I don't see the same thing you see on HoH:TL p. 51 --- that the provision is unenforceable and basically we can forget about it. What p. 51 says to me is that the Transitionalists say the clause is unenforceable, but it doesn't say how much influence they have, and it points out there's an opposing faction. So you can definitely interpret the sourcebook to say it's valid to disregard the mundane interference clause (as you seem to say). There's equal support in that section to say there are magi who whine that the clause is unenforceable but they never get their way.
I also see a couple of other things.
First, "Hermetic magic is not the only type of magic in Mythic Europe, so even highly secretive assistance can be discovered." This IMO contradicts the widespread opinion that the Order turns a blind eye to anything unless a magus gets caught (by mundanes). It points out that the risk of interference being discovered is potentially much higher than it appears at first.
Second, "The Order wishes to maintain strict neutrality in mundane affairs and any act that undermines this may be an offense" (emphasis added). Again, it doesn't say "you can meddle in mundane affairs all you want as long as you don't get caught." That word "may" to me is a code word to mean this is something for your gaming group to decide for itself.
So I think there's plenty of support in those paragraphs to say it's valid (according to canon) for the Tribunal to come down like a hammer on a covenant that's providing money to either side in a rebellion, regardless of how well that covenant covers its tracks. Equally valid to ignore it altogether.
Where I may be wrong is that (in the other thread) we're talking specifically about Normandy and I am not up to speed on the Peripheral Code details from the Lion & the Lily.
I saw that as saying that some guernicus think the code doesn't prevents the mundane interference they think is wrong, and other guernicus who think that they should work with the current laws that allow so much to happen.
Yes, but this is a warning that it is sometimes hard not to get caught rather than a provision that the tribunal must punish a magus who successfully gets away with it.
I read this to talk about potential consequences of getting caught by mundanes, and what level of blowback of getting caught would be punished. Clearly if the magi gets caught and the King of whatever country decides the Order is allied to his enemies that in itself is sufficient blowback to consider punishing the offender even though there are no magi have yet been directly harmed.
What it does not say is 'The Order wishes to maintain strict neutrality in mundane affairs and any act that may undermine this is an offense'.
It can always come down to your game your rules, and what the prevailing political makeup of your tribunal is, but consider GotF p18. How can there possibly be the Guardians of the Forest provision that magi must defend the wilderness against mundane encrouchment if any successfully hidden act that drives back mundanes away from vis sites can be punished as a violation of mundane interference. In the blurb it says it allows the Rhine to have gotten away with mundane interference that would be prosecuted elsewhere and also to punish magi who don't interfere with the mundanes. This is the reasoning behind the entire Hawthorn Gild GotF p28 'to punish those who intrude into the wilderness'. How can punishing mundanes be compatible with 'interfering with mundanes' unless you include the 'and thereby bring ruin upon my sodales'.
The Ash gild on the same page has an agenda of 'seek dominion over their lands .. more forthright in its dealings with mundanes, that magi should not need to hide in the wildernesses ... which skirts on the very edge of the Code'
The Elder gild who 'secretly promiting a religion concieved to return power back to the fae'. There is no way that that could be legal unless it is the secretly part that allows that, after all they are in one of the heartlands of the dominion and promoting heathen worship would give heavy Christian mundane blowback if caught.
None of those gilds could be legal if the Code banned interfering with mundanes in a way which isn't caught and doesn't bring harm on your sodales.
Well, then, there you have it. It was Guardians of the Forest that gutted the "mundane interference" clause. That certainly explains why some (most?) players think the Order of Hermes can/should behave like the Bavarian Illuminati.
I never liked that book.
I still think that interpretation of the Code only applies in the Rhine Tribunal, and for the Order to take a harsher stance toward risky behavior in other Tribunals is justified by canon.
(Yes, but you also think that magi doing a business deal with a noble makes them "court magi", that buying land rights is a marching offense, and that I haven't provided any references to support any of my points, so I guess that speaks for itself, neh?)
I've managed to have productive, civil, and (to me) interesting discussions with Fhtagn and thrakhath about the topic of mundane interference. From you I'm mostly seeing snide insults.
I'm willing to try again to have a discussion about mundane interference. What is it that you want to discuss?
Real world law doesnt agree with you. AM law examples does not agree at all with you.
AND your example is flawed. The example above changed to you paying money to one of them for hiring their ski cabin a few weeks per year, thats closer to the example used.
Again, it is totally impossible to guarantee that money you use wont end up being used for something bad. If you want to ignore that reality then you ARE arguing that whenever ANY payment for goods or services is given, the buyer is 100% responsible for what the money is used for...
And how many steps away do you want to stretch responsibility?
Its an insane interpretation because it makes any interaction with the world in general totally impossible.
Strange both the Guardians of the Forest AND The Lion and the Lily gave me the same impression that everyone but Andrew has about interferance with mundanes.... esp The Lion and the Lily.
