One thing I've internalized from not just 5th ed, but even earlier editions of AM, is that different readers are bringing different experiences to the table and, as a result, come away from the chapters with different views of the houses. Can the author affect this? Absolutely! But the nature of the beast is such that, especially with people coming in from previous editions, there's going to be a lot of subjective gloss to these sorts of things.
I left pretty much each 5th ed house chapter with a sense of how I could spin a given house's stereotype in both a positive and a negative way.
The stereotypes do tend to inform what house an NPC will be from when I produce a character that needs to fit a role in a story... if they're martial magi, they'll be Flambeau; if they're a gang, they'll likely be Tremere. This is, if anything, a weakness I tell myself I need to get over, as it leaves a Saga where the stereotypes are more overwhelming than they should be.
But, yeah, IMS, if I needed the lone magus who was actively choosing to cause conflict with the Covenant or one of its members, it'd probably be a Tytalus. Whether he did so in a "I'm doing this to make you stronger" or "I'm bigger than you, nyah, nyah" way would really be dependent on the story, and I would consider them both "valid" implementations of the general Tytalus personality, in much the same way that I'd consider justice-over-law, law-over-all, and law-as-a-means implementations of the Guernicus personality.
I'm not really talking about players acting out either. I'm talking about players (and storyguides) having a hard time grasping the idea of someone who has spent decades in dedicated study unlocking the inner secrets of reality to such a degree that they can reshape that reality to conform with their will. You've got to admit, that something none of us have any real life experience with.
It's funny, and maybe it's a symptom of when I started playing ArsM, but when I'm looking for an "evil wizard" causing problems for the Covenant, I've always gone Tremere (for the evil mastermind) or Flambeau (for the magical thug). The Followers of Tytalus have always been a positive group in my sagas, albeit in the manner of the trickster. I tend to see the Tytalus as setting up schemes and "games," pitting themselves against others in complex plots and intrigues, usually with inscrutable goals.
That's quite true and your approach to Magi is an eminently reasonable one. I just don't think that a magus who "has the power to reshape reality to with a phrase and a gesture, but he also understands the consquences of doing so and so understands when is the right time and when is the wrong time to use that power" (as you say in your earlier post) would follow the philosophy of an HoH:S Tytalus.
I think that part of the problem is it seems like it was already "known" that House Tytalus magi acted a certain way and an over-arching philosophy (or group of philosophies) has been made up to justify it, which seems implausible as soon as anyone looks at it in detail. Of course, the details of real philosophies and religions tend to look ridiculous to outsiders, so it's hardly the author's fault that the details of a fictional philosophy look a bit stupid too (perhaps, especially as it seems to be based at least partly on real discredited philosophies).
However, I think it does demonstrate the dangers of providing just a little bit too much detail. If the details appear implausible the whole thing falls to pieces. There is a fine balance; providing some precise details makes a fictional thing seem real, providing too many details can make something seem false.
Personally, I tend to just think of House Tytalus as a kind of club for magi who like challenges, and like to compete against one-another in surmounting more and more difficult tasks. Kind of like a mountain climbing club. An individual Tytalus magus will have his own reasons for thinking this is a good use of his time. I don't think you need elaborate philosophies to justify it. House Philosophies are for Mystery Cults.
I was trying to find a counter-example: Son Goku. The premise of Dragon Ball is growth through conflict. {My son got the whole 42 volumes from a friend and held onto it for a year or two. I, well, read it too. 8) }
Isn't this the truth. Flambeau are basically your abuser thug, Jerbitons Christian thugs, Bonisagus for all intents the amoral scientist who causes massive destruction accidentally, and Merinitas? Never trust the fey.
Twice I started to write a response and twice it was not good enough for a Tytalus. I will not pretend that the Tytalus are world saviors, or even want to be, but they are the ones who are smarter, braver, and better than almost any other mage and so in that key moment when the world needs saving, they are the ones who are needed. (sorry unabashed lover of House Tytalus)
I only ever played 1st and 5th edition Ars, with a decade or two in between. So all I really know of Tytalus is 5th ed. and I love them.
