effect” is subjective, but any Hermetic spell of sixth magnitude or higher counts' which means you can very easily have a 'powerful mystical effect' that is 5th magnitude or lower. You're making a permanent addition to their mind, generating a new personality trait 'Loyal to X'. I might very well argue that's going to count as powerful enough to warp a little.
The spell will be cast forcelessly, thus having a penetration of 0, which should prevent it from affecting any magi as well as apprentices covered by the master's Parma. This of course requires the ritual to be cast from inside the target's Aegis, so that it's own magic resistance is bypassed. This will require that the magus can cast the spell with a penalty equal to half the target's Aegis.
An apprentice who isn't next to their master would have no parma - if one of their apprentices is reading a book in the library, or downstairs getting their master's breakfast from the kitchens, no parma, you've mind controlled their apprentice. Extended parma only lasts while within sight.
This is interesting. Is casting spells that target other Magi illegal, even with 0 penetration? The books say that Intellego spells are often cast with 0 penetration to prevent accidentally scrying on Magi. However the target of an Intellego sense spell is usually the caster, not those being sensed, so a spell isn't being cast targeting other Magi. This spell IS targeting Magi, even if not specifically. Even with 0 penetration, would this then be a violation of the Code itself?
I like this. The magus doesn't attempt to gain any information from the covenfolk but one of them volunteers the information after being affected by the spell. Even if the Magus doesn't act on the information if another Magi learns that the covenfolk shared the information with the Mentem Magus, he could then be held liable, potentially years after the spell is cast. Seems like fun.
Yeah, scrying doesn't need to be intentional to be illegal. That's always one of the most 'fun' results. I really want to hear how this plays out. Thanks for sharing this story!
Some nice ideas here. The Blatant Gifted Flambeau isn't the proposed caster, but a member of the same covenant. I just brought him up to illustrate our reasoning why you might prefer a non-permanent but magically maintained duration over the permanent Creo momentary option.
We rule that minor personality flaws are generally worth a +3 personality trait which is what we've allowed for the Creo Mentem base 4 effect, though the spell in Covenants, p.41 gives a +4 loyal trait. I guess it would depend on how you adjudicate personality traits but I wouldn't think that a loyalty +3, trusting +3, etc. would be enough to cause the covenfolk to up and leave their established lives. If a modern person starts a business, all of his friends don't quit their jobs/move their family just to go work for him. I would say that a grog with Trusting [Magus] +3 would be enough to offset the -3 Gifted penalty, so he would trust him as much as any other stranger. In the case of our Mentem Magus, he is Gentle Gifted, so he would be received favorably, but I think it's important to remember that the trust isn't magically reinforced and so could be lost and it certainly isn't as potent as a Rego Mentem effect would be. At best it is like a minor personality flaw, but unlike the flaw it isn't part of the grog's essential nature and so can easily be reduced or removed.
On the other hand you have a great point about covenfolk who aren't affected for whatever reason thinking that the affected members are acting strangely. Depending on the relationship they have with the ruling Magi they could easily bring up the change and the Magi would be able to deduce what has happened, even if they lack direct proof. Of course the effect may go completely unnoticed until the caster has contact with the affected covenfolk. People don't usually go around saying how much they like someone they haven't interacted with.
This makes me consider another point. Would the spell have any effect on targets who have never met the caster? Other times he has used these effects they have always been normal spells with a duration, so even if the target first meets him after the casting the spell is still maintaining the effect. Personally would be inclined to say that it works like the inverse of the Gift, the target perceives the caster as having an honest face, it's love at first sight, he seems to be the kind of man who takes care of his vassals, etc., but I could be convinced otherwise. If anyone has any opinions on this I would love to hear them so that I can share them with the group.
Our understanding is that if the caster is inside the Aegis he will bypass the magic resistance but will suffer a penalty to casting equal to half the level of the Aegis.
If any spell is cast toward the Aegis (originating from outside it) by any magus who was not involved in the Aegis ritual, the Aegis resists the spell.
Certainly. He has a pretty effective way of concealing himself but everyone is in agreement that if he is discovered while casting the ritual the target covenant is certain to respond with (likely lethal) force. The other players can attempt to bring a suit against the target covenant if they want to.
Another interesting point, one that highlights how different groups interpret the setting. We've always assumed that there is a difference between covenfolk and the peasants that work the lands owned by the covenant. Many of the covenfolk proper usually have a reason for why they choose to live near and work for strange and dangerous masters (and that's for Gentle Gifted Magi; normal Magi are worse!). Pagans, heretics, criminals, etc. they often have a good reason to avoid secular and ecclesiastic authority, even simple priests. Our player covenant actually has a "tame" monk who handles the religious needs of the covenant and in return the Aegis suppresses his lycanthropy. A major theme of our saga is the Dominion and the effect it has on magi. We have rules for temporary Divine auras manifesting from performing the Sacraments - even a grog who receives Communion projects a small level 1 aura for a week.
Obviously this is very saga specific and certainly come covenfolk will still see real priests, on major holy days at the very least. If a local bishop got involved he could certainly cause problems for the target covenant and thus constitute interfering with the affairs of mundanes and thereby bring ruin on my sodales. The target is near the Archbishopric of Trier...
This is something we all agreed on, this being the drawback vs. being an ongoing duration. It would hinge on the effect of the spell being detected though, which outside of magical means would have to happen after the Magus interacts with the covenfolk, by my interpretation.
This is mostly what I would expect. What if a Magi wanted to claim an unGifted child as his apprentice. Hypothetically an Ex Misc Hedge Witch could take an unGifted child and teach them their supernatural abilities. I doubt this is covered officially, but what do you think would be a likely outcome. What if the witch took the child and then decided to release them from apprenticeship after taking them from the home covenant. Assuming the original covenant cared, would they have any legal grounds to claim the child back (outside of wizard's war of course)?
Oh nice catch! Though if an apprentice has at least Mentem 1, his Form resistance would still cover him correct? Might have to point this out to the SG running this, so that an apprentice with Mentem 0 might be inside the covenant.
Thanks for the interest! I'll try and report back this weekend.
keep in mind as well that if the magus is using magic to conceal themselves then that is a violation of the code, whether casting the spell to influence covenfolk is or not.
