That's the way I do it, and I agree it's pretty clear.
Certainly though there must be people who are reading it that way or else we would not have that "spirited discussion." I didn't mean to give offense. I'm operating under the assumption that you and others have good reasons for the positions you take, and those reasons are currently unclear to me. Some major change in the Peripheral Code is the only explanation I can think of, and it is indeed possible that such a change could have slipped past me (in one of the Tribunal books, for example, which I've read but don't regularly use).
There has been no change in the peripheral code. I confess that your posts are confusing the hell out of me because you seem to be supporting two opposing positions. The Code and Oath specify that causing harm to other magi is a crime, and the Peripheral Code states that visible risk of harm is also punishable but to a lesser extent. Noone is disputing this, not even yourself, save in the examples you have chosen, some of which would penalise magi for buying grain to feed their grogs.
To use the example of the original thread, the magi are not financing a rebellion; they are buying a right of way through some land. They are doing so via an intermediary and whilst there is evidence, only available to Hermetic magi, that these monies are in part being used to finance a rebellion, no mundanes know of this. The risk of harm to the magi caused by their actions is tiny to nonexistant. The risk posed by the actions of the rebelling noble are real, but they are the responsibility of the noble alone. Nothing can be traced to the Order. The Order therefore suffers no harm. Suppose we lengthen the chain - The magi buy land rights from a minor baron. He in turn pays taxes to his Duke. His duke invades a neughbouring country, stationing his army on a covenant's crops and burning their orchards. Are the original magi responsible? Have they interfered with the mundanes? I argue not at all. The Duke, seeing an opportunity, took it. He would have done the same regardless of whether the silver was magically created or stolen from dead Moors or dug up from out the ground.
In your saga, is the existence of the Order of Hermes a secret? Are all wizards assumed by the nolbility to be loners, is it known that there is some vague organisation to which they belong, or do nobles know that an entity called the Order of Hermes exists? By canon,
This has major influence on the degree to which interfering with the mundanes is a risk.
That's probably a misunderstanding, then. I think we are getting somewhere (at least you and I).
If you think I'm advocating that magi be penalized for buying grain to feed their grogs, then what I meant to say and what you heard aren't matching up. 
Let's be clear, that's not my position; there's been a misunderstanding or mis-statement in there somewhere.
It's also not my position that a magus can participate in an assassination (for example) and that it would ever be OK.
Let's take a slightly different angle: If they were financing the rebellion, would that be against the Code?
Next step (assuming the answer to previous question is "yes"): If noble was poor before the magi bought the right of way, and he's rich now, and now that he's rich he's rebelling, doesn't that look suspicious?
It has not been proved that the magi are financing the rebellion, but IMO there is enough evidence for an investigation.
The risk of the magi getting caught by mundanes is tiny to nonexistent. The risk of a covenant getting caught in the middle between two warring factions is quite a bit bigger. That is what I mean by the "risk of harm."
They'll sure suffer harm if a covenant gets sacked by an army! They'll suffer harm if their lands get pillaged or if there's a famine or plague because of the war. They are at serious risk of harm as long as a war is going on. I argue if the war is partly financed by a covenant then the covenant shares responsibility for it.
And there I think we have our differences on the table.
Very probably not. Unless they are paying a disproportionate amount of money for the land rights -- more than a mundane would reasonably pay. Even then the case is would be weak and the penalty minimal.
Yes, I agree. 
But since the money came from magi, I argue that the magi bear responsibility to see that they are not spending their money in a way that destabilizes the mundane balance of power in their Tribunal. And that this would be true whether it were magically-created gold or mundane income from their lawful covenant income sources.
In my Fourth Edition saga it was secret, but in my Fifth Edition saga it's not. Now, I guess there's room for difference of opinion whether during the war, both armies would be expected to carefully march around all the covenants and not steal anything or damage any property on their lands. If mundanes absolutely respect the neutrality of the Order, then the mere fact of a war would not be a danger. That's not how it works in my Saga; nobles assume that you are a vassal of whose land you are on, and will attack you if you're on their enemy's land.
It's not that I don't think you know how to play - that's an absurd statement. Everyone, by definition, plays exactly how is best for them. The problems I see in you run deeper.
First, it's clear to me that you don't really know how to have a discussion like this. No one criticized "how you play" - quite the opposite, in fact. I have said, repeatedly and literally, that it's fine to interpret the Code and the Order as you see fit. Your exaggerations in the first post, contradictory to what you yourself stated in that same post, further demonstrate this failure to respond cogently.
Twisting my critique of your claims of "This is canon" into a personal attack only adds to my belief that you are grasping at straws. But since you have no responses to what I actually said, I guess that's all you got.