With the example given, it could be possible for the trio of Tytalus magi to instigate conflict with the covenant, but with Tytalus that conflict is more than likely not the central focus for their actions. Rather it is but a single move in a strategy that aims for success twenty years hence over a completely different enemy altogether.
Tytalus magi are far more complicated than the teenage punks (yay punks!) terminology tossed around here. I believe the problem so many have with Tytalus is that while Bonisagus try to build a world view of magic, Flambeau fight their little wars, and Tremere pretend at world domination, Tytalus exist without the need of any of them. Tytalus do not care about the opinions of others. They struggle against them self. They exist to challenge everything.
Not simply a challenge of sorcery. Or how to beat dragons and make friends. Or even how to over come demons. Tytalus magi seek to challenge every aspect of the world around them. Test and retest until they find absolutes, and then break that absolute until it truly cannot be broken down any further. Tytalus are hypocrites and mercurial, brutally honest and resolute, they are capable of embodying drastic contradictions on every level and still maintain their confidence because at no point have you truly seen the depths of them. Calliclean magi recognize the world as a farce of man-created rules meant only to entrap and enslave the weaker person and do not feel those rules apply to a person who has taken responsibility for their life and is willing to bare the repercussions of their decisions. While Hippians, as I see them, go even further believing that while a strong, righteous, and intelligent person is capable of self-determination and power, that society must use rules and moral codes to bind and control the lesser men, those incapable of behaving properly. The weak, uneducated, and complacent populace are not capable of self determination and therefor must be led like sheep by laws and religions and such, or the world would decay into madness and chaos. And not that any self-respecting Tytalus would worry about the chaos of a unchecked world, rather they feel it would be a waste of resources with very little to be gained from it.
As for the idea that the Order would have marched the House by now (they tried and failed), or that Tytalus magi would have perished from seeking conflict (Flambeau learned), or that children abused become weaklings (strongly disagree that A. apprentice are not so much abused as constantly honed and instructed, but I come to that later; B. while I don't like thinking about it, kids taking abuse often resort to massively different mechanism for dealing with their situations, and while not healthy, certainly they do not deserve to be called weak. They do what they can to survive and whatever that creates is often stronger even if it appears to a outsider as a weakness), time and again Tytalus have shown, not that they are right, or the best, but that they take their lumps without complaint. They take their shot and risk greatly just to see. Just to see.
The "abuse" of apprentices is more a discipline of stoicism and endurance. A master puts a shard of glass into the apprentices shoe, and then observes the result. There is no "right" answer according to Tytalus, there is only this moment and it's relevance. The apprentice can choose to suffer loudly or in silence. Can choose to overcome the pain or submit to it and remove the shard. Or rather realize it's ridiculous to walk around with a shard of glass in your foot, remove the shard of glass and take the punishment, recognizing their are repercussion for taking the easy and reasonable way out of a situation. Or keep the glass in the shoe and not even allow for a moment the pain to influence his actions. I see Tytalus adherence to a Stoic existence, except with the rejection of a divine nature in which to adhere. Tytalus magi are willing to accept any argument and are willing to be corrected by even the lowest of creature if it makes them better.
They do not feel they are entitled to anything or to anyone's possessions, that thinking is directly oppose to their philosophy. They believe that no one is entitled to anything, rather every person must strive for what they desire, and in this striving you can see just what kind of person they truly are. If a Tytalus sees his covenmates becoming obsessed with political standings in a Tribune, to the exception of all else, then perhaps he will in a subtle fashion point out that what his sodalis struggle for is temporary and mundane. Perhaps by inviting a fairy giant to sleep on the hillside where the Creo vis manifests; perhaps by increasing the stress of the political situation, by committing a low crime, taking the punishment, embarrassing the covenant and making the situation so dire politically that the struggle becomes... something different, harder, pointless, worthwhile, necessary, trickier, blatant, ect.