The Lion and the Lily talks about the fact that unless you bring ruin on your sodales you are unlikely to recieve any reprocussions from meddling...I assume that it's at the height in that tribunal and to a lesser extent in all other tribunals. In my mind magi are footloose and fancy free and when charges are brought generally it's to weedle vis from each other...from all I've read almost all magi dance around the code from occassionally to nearly constantly. And only the most dangerous cases really get pursued unless another covenant is effected OR they see profit for pressing a case.
I have never played AM until 5th Edition...but with seemingly everyone having one opinion and the fact they are very spot on with most other topics, I'll take thier word for it it hasn't changed and that Andrew just had a differant interperatation.
Finally, there are a couple people in these forums that are a bit more "attacky" than the others...of the forums I've been to this seems normal and you can choose to argue with them or not.
I like that word....."attacky"
You have to distinguish, I think, if there was risk at the time the action was taken, or at the time the judgement is made. In the former case, if there is no "residual risk" at the time of the judgement, it becomes hard to argue that the magus endangered his sodales ("Oh, I knew allalong* that it would turn out fine"), and he'll probably get away with a warning.
If the risk is still there at the time of the judgement, then the magus will probably be given a lesser punishment immediately and/or retribution will be delayed until the problem arises (the second approach encourages the culprit to make sure the problem does not arise!). Of course, it really depends on the level of perceived risk and on what happens if things go wrong. If you have put an entire covenant into a life-or-death situation with even chances of coming out of it unscathed, your case is obviously much different than if there is a 1% chance that, because of your actions, another mage will lose a source of vis yielding 1 pawn/decade.
But I think the main issue here is that the Hermetic Code is quite unlike modern law, and totally unlike classic Roman law - in that it's not precise and it entails quite a lot of subjectivity. The code does not say: "Should I make a sodalis lose a season of work, I will pay him a number of pawns of Vim vis equal to the number he could have extracted, had he been working for two seasons in his current laboratory or in a laboratory he could set up in two seasons of work - whichever would yield the higher returns etc. etc." Ultimately, the code serves as a guideline. If the Tribunal thinks that your actions are ok, even if technically against the Code, you will not be condemned. For example, I think that most interaction with mundanes -friendly or not - is technically against the letter of the Code (and after all, you can never tell whether a "good deed" done today will turn against you tomorrow - e.g. by making mundanes aware that they can bother your sodales with requests for similar favors). But Tribunals simply will not prosecute you unless you cause trouble, and generally will not cast you out and march you unless you cause a LOT of trouble.
And because the judgement of the Tribunal is so subjective, it is by necessity strongly saga-dependent.
From my experience (which dates back to the late 2nd edition/early 3rd edition) things have not changed to any substantial extent. Some books in previous editions might have give particular rulings of this or that Tribunal, but remember that precedent does not make the law - in fact, there is no law but the judgement of your peers who are likely to follow the rough guidelines provided by the Code.
I disagree, it just isn't how you choose to interpret the text of the Code as written in HoH:TL. That's why I pointed it out to justify with examples why I think my reading of the text is the correct one, and why I pointed out the emphasis in the text of TL that confirms for me that interpretation.
I think it applies to all tribunals as mundane interference code, the additional code of Guardians of the Forest only applies in the Rhine so magi aren't required to stop mundanes from deforesting trees elsewhere.
Of course to be fair there are contradictions in every edition where some books indicate magi would break the code just by their actions rather than the consequences, especially in some of the released adventures. Twelfth Night and Nigraxa I can think of. But in the sourcebooks it is fairly constant 'Thereby bring harm on my sodales' is what is emphasized.
All right, here's another real-world example. When you get in your car and drive down the street, it's totally impossible to guarantee you won't kill someone. A child might run in front of your car through no fault of yours, or your brakes might fail at a critical moment. And indeed to extend the analogy if you do things the increase the risk of harming someone, such as driving drunk or ignoring a stop sign, you can be punished by the legal system even if actual harm didn't occur. Indeed, in the real world you can be punished for those acts even if the possibility of harm is remote, for example on a country road with no other people or vehicles around. Yet I, like a billion other people in the world, do not hesitate to drive a car on a daily basis, nor do I feel the liability or the regulations associated with driving interfere with my daily life.
Now, I think we all agree that in the Order of Hermes the laws are nowhere near as formal and well-established (or well-enforced) as in 21st century Europe and North America. Whether something is an offense depends on the judgment of the Tribunal and can vary a lot according to your Saga.
