I believe its a high crime punishable by death.
The Parma Magica is never taught to outsiders. Ever. Teaching the Parma Magica to someone who has not sworn the Code is deliberately poking a hole in the military superiority of the Order. Even if it isn't illegal, and I really do think it is, there would be the complete membership of at least two Houses turning up to kill you.
Your apprentice isn't a member of the Order? Your apprentice is your responsibility. If your apprentice violates the code, you're the first one to go after them. They can be claimed by other magi, they have specific (limited) rights, and certain protections. They would appear to be a sort of probationary member.
As far as I can tell, teaching them the Parma last is merely tradition-- one established because of the "Join or Die" origin of the Order. I don't have HoH:TL with me, so I can't go dig through that very detailed walk-through of the Oath, but I'm not sure that I remember anything in there that would support it being a High Crime. If I'm wrong, I'd be very happy for the reference.
Why would two houses be up in arms about an apprentice knowing the Parma? How does having an apprentice knowing the Parma suddenly disburse the Parma outside the Order? Yes, there's the possibility of the apprentice making a break for it...but...
My magus has several arcane connections to his apprentice. She's not going anywhere without my magus being able to find her, and when he does, he's going to be able to penetrate her Parma, if she has one. That's how that's going down-- if it ever had to, because she suddenly went rogue... but then again, I don't think a magus would teach the Parma unless the apprentice was trusted, even after the Gauntlet. (Difficult Master, anyone?)
Again, we're not talking about a Pralix-style mass education of Goetics and Hedge magi in the mysteries of the Parma. I'm talking about teaching your apprentice the Parma early, in anticipation of larger scale hostilities-- so that both of you are safer and better able to survive.
And really, thinking of it that way, I'm not sure I would care what people thought. I doubt that non-Deidne magi who taught their apprentices the Parma during the Schism War were too concerned with the legal implications. Maintaining one's personal lineage and heritage should trump the unwritten(?) tradition of "when you teach the Parma."
-Ben.
No, he or she isn't. He or she is not a member of the Order until after Gauntlet.
So are your grogs and your familiar. That doesn't make them a member of the Order.
You've just entered a criminal conspiracy with your apprentice by giving an outsider the Parma Magica. Who is going to trust you to do this?
This proves they aren't members of the Order: they are servants.
I simply don't agree: they have no vote and have not sworn the Oath.
This is a bright line: what stops you taking an outsider magus as your apprentice? Nothing does. Bonisagus and Ex Miscx magi do this all the time. Why two Houses? You are giving the cornerstone of the Order's military dominance to an outsider. If he's as young as you say, then he can probably be captured and turned.
Then why do you need to hand this out? Why not just keep your apprentice in your Aegis?
Well, then Gauntlet him early. Which House is this?
Well, the Tremere were gauntletted earlier than usual and swore the Code, AFAIR. I'm not sure about the Flambeau, for example.
Really? Where? It's not covered in the Oath. It's not listed under the High Crimes in the Guernicus chapter of HoH:TL. The closest possible crime is "endangering the Order," and even then, you would have to prove that an apprentice with knowledge of the Parma was a risk to the peace and security of other magi.
Is it a risk? Yes. If that apprentice was captured by the enemy and forced to give the secret of the Parma, yes, you would now be subject to a High Crime of endangering the Order. However, if that enemy doesn't capture your apprentice, and the Parma you've taught them helps keep them safe without overly weakening yours, where is the harm?
More importantly, where's the ruling? It's not in the Oath, it's not in detailed rulings of Code in HoH:TL, and not discussed in HoH:S...just that it appears to be tradition to require the Oath, and then teach the Parma. I suppose it could be a part of the nebulous and purposefully undefined Peripheral Code, and perhaps that's what one could infer from the various statements that suggest that teaching the Parma prior to the Gauntlet is illegal...but is it part of the Oath? No.