And that gets to the larger problem. You don't know how to read a discussion like this. If you did, you'd have understood that's not what I was doing, and you'd not be asking questions that have already been answered (and multiple times). You'd have realized that I've already spent a thousand words or so doing exactly what you - by your own admission - haven't grasped - that I have been showing you why I think what I do. Those long posts you apparently only skimmed - read those, my reasoning and support is already there. (I'd say "re-read", but you haven't demonstrated any more than a cut and paste understanding of them.)
All too frequently what anyone says (including the core book) and how you seem to be reading and responding aren't quite matching up.
So, yes, I'm rather disappointed and discouraged with any prospect of you actually understanding much of what I say, just from your track record of non-sequitor responses and out-of-left-field interpretations.
And so... regretfully, I'm done here too.
Good gaming, it sounds like a fine world you've invented.
1 Like
There I do disagree. As long as the magus is not implicated, it is not an Hermetic crime. It is murder, and perfectly legitimate grounds for another magus to declare Wizard's War, for instance, but the Code is not concerned with morality or law, only the protection of the Order en masse.
Because a direct causal link can be found, it would fall under the significant risk portion of the Peripheral Code. If they are openly doing so then it is in direct violation of the code and an High Crime.
Suspicious, I grant, but all that suggests is that he has backers or an undisclosed source of wealth. If the magi are, even covertly, dealing directly with the noble then it is the significant risk mentioned above. If they do so via the bandits ruse, however, they are not.
This I think is the crux of the matter. Whilst the harm to the covenant is this case is real, this is a totally different case to be brought before Tribunal. It is also a far more subtle one, and one that I think would actually devolve to poltics. The responsibility is hard to prove - we return to the regicide argument. Is the blacksmith responsible for the use of the sword he sold? As such, I suspect that political status will shape the vote far more than logic, and that the eventual addition to the peripheral code would be something prohibiting large scale purchases or sales from or to nobles within a certain period of each other.
Likewise in mine - as far as a noble is concerned, the land is his or his enemies. The neutrality of the Order does not protect them any more than it protects the farmers whose lands are in the way.
My response to what you actually said is this: I say "canon says actual harm to the Order is NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED for a Hermetic crime to occur ," you say I'm wrong. I've given my evidence and I await yours.
Moreover, any time you say anyone is wrong and should shut up and go re-read the rules, I will say, "support that claim with specific evidence."
You won't read the rules that people refer you to? Really re-read them I mean, because if 30 people read a set of rules and say that it quite clearly means something else than you obviously read it as, perhaps there might be a problem with how you read it.
For me the text in TL p51 is absolutely clear, that it is only about keeping the order safe and not bringing mundanes down on your sodales, I would point out especially the blurb that states that house Guernicus recongnizes that this law is unenforcable and needs new provisions to make it actually able to be used to punish abuses.
2 Likes
When you say what rule you're referring to, of course I'll take a second look at it (third look, actually). It's when someone says "go re-read the rules" (with no page reference or even saying which book) that it's more of an insult than an argument. "I am too lazy to look it up but I know you're wrong" does not cut the mustard with me.
I'll have to re-read the rule after work.
Hardly! IF they had used magical items suitable for warfare as payment, then yes.
As it is, someone got payed, and then went and used some of that money in ways that may be detrimental, but they might have done the same anyway.
Those are similar to how we have played as well. But as always, what counts in the end is tribunal politics. And add to that the effects of considering good/bad circumstances and actual rulings may not be strictly by the rules very often.
YOU are the one who moaned about how established precedent must have changed between editions.
Sheesh, you even named the thread "Mundane Interference and the ArM5 Retcon".
Together with your previous statements, the above is simply dishonest argumentation.
What I don't see is anything to justify what in my mind is a radical 180-degree shift in the Code between 4th edition and 5th, that redefines the Code to say "you can play kingmaker or assassinate nobles till the cows come home and the Order won't bat an eye unless there is direct and substantial harm to another magus." Where on earth did that idea come from?
As i already said, to my knowledge this has been canon since at least 2ed. YOU asked for a comparison with earlier editions, and when you get it you say it doesnt matter?
Noone was financing a rebellion. You cant even prove that the rebellion would not have happened without the additional money.
If you go shopping at a store, and the store owner then use your money to buy a gun and go on a killing spree, by your argumentation, YOU are responsible for it.
And again, you´re arguing that magi cannot in any way interact with the surrounding world because its totally impossible to give the guarantee you want that the transactions doesnt interefere with mundanes... Because IT DOES! Which is why its an impossible interpretation. With your interpretation the game world simply cannot work.
No, that IS what you´re arguing again and again.
OK, I can see how you'd be frustrated. It seems I'm not coming across well.