In a game however, the problem does come down to roleplaying. I notice few churlish or juvenile players choose Tytalus (they often go with Bjornær and play them poorly, or Flambeau, and play them accurately, hahahahaha sorry for the dig), rather those who play Tytalus often... I will not categorize because I like playing them and I cannot be unbiased. A responsible Tytalus player will not play to create chaos, (although my character was chaos in a bottle, most often causing himself far more problems than anyone else) rather they play with the idea that nothing is sacred, everything must prove it's value or it is valueless and thus not worth maintaining. But they do not prey on the weak, unless in doing so they choose to challenge that weakness on it's own level, rejecting the use of magic during the challenge, or lowering their parma, or whatever hinderance will make the opponents equal.
((IMS, my Tytalus harassed his shield grog, until the soldier was at a point where it was 50/50 if he would protect the magus or not. Or even try to kill the Tytalus in his sleep. Now THAT is one way to make you stay on your toes, your protector may try to kill you. Another Tytalus feat, which was mostly accidental and not planned but the outcome was awesome, my Tytalus had Flambeau magus A defend him in certamen against Flambeau magus B, when Flambeau magus B challenge the Tytalus to settle a argument he was having against Flambeau magus A. Victory from about five different angles no matter who won.))
In closing, however you see the Tytalus you are both correct and wrong, but truly in the end no Tytalus cares about your opinion. 8)
Disclaimer: I'm not a psychologist and don't make any claims toward expertise in that field. The following is just my opinion based on popular fiction and far too many 'true crime' forensic shows.
What about social misfits who are given a few years of privilege and education at a young age, then systematically abused, physically and emotionally, for 15 years? The ArM5 canon seems to assume that one of two things happens to Tytalus apprentices - they burn out and fail or they reach enlightenment and embrace a philosophical life based on challenging themselves and/or society. The apprentice's behavioral progression (as defined in HoH:S) includes quite a few specific responses that all Tytalans are assumed to have made at the proper times for the proper reasons. That just seems a little too simple to me.
IMO, the apprenticeship of House Tytalus is a perfect breeding ground for profound emotional disorders, including sociopathy. Sure, many of the apprentices who develop disorders would be 'weeded out', but certainly not all. They're selecting the smartest apprentices they can find, after all. Learning to conceal emotional or psychological problems, even from themselves, would be possible. Given that, any member of the House could have any goals for any reason. Sure, assuming all Tytalans are raving lunatics who kill for pleasure is absurd, but so is assuming they always turn out to be well-balanced philosophers with high-minded reasons for initiating conflict.
And if the house overall, or even just to a large enough extent of it actually actively behaved according to that principle, House Tytalus would very soon be a very VERY extinct house.
There´s simply too many "nodes of power" within the order overall that will sooner or later get very upset at such behaviour and do something about it, and i would bet that the next tribunal after Tytalians acted like this would include a horde of accusations of high crimes, as the above principle pretty much kills the very idea and ideal of the order.
The only way such a philosophy could work is if house Tytalus was the de facto dictators of the order, and that would be a situation very unlikely to last!
That´s actually one of the better descriptions i´ve seen of the house, and it´s not far from how i have used them and see them.
I think of the Tiger Mom as to how the Tytalus treat their apprentices. The classic quote: "Of course I love you. If I didn't love you, I wouldn't be so terribly disappointed in how you've turned out."
For me, it's always been very dependent on the character of the antagonist. If it's a gang, usually Tremere. If it's a "mundanes don't matter/Divine is evil", usually Bjornaer. If it's the evil genius, Bonisagus. If it's lawful evil, Guernicus. If it's raw applied force, Flambeau. If it's a gadgeteer, Verditius, of course. If it's in league with the Fae, Merinita.
I think the only House I have difficulty villainizing is House Criamon. I mean, I can vaguely imagine a plot where a Criamon decides the only way to break the cycle is to blow up the earth or something... but it just doesn't feel right, somehow. But then, no matter which edition I pick, the Criamon always feel difficult for me to mentally pin down, no matter how well I think I understand their underlying cosmology.
I'll just add that I've come to love Tytalus magi for NPCs. Whenever I have Bob ex Tytalus show up in a story and say something, no matter how insignificant or straightforward, my PCs will start creating ten conspiracy theories about what Bob "really" means and what his angle is. Always I laugh at their paranoia, and occasionally I select one of their ten theories and decide it's actually true.