I'm curious, though...how would anyone be able to tell the difference between an extended Parma and one raised by the Apprentice? I guess if you saw the Apprentice perform the ritual, you'd know, but otherwise...(and I think I'd always assumed that magi took a few moments off to themselves when this time approached, if only out of equal parts decency and paranoia.)
...I'm guessing Tremere and Flambeau are the houses? I'm not sure what the reference to "taking an outsider magus as your apprentice" is about. That's not part of this equation. I'm talking about providing a level of protection for your magus' filius that extends beyond his sight and doesn't untowardly weaken your magus' defenses. While an apprentice is not yet a full member of the Order, I think it's a stretch to call one an "outsider."
An adult hedge wizard you're inducting into the Order after learning their tradition? Sure, an outsider. The young child you've basically adopted and you're teaching the Arts? That's a pretty broad definition of outsider.
Because you anticipate hostilities with another group of wizards who might be able to bring powers to bear capable of breaching the Aegis?
Because if you're forced to retreat to someplace without an Aegis, you would like to maintain your protections and not weaken both yours and your apprentice's?
Because you don't see your apprentice as some sort of short person forced to work in your lab for food and education, but rather an adopted child who's safety, well being, and development are your responsibility? They are your legacy, your heritage, the mark by which your decency as a Parens will be judged, and you think they have a right to some degree of safety-- whether or not they are within your field of vision or the boundaries of your Aegis?
The wizard in question is a Hash, though other members of his tradition had been adopted into Bonisagus, so I suppose I could just claim Hedgie indifference and do what I like.
-Ben.
You, as a character or player, are more than welcome to do such. The Order, on the other hand regards apprentices as property which occasionally causes trouble. That's why you're responsible fortheir actions, and also why a Tribunal may levy a penalty of having your apprentice taken from you or killed.
Whilst I can't remember a specific ruling or page reference for it being a crime against the code, I think not only would two whole houses show up but also just about everyone else. The Parma is all that stands between the Order and the avenging hordes of bitter hedgies which they perceive as being out there, not to mention the fairies, demons and spirits they've maligned. Even if a particularly lenient Tribunal decided that it wasn't a High Crime, someone would still be within their rights to kill your apprentice and offer you a weregild of some vis, claiming it was an accident. I suspect that lots of magi, even if they were hundreds of miles away at the time, would cheerfully witness the accidental nature of the death.
Although I agree with your sentiments Ben (as would many magi perhaps from Jerbiton, some lineages of Ex Misc and perhaps some of the other Houses) - legally in ArM5 an apprentice is "property" and has no individual rights until Gauntleted/they swear the oath and become a full member of the Order.
The responsibility for their actions lies with the parens per the Code.
I'm not sure what the legal status of an apprentice whose parens dies/passes into Permanent Twilight but they don't automatically inherit their parens magical and/or mundane resources although presumably they could be claimed by House Bonisagus or one of their filii that has already been Gauntleted. (In fact Hermetic inheritance seems to be murky to me...)
Regards,
Lachie
It's in the definition of Parma Magica.
The first mention is on page 16 of the core rules: anyone who learns the Parma Magica must -join- or -die-. That is, they must take the Oath of they must die.
The next mention is in the wording for the Virtue "Arcane Lore". A Gifted character who is not a Hermetic magus and knows the Parma Magica must take the Major Story Flaw Enemy: Entire Order of Hermes as magi are bound by their Oath to slay the character on sight unless he immediately joins the Order. (p 40)
Then we hit page 66, which is the formal description of the ability. "It is only known by Hermetic magi as the Order enfocres the Join or Die choice rigorously on anyone who knows it, as well as declaring Wizards March on the Wizard who taught it. Parma Magica is the last thing an apprentice learns..."
So, Parma is only mentioned 10 times in the core rules. In 30% of all mentions, it makes very clear that if you aren't a Hermetic magus, and you have Parma, you will be killed unless you immediately become a Hermetic magus. Then, according to the description of the Ability itself, your teacher will be killed. Note that it's not a choice for the teacher. The person who knows it is forced to join or die and their teacher is Marched regardless of the student's choice.