Let's revisit the case in question, since we keep referring to it. In the other thread,
Now you say this is a routine business transaction equivalent to buying a loaf of bread at a store. I strongly disagree: the noble is making "crazy money" from the transaction and offering nothing valuable (to himself) in exchange. I say it is more like large and repeated cash donations. Paying an amount grossly above market value is basically patronage in a thin disguise. A prosecuting Quaesitor (in my Saga) would say they're not leasing routine land rights here, they're supporting the noble financially. Giving material support to a noble is bad judgment: going back to my car analogy, the covenant just entered a one-way street from the wrong end. Depending on the level of enforcement in the Tribunal, that could be grounds for official inquiry right there -- if anyone in the Order knew about it, which they don't.
Why would the Order care? Well, according to Guardians of the Forest (and presumably Lion and the Lily), they wouldn't. But according to core book and Houses of Hermes: True Lineages, the Order does have the authority to dictate how magi interact with mundanes. Given the amount of money the covenant is giving the noble, it would be easy to make a case they are supporting him.
The minute open warfare broke out between the noble and the Duke of Aquitaine, the stakes went way up. Now they have a mundane conflict on their hands and they are giving significant support to one side and not the other. If the Duke of Aquitaine finds out, who knows what he'll do -- attacking the covenant seems sensible, or since these wizards are so rich, maybe trying to sway them over to his side. Meanwhile we have armies marching across the countryside sacking manors as they go and no one knows when a covenant is going to get pillaged or besieged. In the car analogy, covenant just drank four beers while driving down that one-way street, and instead of the brake, they are stepping on the accelerator.
What you seem to be suggesting is that the Order would not want to stop them. I admit, I still find this hard to fathom.
Well, we have razed toledo and killed the Pope, and yes, those were hermetic crimes. Your petty crimes would make my players just smile
Still I am seeing a pattern of you being in one corner of trhe ring and the othe rposters being in the other, Andrew. That should tell you something about how most people read the canon on mundane interference
I would disagree, but how do you put a market value on bribing him to ignore the law and allow freedom of movement so that his soldiers would turn a blind eye to bandits. If the 'Crazy money' Vry referred to was a slight exagerration and was about the overall profit the total relationship involved but that the prices of each favour was reasonable then patronage is not really applicable. What really matters to me is the intention of the Covenant, were they buying useless things just to get the money in the nobles pockets or were they buying for prices they thought fair things they really wanted?
According to your reading, others disagree however amd read HoH:TL differently.
Take HoH:TL p127, the House of Tremere as a whole sends its ghostly armies to harass the Latin invaders of the Byzantine empire, in HoH:S p41 'Indeed the Code said it was wrong to fight the emperor, aid the Church ... although Jerbiton's followers stayed within the wording of the Code, they continued to materially support their allies in the East.'
I'm not willing to try, not with you, because of reasons previously stated. And since everyone else seems to be more or less on the same side of the fence, I likewise decline to preach to the choir.
However, I'm willing to reconsider, and give you one last chance to dis/prove the implication that your theories and statements raise the question, as you so eloquently put it, "are you SMOKING CRACK!?" - if you'd care to respond to several points that you've so far studiously ignored, that illustrate glaring flaws in your position, and that as a whole illustrate why I despair at any prospect of a productive "discussion", for lack of a better term.
So, I'd like to hear your logic, your own supporting reasoning, for your following statements.
I lead with one that is emblematic of your approach to a "discussion", ironically so because it is in defense of that very critique...
What "people"... other than you, that is?
Just curious what definition of "court wizard" you're using, that this transaction gets us there from where we started, i.e. "buying some land rights from a noble", in disguise as wealthy bandits.
Specifically, what in the Code implies, even indirectly, that such action must be taken, and then how to achieve this without a further, more egregious breach, if not against the noble then against those who work and fight for him. (Unless "interfering with mundanes" only applies to "Those who Rule".)
I'd still like to hear exactly why you think the Order has the right to "punish" mundanes for so-called "crimes", when in fact those mundanes have broken no laws, only "rules" of an obscure Order they have never heard of. Would the Templars, the Vatican Guard, the Franciscans, the Mason's Guild of the City of Paris, the secret thieve's guild of Marseille, the Single Gentleman's Drinking and Whoring Association of Algiers all have similar "rights" to punish, even kill those who their own members have had ill-dealings with?
And then any number of non-sequitor and argumentum-ad-exaggeration statements...
How does A = B?
Wow, you just keep delivering these straight lines - yes, where on earth did that idea come from, indeed? After many responses, specifically, stated "There is a limit" and agreed about "blowback" and so forth, how did you miss all that and arrive at this extreme absurdity? (Or were you just smokin' crack?)
And, lastly, but most importantly, one last little thing you've completely ignored...
This phrase - why do you think it's there? What is it's significance, the difference it makes in that section of the Code? How would your reading of the Code be different without this phrase, and why?
Please address each point you care to specifically - or just that last one. I don't have great expectations, please prove me wrong.
That single fact has always been my biggest problem. That was why I joined these boards. The Berkley list predates me by some years, although I recall this group was on another board for a time (delphi forums maybe I cant be sure).