Listening to Players' tabletalk - their hopes, their fears, their theories - is a great way to add twists to the action that make things a better story overall. Not as SG v.s Player rivalry, but to add to the challenge when it needs it - to avoid the predictable, and to feed their character's strengths/weaknesses, and the Players' idea of a good game.
I think a C could be portrayed as too focused on his goal of solving The Enigma and blind to more humane/earthly concerns. Perhaps not "evil" consciously, yet a dire threat nonetheless.
Okay, back to it... a lot of good points I want to comment on, and a groundswell that invites me to a response on an entirely larger scale (bottom).
This makes me wonder whether it was not pre-existing stereotypes that influenced some readers' current understandings, prejudices* re House T from 3rd ed, perhaps even leading to a misreading and so a misunderstanding of the HoH:Soc chapter. I know that I had to re-read several sections to make sense of them against my expectations.
(* Prejudices are not all "negative" - I mean merely a pre-existing judgement, model or understanding that heavily colors one's understanding.)
+1 ndk.
Hmmm - I see it exactly the opposite. That it is perfectly plausible (or as plausible as anything in a fantasy world), and that the HoH chapter is a rather elegant explanation of the previously inexplicable "House Tytalus makes trouble for trouble's sake" stereotype* presented in previous editions, a characterization that would/should indeed result in the house being marched.
(* Altho' even that is a flawed over-simplification)
In short, HoH:Soc refines the "pure troublemaker" heritage and tones it down to where, while there are a few who might personally be marched, the House as a whole is far from that road.
Putting those two statements together gives me the impression that you, among many others it seems, have a long-standing impression and understanding of House T, and even if it's partially non-canon or paradoxical you're (perhaps understandably) not interested in correcting it if it involves a close rereading of that chapter. (I feel the same with parts of RoP:Divine, but that's my cross to bear - as it were.)
The House as written would not have been marched long ago - some Tytalus are chaotic, but none are chaotic-stupid. Yet somehow others have read that same material that I, Callen, Portianitor, and notable others read and yet end up with distinctly different impressions, so you're clearly not alone.
But the same and more could be said of ancient Sparta, and yet that society not only thrived (or seemed to) but excelled for its time. Likewise, the whole medieval apprenticeship process is quite harsh and unacceptable according to modern sensibilities. The variables are complex - I think that, since we are presented with the premise that "it works", we can trust that those involved have found a working balance between challenge and long-term damage. (Of course, monsters certainly do exist today, so why not a few then as well? But not only in House T... all any mageling has to to do is get past the tests at Gauntlet, and then they can go crazy... 8) )
Well, it's not Habermas or Schopenhauer, but a Wiki-quality summation of one of them - and even then a very Ars-oriented summation.
But one cannot argue in the face of so many voices that share your (mis)conception - even if it goes against current (not previous!) canon, it undeniably seems to persist, if only as an undying echo from 3rd ed. So, rather than rely on a rereading of something that failed the first time(s), I'll be so presumptuous as to (try to) present my own synopsis of that Chapter, a simple "expected pattern of behavior and traditions" that you so reasonably request and expect. (With page references for specific verification, for those interested.)
I therefore invite any and all, rather than re-read that Chapter, to skim this and see if it makes a new type of sense. Without going into all the subtlety and detail and angst, it's how Tytalus are in fact presented in 5th ed.
(There is something to be said for the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach. If a SG/Troupe is 100% happy with Tytalus as you currently understand and characterize them, then carry on, by all means! But if not 100% (or just curious), a quick read can't hurt. )
So, without further ado...
