Magi as nobility

Have any of you ever had a magus/maga in your campaign become a noble either through deeds or heredity? It seems swearing fealty to a lord would either be a breach of the code or at least set one up for a decision later that would (going to war for instance.) One of the Magi in our game is a Count, and has been accused of interference (he made a backdoor deal with the high Quaesitor to get out of it), but our STs are very good about it being a double edged sword for us. In fact, the side of the sword that hurts us is much sharper than the one that helps thusfar. However, it has been a fun part of our saga, and gives a lot of great hooks. I'm curious if others have roleplayed this kind of situation.

3 Likes

Yes.

And yes. It does create story opportunities like this. Also familial expectations around the need to provide an heir are a good story opportunity too.

Many covenants, even if the magi are not themselves nobles, probably have some sort of "fealty" type relationship with a local noble (not withstanding what the code says about it). Unless the covenant is located in a regio, the physical land that the covenant resides upon must almost always be a territory that some noble considers to be part of his feudal dominion. Nobles don't care what the Oath and Peripheral Code say about the matter. In fact, it may be easier for the covenant if one of the magi is this noble. Of course, whether there is a story here depends on the troupe. It's perfectly possible/legitimate to hand-wave these issues away.

2 Likes

The closest our troupe has come was with a Jerbiton and his landed knight brother (and companion). The Jerbiton was actually the older brother, but his induction into the Order was treated as though he'd joined a monastery. This still lead to a great deal of skirting disaster with both the peripheral code and mundane authorities, as a few of our enemies had a habit of using the familial connection against us. The worst of it occurred when the Prince of Epiros (we were playing in the Theban Tribunal at the time) kidnapped one of the Jerbiton's cousins (who was beloved of the knight) in an effort to coerce the covenant into quietly supporting his bid for emperor. We eventually wiggled out of that by replacing the cousin with a conjured corpse that looked just like him, then smuggling the cousin to a new life abroad. It wasn't easy, though, as a handful of other magi were already in the prince's pocket.

So, for us, being so closely attached to even as low a noble as a landed knight was, as the OP noted, a double-edged sword. And, though the covenant and its magi were occasionally vexed by that attachment, we, the troupe, greatly benefited from some tense games that evoked some great roleplaying.

1 Like

The land you settle on will be part of a noble's domain, but they may well be willing to settle for rents instead of fealty- especially if those rents are high enough to hire more mercenaries then they could reasonably expect through fealty.

2 Likes

I master a campaign where every magus is actually considered noble. They are a kind of second other order of nobility. The Code has been adapted, of course.

2 Likes

Tell us more please ?

Sorry for the gap.

Well, first I considered that the concept "magi are powerful but hiding" did not made much sense by itself. Why were the nobles in power during the historical middle ages ? Only because they had might (a horse, a lance, a sword and the ability to use them). So if we have magi around A.D. 800, why aren't they part of the nobility ?

That was the starting point. From there, I just considered that the "non interference" clause was heavily discussed by the Founders. You had "isolationists" (Bonisagus, Merinita, Bjornaer, Verditius and possibly Guernicus) who would have nothing to do with mundane, and "interventionists" (or power-hungry magi) like Flambeau, Tremere, Tytalus. the isolationists seemed more numerous, but the strong point of the interventionists was that, with power over the mundane you could better isolate yourself from them if you chose to, and let other magi - more interested in that - play with the power question.
So, in this saga there is no clause prohibiting interference with mundanes, nor against molesting faeries.

It was then quite easy, for some power craving magi, to gain that power over most mundanes. For convenience, they generally kept the "classical" nobility in the game. Even the Church acknowledged the magi as a fourth order.

In practice, any magus could claim a "staff nobility" status (from the cliched magus staff) all over Europe (and beyond). Magi generally don't have much land, as they don't really need it.
Most magi aren't interested at all in the power struggle. They live as they wish, in cities or in the countryside, known by all or hidden as they please, making and selling things, or not.
They have (as an order) a right on vis everywhere, they are expected (and have right) to fight monsters and supernatural perils and have their own jurisdictions (much like clergy).
Attacking a magus is a major crime : it's like hurting a knight, but his friends have much better means to find and punish the culprit.
Magi generally display a pentagram on their arms and banners (not always the same pentagram, arms are personal) so that mundane are warned not to bother them.
Most people consider that magi, if they could be dangerous, frightening or demanding, are generally useful : they could build great works of stone in hours, fight dangerous monsters, keep faeries in their dens, easily know the truth (they make great judges!), and so on.

I also have some magi as members of religious orders, and some others in the Nizari cult.

3 Likes

In Hungary, you don't need to swear fealty to be a noble (literally none of them do). There are some other guys like that in the Alps, too (they hold their land by immemorial right, not fealty, although they can change across if they wish).

The idea that the king owns everything is a peculiarly Norman institution, so you find it in England, Sicily, and not a lot of other places.

2 Likes

I can believe in a Mythic Europe where magi have the duty to defend against supernatural threats, produce magical works, have rights to magical places and resources, and are traditionally and legally restricted from many actions and roles. I don't think they would be noble; they would be magi.

I also think it would diverge from historical patterns, and increasingly so. The importance of history varies from group to group.

2 Likes

I think the largest reason that magi could not be landowning nobles is the matter of time. Being a mage is a highly time-consuming occupation, as is being a feudal landowner. I don't see them being mutually compatible. Being of noble blood and social class is an entirely different matter.

2 Likes

That's why IMS they are "a kind of" nobles.

Most magi consider that managing lands, justice, wars... is a petty and boring occupation, a waste of time. They prefer to manage vis sources, supernatural phenomenons and magical sites.