Let me restate the problem:
-
Is it true that a magus can be convicted of a Hermetic crime if he does something, but no magus is actually harmed -- but magi are put AT RISK of harm? I say yes, and in fact I think there is good support for my answer in canon (ArM5 page 14 IIRC). Now from the quotations cited in the first post of this thread, it looks a whole lot like other people are saying "no."
-
Has the answer to 1) always been the same, or did it change recently and I missed it? Because I have always thought the answer to 1) has been "yes," and if there is a strong case for "no" then I haven't seen it and I want to. Implicit is this is the possibility that one (or both) sides used to have a perfectly accurate grasp of (for example) 4th edition canon but is clinging to beyond where they should.
Earlier editions don't matter to the answer to 1), but they do matter to the answer to 2).
To put it from my point of view, "Have you always been wrong, or did I recently become wrong?" 
Hope this helps,
No, my argumentation goes more like this. If I donate money to a group of radical Quebec separatists (to use a silly example), and they claim credit for a bombing, and then I keep donating to them, then I'm an accessory to their subsequent crimes. I don't think it's necessary to prove that that could not have planted the bomb without my contribution.
If a magus does something that provokes the mundane into causing trouble for his sodales, even if that sodales doesn't get any 'harm' from it, it would still be cause for prosecution in Tribunal if the offended mage wanted to.
For example having an inquistion type Priest turning up with backing from local church hierachy and lots of soldiers from the local nobles to interrogate and investigate whether the magi at a covenant have been guilty of witchcraft, provoked by another magi wandering through being blatant leading to lots of rumours. Such things can be calmed down and handled by a sensible covenant, but they shouldn't have had to deal with it if the wandering mage was discreet.
It's always been the same in my opinion. The Code's major ruling has always been 'Don't get caught'
The wandering through magi who was blatant and attracted the notice of the peasants and began rumours could have seen the witnesses and eliminated them all in a clean way instead to prevent the rumours of witchcraft and sorcery from spreading that would cause trouble for the local covenant. Ruthless cold blooded murder to prevent other magi from being harmed by your initial action.
Argumentation?
Either way, I agree with Andrew to a point. What I disagree on is a technicality, but an important one. There is a case to be made in this instance, but is not one of interfering with the mundanes. It is a case of knowingly depriving a magus of magical power, and it is a much weaker case, but also one in which it should be easier to sway popular opinion. I do however think that it is necessary to prove that they could not have (or would not have) planted the bomb and that the donor was aware that this was an issue. It's a case that House Tytalus would watch very closely, I feel.
We are now down to a level of disagreement where "it depends on your Saga" and "your mileage may vary." That is a much better place than "are you SMOKING CRACK!?" 
"Endangering the Order through" might fit as well (YMMV), if you're doing things that contribute to violence and warfare in the general area and there are other magi in that area. Can you endanger the Order indirectly? I say "definitely" but there's room for a more literal interpretation. Doing anything that promotes political instability can potentially endanger the Order, hence my opinion that assassination is generally not OK.
I also don't see any real distinction between "endanger the Order" and "interfere with mundanes" and "molest the fae." That is probably another debate though.
Molesting the fae is a wierd one and a right mess IMO. there is a linguistic difference here which I believe is intentional - I believe you can do a good deal more to the fey than other groups.
Even so - ROP:F talks about faeries that are prey for magi on account of the easy Vis... I cant imagine any interpretation of the word molest that permits systematic hunting of a group of sentient creatures.
Which is why the order usually judges the case on negative blowback from the action.
Faerie loners who get picked off by magi for vis and no other magi gets hassled? Not really a case although some merinita might bring it,
Faerie noble gets attacked, survives and orders all his minions to harass every mortal, mundane and magi within a hundred miles in retaliation, which includes innocent covenants whose lives are now in danger. Definately a case, although without knowing the cause (knowledge of the attack) it requires investigation to know why the fae went all hostile.
For a more complex case see the GotF description of Durenmars relation with the fae which has brought all magi travelling to Tribunal or Grand Tribunal into low grade harassment, they have been prosecuted repeatedly for it by Dankmar covenant.
All told though all cases for mundane interference that endangers the order or harassing the fae that endangers the order are going to be judged in tribunal, which means the magi who decide if the case is reasonable are the ones in your game, and in your game you can have the order being as strict or loose about things as you like.
To use the arguments from the original thread though I would consider the case where some magi's decide to 'slap down' a mundane lord destroying his castle, stealing his assets and so on to be far more blatant and with much higher negative blowback for the order than a single quiet assassination that looks like death from natural causes. The sagas I have played in though neither would be punished if there was no one from the order who suffered because of it.