So, I don't fee lthe need to go hunting through the Code examples we have been given. THe very definition of the Ability says that if you teach your apprentice this before they swear the Oath, they will be forced to swear or die, and you will be killed. For me, that's enough to say that this is forbidden, without any particular need to reference Code examples.
I'm not denying that a parens is responsible for them or that they are considered property, but they're also property with some very specific exceptions and rules, and by the Code, you have a right to protect your property... whether or not that right permits such education would have to be argued, I suppose...
BUT.
You have to agree-- there is nothing in the Oath proper that makes teaching your apprentice the Parma a High Crime. It's hinted as part of the law, so if it is an issue, it's covered in the Peripheral Code and could differ from Tribunal to Tribunal. If it were such a monumental point, it would have made it to the Grand Tribunal and been documented as a landmark ruling. So long as the apprentice never acted in such a way that their behavior became a tribunal issue, no one could ever know, because (AFAIK) there's no way to distinguish between someone who has the Parma up themselves and someone who is sharing the Parma. Seriously, how would you know? It's not like 'Parma Capable' gets stamped on their forehead once the training is complete. I don't argue the point that if the apprentice learned the Parma AND was captured AND was forced to teach the Parma, then yes, that parens would have serious legal issues at the end of the day. It's a matter of acceptable risk-- how much do you value your apprentice's (and your own) safety?
As far as the apprentice's "rights?" Well, there's the legal code, and then there is just being a decent surrogate parent in a dangerous situation when your character is not a callous bloodthirsty zealot. (A very feasible safeguard would be to have a geas placed on the child to not teach the Parma until s/he had passed her Gauntlet and taken the Oath.) You're called the "parens" (parent) and not "praeceptor" (instructor) and they're called your "filius/fillia," or son/daughter as opposed to "vindiciae" or "proprietas" (property) for a reason... there's an implied relationship there.
I'll have to go check HoH:TL, but they actually talk a little about this (or something similiar). Serf's Parma, but Inheritance falls to the senior gauntleted filius, unless that magus abdicates it in the case of a Wizard's March. That would imply that the apprentice goes with the new magus, unless the teaching requirement for that year had not yet been met-- and then the apprentice could go to another magus with the apprentice's approval.
-Ben.
And they're excellent points. They build a strong case that this is a matter defined in the Peripheral Code, because it's not a part of the Oath. In fact, the section on apprentices does state that there is a lot of Peripheral Code on the matter of apprentices (including the restriction that the Parma must be extended)... The consideration of apprentices and learning the Parma isn't discussed, and could be a loophole or an exception-- one that most magi don't exercise for the simple reason that if that apprentice goes rogue and doesn't join the Order, their parens can expect to be Marched.
Seems like a matter of trust. How much do you trust your child?
It can certainly be a place where YSMV.
-Ben.
Ben, YS can always V. I thought you were asking for the vanilla setting.
Given that the penalty for my child being perceived to have the Parma, much less actually failing the gauntlet and going off to share it, is death ... not that much. Keeping your apprentice safely locked up, and possibly investing in an extra, smaller Aegis just for your sanctum and living quarters, is a small price to pay for avoiding the certainty of terrible vengeance from the Order.
As an aside, your apprentice is not your filius. The one becomes the other. I suppose it's the difference between an older child with whom you can talk, even if you disagree, and a mewling baby who demands your constant attention and has to be cleaned up after all the time.
And I think that even within the vanilla setting, it is unclear on the exact ruling for apprentices and their knowledge of the Parma. It depends on your interpretation of fragments and inferences provided. Both my view and yours could be possible within the RAW. Yours is probably more prevalent, but I think mine has merit.
In this case, and I suppose it's my own fault for not being more clear about it; I was curious if there was a specific ruling defined somewhere that defined teaching one's apprentice the Parma prior to Gauntlet was prohibited. It is suggested as the last thing taught, after the Gauntlet.