A (partial and simple) [size=150] Synopsis of HoH:Societatus, Chapter 3: "House Tytalus"[/size][list](targeted specifically at behaviour and House characterization)[/list:u]o House Motto: "From Conflict, Growth" (p. 71)Let's start here, and use this as our touchstone. The motto of the House is not simply "Conflict". Any conflict is only the starting point - without the end goal of Growth, any and all conflict is pointless and does not conform to the House motto. Conflict is merely the tool, the medium, whether as Rivalry, Persuasion or Force (see below) - Growth is the final goal. (And, as we shall see below, growth for the Tytalus- they are not philanthropists!)
o (House History etc.) (p 71-75)(Here we skip over the Founder, House history etc. as not directly relevant to this exercise, which is to characterize the end product of all that, typical members of the House as it current exists. There are elements of this section that can provide insight and inspiration (to SG's and Player Characters both), but this might be better read after one understands where it's all going.)
o The Philosophy of Conflict(p. 75 et al)There are several elements and sub-sections to this, the center of Tytalean philosophy. They all must be considered to understand the philosophy as a whole.[list]
o "...The foundation of Tytalus' philosophy is that there is a primal moral dilemma faced by each man, which arises from the rivalry between two abstract forces, physis(human nature/desires)and nomos(social laws/expectations). (p. 76, col i, mid)
[list]
And there it is, in a nutshell. This is the "conflict" that every human carries with them, and that every Tytalus knows and celebrates (one way or another!). Declaring Wizard's War is not where the conflict is found - the conflict is between physis, the desire for easy loot, and the nomos, the social disapproval of the Order*. The true growth is not the loot nor the survival against disapproval, but the self-betterment that this physis/nomos conflict then spawns.
Note that the House belief is not that "social custom and laws are bad" - it's that "social custom is a rival to human nature", that these two struggle against each other, without judging one or the other as preferable. Individuals within the House may prefer to favor either physis or nomos, and the House as a whole swings between one or the other approach dominating its membership, but the House Philosophy does not promote one over the other. It favors the rivalry itself, the conflict between the two, that is desirable, and the examination of that rivalry.
Through conflict, growth.
[i](* I'll suggest that the difference between this and "teenage punks" is 1) that punks don't think this deeply, 2) punks would ignore any censure, not welcome it, and 3) punks don't seek self-improvement, they only seek the moment/the conflict itself. The parallels are that both create chaos, disrespect authority, and only respect similar thinkers/actors.
However, there are many members of House T who emphasize the respect for (some) laws/customs over selfish urges. This membership should not be ignored - see below...)[/i]
The two schools are Calliceans, who (tend to) favour physis (natural urges) over nomos (social laws/restrictions), and the Hippeans, who (tend to) favor the reverse. In practice, very few Tytalus are "one or the other" - most are somewhere in between. This subsection of the Chapter breaks it down into 3 parts - the Calliceans who favor physis, the Hippians who favor nomos, and the Growth that comes through the Conflict between those two.
o Callicean ethics - "...The Calliclean holds that nomoii[/i] are established by ruling powers to benefit themselves... It is therefore right... to obey nomos if it brings genuine social advantage... It is always better... to act unfairly if it results in the betterment of self, but often the self can be (better) served by playing nice and following the dictates of society... "(p. 77, col i)
The passage goes on to comment about "respect for equality", but that's almost a post-script.
If there are Tytalus who are just [i]"hedonists, bullies, tyrants, duelists, thrillseekers and agents provacateurs" /i, these are certainly them. But they would have to be pure Calliceans to achieve that extreme an approach - and purists (of either view) are rare.
(And, as pointed out by others, purists who are not individually very powerful would quickly be marched.)
However, whether bettering the weak and inequal and society as a whole or just serving the self, the House motto holds - through conflict, growth.
o Hippian ethics - "...some rules are intrinsic to one's nature and are necessary to curb the selfish physis"(p. 76, col ii, mid)
o "...(U)niversal laws - reverence for the Divine, requital of benefactors, a duty of hospitality... are superior to the misguided laws and customs formulated by mankind... Hippians seek to reform those laws that are (in their opinion) contrary to the nature of mankind.(p 77, col iii)
So, we don't have Tytalus who fight rules because they are easily broken, we have the opposite of the "punk" or chaotic-stupid stereotype - we have "altruists, social reformers, freedom fighters" - we have those who, through conflict, would create a larger growth, both of themselves and society.
