This probably falls into repeated and unjustified use of Wizard's War.
It then becomes highly unlikely that Spring covenants exist within this Order/Tribunal. Eventually magi in this Tribunal will stop forming new covenants, if there's a pattern of a magus just declaring Wizard's War because he can.
The Wizard's War section on the Code in HoH:TL, beginning on page 47 details Wizard's War and notes an exception where someone was prosecuted, successfully, for repeated and unjustified use of Wizard's War. It exists because sometimes disagreements can't be solved. What is described here isn't a disagreement.
Magi have parentes, newly gauntleted magi have parentes who are still alive, more than likely. If there is a good relationship between the new magi and the parentes, I would enlist their help. I do not envision an Order that exists that allows this kind of behavior to go on over the course of a magus's entire career. I can see this working a few times, but I cannot see someone having a reputation for declaring WW every time a new spring covenant pops up.
WW should be based on a kernel of interaction with the PCs, not just because a particular magus can do it. WW was created to resolve conflicts between two magi who had to take their fight "outside." A magus who declares WW indiscriminately against new spring covenants of freshly gauntleted magi is going to anger a lot of people, not just those who are the recipients of the WW declaration, if there is no basis for that delcaration.
This doesn't make it an invalid story. If the story ends with the bully being punished by Tribunal then that's a resolution - and one the players will no doubt have had a hand in.
There are so many different possibilities that would enable this as a story. There's a nice big range of story flaws and hooks that could tie into it - everything from the machinations of a tormenting master, the actions of a magus desperate to get some vis to pay off some other debt, some kind of hazing ritual the tribunal does, an act of revenge against one of the players masters, some kind of mystery initiation for the tormentor, the product of some kind of demonic plot (bully as demonic ally or bully as demonic victim both work).
Heck, it could even be the actions of an already-marched magus who is looking to get some vis - in which case you don't even get the one month's warning. That throws up an even more interesting dilemma: do you call in your support and thus lose a chunk of the spoils, or try and go it alone for big prize money?
I can't see this flying in the Transylvanian Tribunal, but in the Normandy Tribunal against a young covenant that isn't a vassal? It'd probably be set up by the power covenants as a way of pressuring the young covenant to fall in line.
I didn't say it wasn't a valid story. My first comment was that I thought the premise was flawed. If you imagine a world where other stuff is going on, besides what's at the covenant, a lot of people are going to know about this magus who declares WW against spring covenants of spring magi and magae. What if it is a spring covenant but with one or two powerful magi? Does he attack then? Would these be potential allies for the spring covenant of spring magi? Why, when their filius and filia indicate they're going to Tribunal X, don't the parentes indicate that they need to be prepared against this magus...
And as far as a marched wizard, I think that's a perfectly suitable story.
Actually, that could be a lot of fun. They're warned not to talk to Badassius ex Tytalus, warned that he's around, and to look out for him.
One year in, they get into real trouble with some giants or something. Fortunately, someone swings by and gives them enough help to survive, while not enough to steal the victory from them and make it unsatisfying to the PCs. He asks how long they've been there, and how the covenant's going. He appears friendly, supportive and inquisitive. He offers a few tips as to how they can improve their defences, and what might be useful things to do with the surrounding area. Then he introduces himself as Badassius.
It seems like the issue being taken is simply with the number of times the wizard could pull this kind of thing off before angering enough people to get marched or have a ww declared on him. I'd error on the low numbers myself, but ysmv.
One thing that I think disucussions of the code tend to leave out is the slow march of hermetic justice and limits of law enforcement. 7 years between regional tribunals is a long time. Covenants are isolated, mundane means of communication and travel are slow and unreliable (redcaps and magical means marginally less so), and scrying is generally forbidden. Reputations would build slowly, criminal investigations even more so.
That's a good story, it's not SG fiat. I don't like what the PCs are doing, so I'm going to throw something else at them to wake them up. So now they're wondering what Badassius is up to. Is he making suggestions for his own advantage? Does he observe the suggestions being implemented, and then decide that the covenant isn't deserving a WW? All kinds of ways this could go...
For added suspense, I'll have him offer to come around once every so often and help them with any problems they have (gives me an NPC mentor voice now and then), and contrast his apparent kindness and pedagoguery with the dire warnings they receive from other sources. Then, a few years down the line, once they've started thinking that the reputation was totally undeserved, he attacks a different Spring covenant and walks off with all their books and vis, and asks the PCs if they want to trade for some of them. If they do, the other Spring covenant might reasonably ask for them to be given back.