Since starting a PBM I specifically recruited someone form this group to get new insights into the game from an experienced player because without that influence your game can become very lop-sided. Running a game as SG and sole rules guru is a mess althoguh it takes quite a while to realise it.
Doesn't that imply you can indulge in any political activities you want? Including playing kingmaker or assassinating nobles or becoming Pope (to take it to an absurd degree)? As long as you don't get caught, of course, or no one can prove that harm to another magus is likely.
If you read the car analogy, isn't this a lot like saying "you can ignore a stop sign as long as no other cars are near the intersection?" I agree that this is a valid interpretation of canon, I just don't agree it's the only valid interpretation.
There is an interesting question lurking in there, which every Troupe will have to answer for itself because I don't think there is a lot of guidance in the sourcebooks. That question is, "is there behavior that is so inherently reckless and dangerous that it should always be outlawed?" The Order pretty much says that dealing with demons is that dangerous (HoH:TL page 51). Is there any political activity in which magi can engage that is at least as dangerous as a puny Might 5 demon? If you categorically say "no," then what are the implications for what the Order would become?
My personal opinion unsubstantiated by canon. Here's the argument. The viconte is exempting them from certain laws, meaning they are under his protection. I admit "court wizards" may be the wrong choice of words but frankly when I wrote the original post I did not expect to have those words dissected under a microscope. So, please substitute "allies" for "court wizards."
I am pretty sure we've been over this ground before -- in fact the analogy of the Secret Service was your idea. In fact I pointed out that the idea came out of left field and I hadn't said so. In fact you apologized for jumping all over me based on that misunderstanding. Remember? Are you still upset about this? I thought it was the one point we had settled.
Because basically the magi in this case started a war in my view, and no one other than me seems to think that is over the top. You made mention of "blowback" and so on but then went on to insist in the same post that there is no such thing as mundane interference. Yes you wrote
but I took the terms "suspected that 'magic' is involved" to be a necessary condition for what you define as a Hermetic crime. That is, that magi can do anything political as long as no suspicion of magic arises, including assassinate nobles or play kingmaker. If that's not what you meant, then I missed one of your points somewhere.
I think it's a statement of principle. I think it's in there to remind the Order why interfering with mundane politics is a bad idea. It's also a warning -- that once you start interfering in mundane politics, you might start an avalanche you can't stop. The magi who suffer may be far removed in time and space. It is not for you, the magus, to decide whether what you've done is harmless or whether you've covered your tracks well enough. Every magus is potentially affected, so every magus has a say in what is or is not allowed. It justifies the authority of the Tribunal to stop magi from mundane interactions they think could lead to big trouble down the road.
Without it, I don't really see how this clause of the Code would be enforceable, or why anyone would bother to enforce it.
Believe it or not, I'm a Transitionalist.
Nope. I joined the Berk list in 1994. I've been called a COOF. Mostly I lurk but I chime in when I think I have a new and different perspective. Guess I did this time.
The Code is open to interpretation, on a saga- and tribunal-dependent basis. There is sound ground for enforcing strict interpretations of mundane interference, and for enforcing only loose ones.
I believe the soundest way to proceed on this is to make the tribunal, and Order, somewhat conservative in is dominant interpretation, but with a substantial radical segment. This is in order to give the players some boundaries so that crossing them will create tension and conflict, allies and enemies, but not to restrict them so much that they cannot operate or fill suffocated by Hermetic Law. Note that this perspective has nothing to do with what "feels" should be the dominant interpretation - it is about what will work best for the saga. In this light, I think some paths of getting land from a noble should be acceptable under the tribunal's traditions, so that it would be clear how to proceed to avoid stories related to that. Specifically, I feel the case that started this whole affair falls under this rubric, as doing otherwise would really restrict all covenant's interactions with mundanes (to the point where the covenant would be liable to any actions taken by someone it deals with - an absurd consequence, that will paralyze any trade and ruin many a story).
I don't think any of this has changed through the editions. This is nothing new.
Personally, I despise the mundane-interference clause and like to play characters that oppose it. But playing such characters won't be fun without opposition....
I see. I see you don't understand (or accept) the difference between "the right" to do something and merely "the power" to do something, or between a "one-time business arrangement" and an "alliance", or between the actor in a crime and a bystander. Among other dealbreakers. As I at first feared.
It's the definition of the law, "I will not interfere with the affairs of mundanes and thereby bring ruin upon my sodales." If you only read the part of the law you want to, and ignore the rest as a non-binding statement of principle then you can do so if you choose, but that would be as valid as:
"Driving under the influence" in english law which is meant to enforce driving safely by not being intoxicated. If a policeman chose to ignore the second part and arrest people for just driving because he considers the 'under the influence' part to be a statement of principle, then every arrest he made would be thrown out of court.