It would appear that while it is pretty clearly against the Code to teach an outsider the Parma, the exact considerations regarding one's apprentice is unclear. It's also fairly clear that there is no way to determine whether or not one is protected by an extended Parma or one personally invoked. Barring some sort of event and investigation, there would be no way to tell that an apprentice knows the Parma. I think in those situations where the parens considers their filii like children and finds them trustworthy, you will find apprentices who know the Parma. When you have a magus that considers the apprentice an irritating exchange of a lab bonus for teaching experience three seasons out of four, then you will have a situation that follows every aspect of the Hermetic Code to the letter.
Thus, it becomes one of those aspects in a vanilla setting where YSMV. It's an esoteric and I would anticipate rarely encountered aspect, but one that exists nonetheless.
-Ben.
Perceived? There is no way to determine how someone has the Parma. And given that this is a situation where the magus obviously cares about the apprentice, I think the chances of the apprentice failing the Gauntlet are slim. Given that it is the magus' determination of when to send the apprentice to Gauntlet, I find those chances even more slim.
...that distinction isn't really discussed... but then I think it goes back to the initial view one takes when considering an apprentice.
-Ben.
Oh, come on Ben, read page 66 again. If you are not a Hermetic magus and you learn Parma, then you are given the choice to join or die and your teacher is marched. Until you either join or die, you have the Major Story Flaw "Enemy: Entire Order of Hermes" because the Oath requires that magi kill you on sight unless you join immediately. (page 40).
It's not a matter of textual interpretation, it's black and white in the RAW. Do whatever you like in your own saga of course, but in the vanilla setting is very clear here.
No, there isn't a specific ruling.
You are seeing unclarity because you want to see it, IMO. There is black and white in the core rulebook that explicitly contradicts your interpretation. You may not teach the Parma to anyone who is not a Hermetic magus, or the Order will kill you as soon as it discovers your crime. Your apprentice is not a Hermetic magus.
This is, I'm sorry, completely false, Ben. You can check this just by getting the apprentice to walk into another room and seeing if his Parma fails when he and his master are no longer able to see each other. I think that the skill at detecting these sorts of things, as described on page 64 of HoH:TL, would overcome such a simple ruse, given that I, who have no particular interest or skill in this, have just shown how to check if an apprentice has his own Parma or his masters using something as simple as a door or curtain.
Yes, but this is the Satanist defence. Barring some sort of event or investigation, there's no way to tell that you are worshipping the black goat at the dark of the moon. That doesn't make it common. Enemy: Entire Order of Hermes is not, IMO, a desirable thing for most people.
In your campaign, sure. In the vanilla setting, not, not at all. The vanilla setting does not, IMO, accord with your judgement of what is reasonable. I'm not saying that your way of playing is wrong for your own saga, but I'm saying that your interpretation that this is the RAW is false.
You keep saying this, but I'd point out to you that all you need do is have them
and you can tell perfectly well.
And by simply denying that apprentices are members of the Order, you're ignoring page 107, that says that after a Gauntlet, an apprentice "becomes a full magus." So are they a 'partial magus' until then? They're considered property, but I don't think you're right in declaring apprentices "outside the Order." I think it's clear that they have some sort of probationary state. At the very least, I think it is unclear what their exact state is-- attacking one is a grave offense to the master, indicating that the apprentice has protections within the Order. That's the grey area.
And if they were intent on the ruse, the apprentice could suppress or dispel their Parma. But all of that means that there is someone at your covenant, trying to figure it out. Again, it's not as if the minute your Parma goes up, a red dot appears on the map of Mythic Europe in the halls of Magvillus.
No. It's not a Satanist defense at all. It's the defense of a parens who is unwilling to leave his hermetic child without a resistance outside of his sight. The two are completely different. One is about doing terrible and horrible acts in worship of a vile creature. The other is about ensuring your hermetic child isn't an easy target. That's a ludicrious comparison. Perhaps it is uncommon, but putting it on par with worshipping the Debbil? That's just silly.