And the not-so-numerous who bother in land-owning, are not enough to micro-manage the whole Mythic Europe. So there are ordinary nobles too.

Simply, I consider (IMS) that the Founder thought they would be less bothered by the mundanes if they had political power and use it.

Of course, I've lost some opportunities for stories, those with the theme "we must act without interfering - at least not get caugt", but I now have other possibilities : magi could officially take part in conflicts, be judges, respected monster hunters or members of religious orders.

Back to the main subject, being noble could be allowed in some sagas without modifying the Code.
Being of noble-blood is not a choice but an hereditary quality. So, IMO a magus should not be condemned for that. The question is, what is the noble-blooded magus supposed to do about it ?
Should he abstain to collect his legacy ? But if said legacy is in a "hot" political debate, abstaining could be, by itself, an interference in mundane affairs.

In an old tome (OOH IIRC), there was a tribunal ruling condemning a magus because he took part in a war, being noble, as a magus (he used his magical powers in the conflict). The tribunal ruled that, if he had fought "as a knight" he would not have been condemned. Perhaps it's the solution ? Magi could swear an oath of fealty "as knight" and not "as magus".
Of course, everybody knows that a magus will use his power if personnally threatened (or if his land is threatened), but he will fight for his lord as a simple knight (at least apparently). The safest way would be scutage, if the lord permits it.

3 Likes

Many covenants do own land. The majority have, at the very least, a farmable demesne and laborers to work it. However, like many great feudal landowners, they largely don't manage it themselves; they leave that to the autocrat. Between the Gift and the demands of lab time, they don't want to be personally involved in the nitty-gritty so long as their labs are funded and their luxuries keep coming in.

As usual, the answer depends on the politics of the Tribunal. In a well-governed Tribunal, telling the nobles that the magus has renounced his birthright is the "safe" thing to do (and if other nobles start a fight over it, blasting them to ash to maintain the independence of the Order won't raise too many eyebrows). On the other hand, if you've got enemies and the Tribunal is corrupt, any decision you make can be turned against you.

I don't think that'd happen in 5th Edition. Generally, assuming a neutral Tribunal and that the political position of the magus doesn't merit harsher or more lenient treatment, the important part of the interference clause is "and therefore bring ruin upon my sodales," not whether you fight as a knight or a magus. Taking sides in a mundane feud risks dragging the Order into that feud, hence it's forbidden (Lords of Men has an entire chapter on this and how to get around it), so you don't want to be providing any kind of service if you can help it, but in the Normanosphere, you can probably get away with paying taxes to the king.

1 Like

Hi,

I have long seen it similarly, that magi have enough power that it makes a lot more sense for them to be part of the power structure rather than something aside from it. One can run or play AM either way, of course, or both! It might be particularly amusing to have one Tribunal with the usual take on interference right next to another Tribunal whose rules are utterly relaxed.

That said, I don't see a need to change the Code. After all, it is hardly "interfering" to defend and promote your rightful prerogatives, including your covenant's lands and interests. It is hardly interference to come to the aid of a beleaguered ally or relative. These are not mundane affairs but your affairs. It would be just as crazy to bar a magus from trying to arrange beneficial marriages for his children! And if it's "interference" to marry one's daughter to the duke's eldest son, why isn't it also interference to let her marry a village blacksmith?

(The canonical perspective does have important advantages, especially that it makes it easy to explain why European history has not been changed, and can therefore be used as suitable background.)

Anyway,

Ken

2 Likes

Interestingly under the code in RAW, it is easier for a Maga to have political power than a magus- because a woman in noble positions is either simply an attachment to her husband, and thus does not need to swear fealty, or is expected to send knights or money, but not lend personal assistance where her lands are held under fealty. The sexism of Medieval/Mythic Europe works for these cases.

2 Likes

Interestingly, this is canonical. The Rhine (a contested area when it comes to interference) and the Greater Alps (ancient covenants that avoid the rest of the world) are both next door to Normandy (where integration into the system is expected) and Transylvania (where the Tremere consider interference a moral duty).

1 Like

Hi,

That's not at all how I read Normandy, or even Transylvania. Come to think of it, even the Rhine, where one of the canonical stories involves major factions deliberately interfering.

Anyway,

Ken

1 Like

As I said, the Rhine is contested between factions who have remarkably different ideas on interference.

Normandy's rules (per Lords of Men) require a facade of normality, but allow levels of interference to maintain that facade that other Tribunals would blanch at. Perhaps it's better to say that Normandy's definition of interference is different, rather than that they're more lax about it.

And the Transylvanian Tribunal is directly tied in to the secular and Divine legal system of Hungary. They openly rule their allods as magi (and in Hungary, everyone has allodial land) under their own laws, they are known to govern all magicians in the Tribunal's area, the nobility of Hungary are aware that they can take a case against a magician to the Order, and they use ritual magic for public works like cathedrals and "devil bridges." Yeah, I'd say the interference rule there is pretty weak.

2 Likes

another "work around" is the church- when lands are granted to the church there is no oath of fealty, nor is there one required of the person(s) appointed to run the estate for the church. Grants can be to the church itself or to specific orders. Of course, this requires interaction with the church or pretending to be a holy order, but it does avoid interference...

1 Like

Hi,

I didn't say you were wrong, just that I read it differently.

Anyway,

Ken

2 Likes

Here's an odd question- can a magi swear fealty to another magi? I would think yes, because it isn't interfering with mundanes. If that is the case and one magus can get in a position of nobility without swearing fealty (especially in the Roman, or Rhine tribunals, where not everyone is sworn to fealty, making claims of succession interesting) then they can swear in their whole covenant underneath them. Provided they can accumulate enough land to give them the relative grants without being accused of interfering on the basis of warfare...

1 Like