Here we have the closest of any Tytalus to the "teach others whenever you think they need it" mindset - and note that these are the ones who do not follow their personal urges, but recognize (some) social limits.
o Growth through Conflict(summation subsection)"(A) magus who tries to exploit a loophole in the Code only serves to create rulings that eliminate those inconsistencies. A magus who struggles against his rival amasses personal power.(p. 77 last - 78)
In short, there has to be a point to the conflict - and that point is Growth. Some conflict does not promote growth - that's pointless. Some Hippians would be happy with social growth, but personal growth is the yardstick of the House. The most hedonistic and selfish Callicean would be wasting their time if they did not personally grow from their conflict with nomos. [/list:u]
o The Tools of Conflict - Rivalry... Persuasion... Force... Every magus must become aware of his own nature, and how it can best be served.(p. 78)
More than one way to skin a cat, more than one way to explore one's nomos vs. physis. "Rivalry" is an important one - that competition is "for something" that one doesn't possess - whether that's a material object or an abstract concept (being "the best"), whether a friendly or bitter, deadly rivalry is immaterial - but the more challenging, the better, natch. [/list:u]o Culture - Equality(p. 79)
As a last point, I mention "Equality" of the several cultural points (see chapter) because it sums things up nicely - there is no recognition of superiority or respect, almost as a rule. They might despise a person (Gifted or otherwise!) who does not use their natural talents to their greatest extent, but they do not automatically respect anyone, especially not out of social conventions. Age, skill, social acclaim, status - even House Primi - these are meaningless measurements. All individuals are taken at face value, according to the physis and nomos of the individual Tytalus doing the perceiving. Each Tytalus should consider themselves the best (in some measure) - that, or they've just found their next rival.
If you don't agree with any of the above, if it just doesn't fit your understanding of House T, I suggest that stems from understandable but non-(5th ed)-canon prejudices and preconceptions - which you can check against the source citation. I don't think I'm "misreading" any of the above, and I don't think I left out anything too central - there are some other points, but they seem to be subsidiary to the above. But if so, I'm sure I'll hear about it.
(p.s. And please, if there's something you feel is worth your time, don't "quote" this entire bitch - just the part that you're responding to. We all thank you. )
Maybe House Tytalus would make more sense to those of us who don't seem to appreciate their philosophy if we had a better feel for how they related to the world of 1220AD.
Religion is a central part of mundane intellectual life in that period. We don't really know from canon how Magi feel about this. How about Tytatus?
How does Tytalus understand religion and how do religious beliefs relate to their house philosophy? Most lands with OOH presence are Christian, generally Latin rite but also with some Greek areas. Tytalus philosophies don't seem to have much in common with Christian attitudes, either official or heretical. In fact, they don't seem to engage with Christian arguments at all, even from an unbelieving standpoint. They don't look much like the other monotheisms of the area either, or like classical paganism. What's going on here and why are Tytali different from everyone else? How did they get this way? Does a Tytalus apprentice abandon all of his previous beliefs during the course of his training?
Then there's social structure. I don't see anything in the medieval world that corresponds to the radical individualism of HoH:S Tytali. Where's this come from and how do young Tytali internalize it? Does anyone outside of the house understand where these guys are coming from?
(The above was easier to make "long" because I was just synopsizing(?) that section of the chapter - I wrote until it was done. But I can also vomit up a big ol' wretch-o-text all on my own sometimes.)
An insightful line of questions - Respect, J!
I may be hard pressed to answer these to your satisfaction within only a quick synopsis of the chapter - some of these go deeper into the philosophy than I had wanted to share. (I don't want to give the entire chapter away for free!*) But I'll try to scratch the surface a little deeper in that direction.
(* For any who might think that the above is all there is of interest that this Chapter might offer to a SG or (Tytalus) Player, besides simplifying 3 full pages on "The Philosophy of Conflict" into the above blurb, I've omitted another ~27 pages of:o the House history (including recent and lasting echoes from the Schism war)
o symbolism
o culture (including their unique dual-Primus situation, House gatherings, apprenticeship and gauntlets(!), joining House T from another House, and the tradition of "rivalry", among others)
o rules for debates and defending a Tribunal case
o suggested expanded rules for Intrigue (the practice as a whole rather than just the Ability)
o Spirit-summoning Tytaloi
o and, of course, Tytalean leper magi. Plus several pages total of creative and inspirational spells, art, plothooks, inserts and additional colour.)
