Peripheral Code rulings on Independent Magi and Covenants

We can probably assume that the one-magus covenant isn't the players in most sagas. This means that if you do have a one-wizard covenant that keeps setting up to claim vis sources, and tries to back it with Code-wrangling legalities, you've probably got a Tribunal case. If the players are the victims of this then you've got a story! Hurrah!

How the players decide to deal with this is up to them. Getting the Qs involved probably means either a peripheral code amendment or a settlement, which largely depends on the specific magi involved. The players may decide to use wizard's war to drive him off, which means either a) they'll kill him, or b) they won't and either he'll get the hint or he'll keep needling them and provoking wizard's war until he can bring a case against them for bullying.

Such a magus could easily be written out of the story by having some other NPC wizard's war him and slay him, should you get bored of that plot arc. Less dramatic... unless that in turn is designed to lead into a grander story.

The fact that these aren't defined in nailed-down terms is, IMO, a good thing.

It's "silly" only to the extent that the other magi in the Tribunal care. You posited a situation whereby independent magi were claiming to be covenants and thus moving around the Tribunal and making legal claims over vis sources (due to locality).

If the magi living in conventional covenants don't care about this, then it's not a problem. Magi in conventional covenants might not care if i) there are not many independent magi trying to pull this trick, or ii) there are very few vis sources that are not already claimed by static covenants, or iii) there are loads of accessible vis sources, so there are more than enough to go around.

Wizard's War is always legal.

It depends on context. If lots of magi find wandering single-magi "covenants" to be a problem, then I imagine that the Tribunal will vote him an award for solving the problem!

On other hand, if most magi don't care about wandering single-magi "covenants", then it will just be an example of a Wizard War fought between magi for reasons that the majority of the magi don't care about. So, I don't see why the Tribunal would care about these Wizard Wars especially. Unless, one of the victims was important for some other reason. Or unless the majority of the powerful magi in the Tribunal happen to be wandering independents.

I'm sorry, but I see it entirely differently. "Majority Rule" works in one vote at a Tribunal, or over a couple in succession, but over time the Peripheral Code gets changed to make accepted practice into law, and this is "over time".

Everyone seems to be assuming that there is only "one mage" (or so) doing all this, and that's just not going to be the case. If not illegal, the move has clear advantages, and outcasts and lone-wolf magi and greedy wizards and troublemakers* would jump at the opportunity to stake their personal claim in an area without the need to share resources or worry about sodales or consensus of rule et al.

(* and House Bjornaer, Criamon, Tytalus, and Tremere jump immediately to mind as well, each for diff reasons, among others)

The problem lies in assuming that this is something that is only now just happening for the first time, that "one-mage covenants" suddenly are a problem, and so any reaction will be new. But if one-mage Covenants are not illegal, then there would have been instances from centuries ago, and the magi "today" are just following in those well-worn footsteps and the precedents (from Tribunals or lack thereof) of those cases.

Altho' this is a sudden change in the Code for Players to adjust to, it would not be for Characters or a Tribunal or the Order, and there would be a long and rational history of it for better or worse, with all the above considerations. If one-mage Covenants are legal and Wizard's War and Certamen were an acceptable reaction to the occurrence, then those same resorts would be acceptable to use as a legitimate and perfectly acceptable solution to any new Covenant that pops in the proximity of an existing Covenant, even as a first-strike, coup-de-main option - and we all know that's simply not the case.

But this is not the case in RAW (at least by the tribunal books, anyway). Some tribunals already have quite strict rules about covenant formation, no doubt because of scenarios like this one. Other tribunals don't - and I expect the reason there is because of one of the many reasons Richard suggested: in short: the Tribunal doesn't care, so the individual magi themselves can sort it out amongst themselves. Thebes has a surplus of vis, Iberia and Levant are busy killing each other anyway, Novgorod is so spread out that finding an unclaimed (by Hermetic magi anyway) aura with local vis nearby shouldn't be hard.

As SG it is up to you to decide whether there's an existing precedent or not. If there isn't, it is worth asking yourself why not for your Tribunal.

If - through play - a scenario comes up that would honestly change the opinions of the Tribunal, then peripheral code changes are perfectly valid. It'd have to honestly affect the Tribunal, though. One magus having a minor spat with another magus is hardly worthwhile Tribunal business.

Wizard's War is a perfectly viable option. It's not a violation of the Code, and you really have to be doing it a fair amount before it becomes a bullying issue. Does this mean weaker magi get picked on by stronger? You bet! The Order of Hermes is far from an ideal society.

YSMV, of course. If your magi are generally a lot more civilised towards each other it is probably reinforced by a more complete peripheral code.