If they want to carry on being his friend, then one day he might ask them if he can stay at their covenant for a month or so. Nothing special. He's got a war on, you see, and wants to take cover somewhere unexpected. If they're still friendly with him, then a little while later, a Tribunal vote comes up to punish him for his crimes, and he asks them to vote against, since they've always been his friends.
I might never actually have him attack them. Just keep him as a threat. In my experience, nothing makes players chew the scenery as much as having a terrible, evil, vile person as an ally.
Who says a Tytalus has to be vile, though? He could be perfectly friendly. He may have even given the other covenant the same advice he gave the PC covenant. The PC covenant just took the advice to heart...
I'm playing a Tytalus right now, and she's not vile...
Yup. I'm tired of people still seeing the tytalus as juvenile jerks and bullies. That's so 3rd... Why would this guy need to be a tytalus?
This guy could very well, on one hand, push the boundaries of the code by seizing available ressources (weak covenants) he need for other goals without thinking much about it (yes, being a jerk, not because he's a tytalus, but because he's human), yet, contrary to his usual victims, perceive the PCs as persons and be kind to them.
Going the tytalus route, he could take as a challenge to his social skills have them perceive him as a friend despite all of his deeds. If he can manage this difficult task, surely, he'll have learned something. Or, if the PCs have numerous problems, he could take it as a challenge to see them prosper and grow.
Or he could need allies, and thus cultivate their friendship.
Or he could be in love with a covenant's maga (you know, love at first sight, like in those arthurian romances), and thus act differently with them because of her.
I could easily see this guy as a Flambeau really.
He's trying to teach the characters about their (feudal) responsibilities to their property and covenfolk really.
Or possibly he's actually working on behalf of said covenfolk et al. - clearly their masters cannot protect them, so he provides them with protection.
(In this scenario, make sure he doesn't hurt the grogs - call to slumber usually does nicely! And no, the covenfolk need not agree he's acting on their behalf).
Err... actually I and my troupe see tytalus as jerks since 5th edition. Before they were just people up for a challenge. Now they are out there to bully you, explicitly stated in their chapter. Along with Criamons they are one of the hoses that have lost all appeal to my troupe. We used to have at least 1 tytalus in the troupe, now we don't. Flambeaus have taken over their old role.
But yes, the guy could be a Guernicus up top prove that the code is not what limits you (for example) easily enough.
I've read Houses of Hermes: Societas several times, I read the short snippet about the House in the main rule book. I do not see that it says explicitly that they are out there to bully.
It is between two Tytali. It's a formal recognition of longstanding rivalry by two within the House. It warns other House members to stay out of the way when they get involved with each other.
I can see how it can easily flow through between a Tytalus and another magus of his covenant who isn't a Tytalus. But that is never stated, while it is explicitly stated that this is within the House.
Personally I have always disliked the RPG convention that states that "all members of group X think/do Y". They're individuals, and they act very much for their own individual reasons.
Some Tytali, doubtless, genuinely believe in their philosophies. Others might have joined the House because they believe that it grants them carte blanche to bully and harm others. Still others are just there because, having suffered through fifteen years of torture, they feel that the words ex Tytali after their name are worth bragging rights.
In this case, I would like to use a Tytalus because I want to set up a contrast between his reputation (off-the-shelf bully acting for contradictory and unclear motives) and his actions (pragmatic, but always helpful, at least to the party) and thereby make the point that, perhaps, judging other NPCs by the stereotypes is just as unhelpful.
Agreed, there is a lot of room for rich character development in Tytalus. If you're playing House Tytalus, so you can play a bully or malcontent, you're missing the richness of the House. A magus of any House could be a bully or malcontent. Those in House Tytalus who might be seen to be acting in that role should have a specific reason for that, and will, if played honestly to the spirit of the House, change when that reason is no longer necessary.
Only if they're good Tytalus who fully follow their own house's philosophies.
To use myself as a metaphor, I'm South African but I loathe our beer, and frankly, while I pretend to cheer for the rugby my heart's not in it. On the other hand, I do like our national cuisine. More to the point, I have not yet encountered another nation whose customs suit me more precisely, and if I had, there's no guarantee that they'd have me as a countryman. Therefore, I carry on just doing what interests me most, regardless of whether it's in tune with any South African national characteristics or not.
Similarly, I can believe that there are a number of Tytaloi out there who, while they're lousy Tytaloi, are quite good at their own hobbies, and simply aren't close enough to any other house to make it worth their while switching.