The most relevant from the above would be under the "Hippean Ethics" section - while the House remains silent on religion (as do all Houses?), if the individual Tytalus feels that the nomoi, the "external rules", (should) include Christian beliefs (or Muslim, or Jewish, or anything), that person can be devoutly religious and still fit easily within the House paradigm as written.
I think you'd be hardpressed to find a formal "House doctrine" on this topic from almost any other House (other than, perhaps, Jerbiton*). Even in H. Jerbiton, it's a case-by-case basis, purely individual preference - one mage might be a dedicated hedonistic atheist, another a disinterested agnostic, and another a pious ordained priest.
(* There are some pagan mystery cults, but I don't remember any single House stating "we are Pagan/Christian"... or anything close? )
However, I think (my impression, based on my reading) that any Tytalus would engage a Christian based on Tytalean values - how fully that Christian had lived up to their potential, had challenged themselves - whether they had used their natural talents to overcome nomos or physis (as the T prefers - his perception, his world view). Not that unlike any mage, but perhaps with a more rigidly defined standard of judgement. (So, a devout Christian might be judged weak while a semi-devout might be judged strong, or vice versa, depending on the judging T's whole view of that person's nomos/physis dynamic, how they carried themselves in their world. Manmade labels like "Christian" or "devout" or "sinner" don't carry much weight for a T.)
And likewise, the House as a whole (that is, any informal "consensus" among all Tytaloi magi) would be based on how a religious Tytalus did likewise. The Religion itself would not be any different a consideration from any other life-choice - it's the how rather than the what that seems to bear full weight in a Tytalus' interactions and personal judgements.
The same (to a lesser extent) could be said for the Order as well. And I think it is in large part the freedom that The Order affords that allows them to exist - many subcultures within The Order would be rare outside a magically self-defining and autonomous society! But there are some Greek philosophers that they draw their inspiration from (altho' none that may be particularly near and dear to Pope or King*) - there's an insert on page 77 that speaks directly to how the classics provided inspiration/support for their admittedly unique zeitgeist.
(* I'll quote one - Protagoras (not Pythagoras, the mathematician) - who said, in part "The world is as we make it out to be - there is no independent Truth." This alone is a radical concept in a pre-Socratic Greek world of Platonic absolutes.)
(I do see a parallel between some of what Tytaloi believe and the emergence of "mendicant" movements (Franciscans, Dominicans etc.) that go directly against so much of the otherwise ubiquitous Catholic teaching and accepted practice. The Cathars/Bogomils/Albigensians also, to a different degree. Both are being radically independent and true to their own self-generated ideals (relatively unsupported by either society or tradition) in the face of extreme disapproval and threats/examples of retribution by the more powerful status-quo. Just like many Tytalus magi. )
The one thing I really enjoy about games with stereotyped backgrounds is seeing what players and GMs can come up with that changes the mold. It was a common thing in White Wolf games and it definitely rears its head in Ars Magica. We do it all the time even though it’s often as accurate as judging someone’s politics from their geography of origin or their alma mater. The only way that the HOH books disappointed me was in further pigeonholing some of the Houses but it also opened a lot of interesting ideas for others. For example, the Criamon were made less (IMO) because the concept of the Enigma in the original book leaves room for interpretation by each individual. Which, frankly, is what philosophy is all about in my uneducated mind. However, the Tremere were turned from power-seeking zealots to a paramilitary organization with a goal that was for the benefit of all. The Tremere became ten-times more interesting in this incarnation (IMO again).
But to be on topic…
I have always been a huge fan of the Tytaloi. I’ll get that right out there and I agree with the OP. Tytalus to me always seemed the most dynamic and involved of the Houses. People always assumed the Jerbiton to be the socially progressive and mundane-influencing house and they are portrayed that way still but they don’t strike me as trend-setters amongst the mundane world. They strike me as individuals with a more patient and refined message. To be crass, I’ll use the term “coffee-shop messiah” to describe them… you know the guy/girl with all the answers in the coffee shop but who never does much more than sit there and impress you with their message.