And you're right, Enemy: Order of Hermes is not usually a desirable thing. But I'm also talking about a situation where you have a sophisticated enemy who might have no qualms about targeting an apprentice. You're completely dismissing the filial aspect of the discussion and looking at it simply on a Code-on-the-Parchment level when we don't have the full Code to reference.
And I'm not calling it pure RAW. Really, it's not RAW at all, but canon. I'm saying that we've entered a grey area of the where there is room for interpretation within the setting. Whether or not an apprentice is considered part of the Order is unclear. He's property, and his master is responsible for him (Does that not make him an extension of his master, and part of the Order?), and there are a lot of rulings that cover his education, his treatment, and his transfer. That's a lot of precedent for something that's not a part of the organization.
But at this point, I think we're really just battering back and forth opinions without too much chance of persuasion. To me, it seems that you are adamant that an apprentice is to be cast aside without concern at the signs of impending danger, or at least cast aside for fear of what your fellows might think about precautionary measures taken to ensure their safety and I'm adamant that the magus has a filial responsibility to take a level of acceptable risk in the face of that danger as a decent human being. To you, it's a crystal clear matter that I'm interpreting for my own benefit. That's ok. That's what I wanted to puzzle out. Thank you for the assistance.
If you're playing that the apprentice is not a part of the Order, then I guess after learning the Parma, you'd both have the flaw Dark Secret until the apprentice to the Oath, and then only the parens would have it. But again, that seems excessive-- we're talking about caring for the safety of your apprentice.
-Ben.
[edit, there's no need for snide commentary, sorry, Timothy. I do appreciate the discussion.]
The quote on page 66 for Parma Magica is:
(emphasis added)
It doesn't say any "member of the Order", whatever that means, it says that Parma may only be known by a Hermetic magus.
If your character wishes to flaunt the rules, that's his business, but he's violating the Code and putting himself in danger. Also, once the apprentice knows Parma Magica, all he has to do is tell another magus that he knows it and he can join the Order without bothering with a Gauntlet and leave his pater out to dry--aka the subject of a Wizard's March.
Yes. I suppose it does (again, if we say that the apprentice is not a hermetic magus-- the fact that the arts were opened in the hermetic style, that the apprentice casts spells hermetically, reads hermetic texts all suggest that the apprentice is a hermetic wizard, albeit one who has not completed their full training.)... but then this presupposes a fairly antagonistic relationship between parens and filius and the apprentice possessing a working knowledge of the Code...fair enough, given that I'm presupposing a pleasant relationship. But if there was an antagonistic relationship, I'm less certain a magus would have taken the chance in the first place.
-Ben.
I don't think it presupposes an antagonistic relationship at all. I've known enough fathers and sons to know that all it takes is one argument between a father and a teenage son for words to be said that both sides regret later, except in this case the pater gets Marched and the apprentice becomes a magus.
I'd point out that the text says "magus" and doesn't say "wizard." If you're arguing that an apprentice is a magus, that is a novel interpretation to say the least. Before you've sworn the Oath, you're not a Hermetic magus. I don't know of any Tribunal that allows an apprentice to vote, because without a sigil you're not a magus and a merely a step above the property of a magus under the Code.
I studied for four years, doing endless exercises and labwork before I was a Master. I worked for an additional four before I was a Doctor. Magus (Like Magister and like Doctor) is a social status, not anything else. It is in fact suggested (though never fully explored, which I think is a pity) that there are failed apprentices out there, who couldn't take the apprenticeships but who had learned some magic. Nevertheless, they're not Hermetic Magi. They're just hedgies with some basic hermetic understanding.
It seems clear to me that "member of the Order" specifically refers to those who have taken the Oath. No actual magical ability is needed, after all, though that exception is generally made only for the Redcaps who are regarded as Magi. I can easily see, as a story hook, some Criamon swearing a suitably interesting but mundane mystic philosopher into the House and Order to afford him protection and help share his knowledge with the world, for instance. Mind you, noone would teach him the Parma.