(The following is all my opinion…)
The Tytaloi have always seemed to me to be the ones that got things done. They don’t discuss things in coffee-shops, they’re out there making things happen. They tear down walls, break the rules, slit throats, raise banners and make change where they feel it is needed. As to what is needed, the Tytaloi can’t agree on it but, gosh darn it, they’re going to fight for it. So you have the cabal system to band together individuals with particular motives. Freedom fighters, political insiders, maybe just thugs… but they’re not writing books about possibilities… they’re out there making the possible probable. One of the neat cabals listed in HOH:Soc is the cabal that is determined to see another covenant succeed despite its unfriendly neighbors. No reason why, and one thing I like about it is that maybe the cabal doesn't have a concrete reason/conspiratorial goal? Maybe they just want to see what will happen and maybe, because it's an impossible task, they picked it simply for the challenge. The chess game.
I’ll admit to some personal inclination to love them. I have a quote that hangs on my office wall, it also is framed and hanging in my home office. I used to read it when I got tired… and when I was thinking about responding to this thread, I saw it and realized it has the Tytaloi written all over it. At least, my interpretation of them.
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
(Theodore Roosevolt)
For me, that’s the Tytaloi. They're not all good, some are downright evil, some are charitable, some are kind, some are patriotic, some are murderous... some of them are all these things at once. But they are all focused on making dynamic change, sometimes for its own sake, sometimes for themselves, sometimes just to poke a bee hive. The focus, as mentioned above, is about personal change but that extends outward as well. As indicated in the quote, it's not always the victory that matters, sometimes it's that you simply stood up for something and tried. Against all odds maybe, but you tried and it's the challenge itself that defines you.
Another Tytalus fanboy sticking his nose in here, adding another perspective to the discussion.
In my head, a lot of House Tytalus comes back to the founder himself, as it does with many Houses. And Tytalus himself was a bit of a dick. A highly intelligent man, a very powerful man, a very complex man, but at the most basic level, he was arrogant, pushy, ultra-competitive, and hated losing. He loved showing off, and never missed a chance to show someone else up at their own game. His philosophies were intricate and ingenious, but were largely adopted as they justified the way he behaved anyway. He'd argue any point for the sheer joy of exercising his rhetorical muscles, and take any challenge to avoid the worst fate of all: getting bored. Of course, he expected other people to treat him the same way, and didn't begrudge them that right. He just didn't see any reason to stop just because they didn't fire back properly.
Like all the Founders, Tytalus moulded his House in his own image. The only people who could put up with him were the people who were, in some way, just like him, the people who would engage him in his pointless arguments, who would chafe against his arbitrary rules, who would try to one-up him at anything he did. Like Tytalus, they didn't need any philosophical reason to be pushy, argumentative and generally obnoxious. It just helped to give them some direction, and keep their most destructive impulses under control. Oh, and it was another thing to argue about. Being in House Tytalus didn't force anyone into a particular pattern of behaviour; instead, the House simply encourages pre-existing tendencies, and rejects apprentices who don't display the requisite fire.
As for the question of whether or not the average Tytalean (as much as such a thing exists) would pick on someone weaker than them - well, sure! Why not? On the other hand, it would be an atypical member of the House who would remove his opponent's capacity to fight back. After all, what would be the point? The challenge is for the Tytalus as much as for their target: can I make this person fight back? Can I, with the resources at my command, cause them to man up and stop me doing whatever the hell I like to them? If they do, then go me! I succeeded. If they don't, then go me! I get to do whatever I want without anybody stopping me.
I imagine that there's a careful balance to strike if you want to get rid of an annoying Tytalus. You need to fight back just enough that they get the satisfaction of knowing they made you improve yourself, without fighting back so well that you become an interesting challenge to overcome. Or else find somewhere to hole up until they get bored and go look for someone who'll react.
)
)
