Religion and metaphysics

There are two aspects about religion that I think need consideration in ArM:

  1. Just what is/are the religious/metaphysical facts in mythic europe.
  2. What is reasonable for magi to believe regarding the former.

I was reading the intro to RoP: divine and I was taken aback. If I understand it correctly it asserts the following.

P1. No one religion is literally true within mythic europe.
P2. there is infact a god in mythic euorpe
P3. each of the abrahamic faiths has its own respective dominions. (I am not sure if magi that found themselves in India would encounter an hindu dominion.. but I think they would considering how I read RoP divine.)

Given P1-P3 it is unclear if "god" is anthropomorphic, a magic man in the sky that has a will and an intellect, that wants us to do things and has goals, etc. etc. Or, if the divine is Aristotles unmoved mover that merely is the final cause of all things and sits in a perpetual state of self awareness (a kind of deism). Or, if the divine is non-anthropomorhic and is something like Spinoza's nature ( a kind of pantheism).

If "god" (in mythic europe of course) was anthropomorphic (had a will and an intellect) then it is unclear how you could have mutliple dominions for the various religions. The problem I am getting at, and which I am having a bit of trouble articulating is as follows.

Each of the abrahamic faiths not only disagree about what are the facts (e.g., was jesus god made flesh? are the sacraments necessary to attain salvation?), but they also disagree about important normative content regarding how you ought to live, what constitutes the good, the just etc.

Being a holy person, what is required to be holy, differs according to religion. Should we really believe that there is a perfect being that has different standards of good conduct. "If your a muslim then this is what sin is and if you are jew then this is what sin is, etc.?" Doesnt that amount to a fickle and/or inconsistent god, soemthing theologians would find apalling?

Another point that I dont want to unpack too much here is that the notion of an anthropomorphic god has a lot of philosophical problems that theologians have never gotten around to resolving. Which is why many philosophers and theologians often producing a non-personal deistic account of the divine.

What I have said needs fleshing out but I will leave that for any responses from others to draw me into.

But what about magi, what should they believe?

Several things are clear:

Q1. Magi would be familar with atheistic, deistic and pantheistic philosophies from the greco-roman period.
Q2. Magi would be familiar witht he fact that there are Jewish, Christian, and muslim divine auras.
Q3. Magi would be familiar with the fact that non-christian persons have true faith (in the game mechanic sense).

From Q2-Q3 it seems that most magi would conclude that if there is a "god" then such a being does not favor any religion. that is, that no religion is literally true. And if they reached that conclusion then I dont see how most would be christians. This would be further stregthened by the fact that from Q1 magi would have a good way of accounting for Q2-Q3 by an explantion of them via deism pantheis or possibly atheism.

It just seems silly to me to think that the majority of Magi would be christian (which is what RoP divine says, if I read it correctly). Most religious magi would not be theists. They would be deists or pantheists. They would not go to mass and literally believe in church doctrine.

Other reasons why most magi would not be religious. Take the case of homosexuals. Church doctrine considers them sinners. I do know homosexuals that believe in a god. However, it seems to me that there is a tiny minority that actually believes in church doctrine. Its not a stretch to figure out why. It seems to me that magi are in a similar position. It seems unlikely that most magi would want to be a part of an organization that if it knew who they really were would have them killed and considers them tools of the devil at worst and sinners at best.

Further reasons would be that most would find it uncomfortable to expose themselves to divine auras regularly. Also, I would think there would be trouble with daily worship weakening magical auras.

Finally, from what I have read in the various HoH books, there seems to be a good amount of paganism within the order.

Now, before closing: I am NOT saying that there would be no christians or theists in the OoH. Rather I am saying that most would not be. It seems to me most would be deists or pantheists and then there would be a minority that are theists and atheists.

If I recall correctly the opening of the ArM 4th rulebook had nice little account of an apprentice. he starts off very devote but over time he drops most of his religious beliefs and practices. That seemed to me intuitively correct in how things would normally proceed.

Ok, looking forward to comments and dissenting opinions.

P.S. I am working on my second ma in philosophy. however, my area of study is not in medieval philosophy/theology. So I dont want to claim any serious authority here: I have only had a few survey courses on the topic. Infact, I just got back from doing a 2 year ma in india so I actually know more about indian philosophy and theology than christian phi/theo, but again my main area is analytic phi so I am no expert on these matters.

Ok, I was just rereading the RoP divine and there seems to be grounds for saying that the "god" of mythic europe is an anthropomorphic being. For example, it says thatn"God WANTS what is best for your Saga."

Regardless, I think such a position is overly problematic. Of course, people can do as they please when deciding how they run their sagas. Seeing that I am located in an ArM wasteland with no chance of running/playing a saga, the point is purely academic for me.[/b]

God is ineffable. God appears to back all of the religions that are monotheistic. God appears to dislike polytheism, but is not against saints. God is complicated. 8)

P3 is slightly wrong in that a faith does not need to be Abrahamaic to have Dominion. Zoroastrans for example may have it too. This may be why Muslims treat them as honorary People of the Book.

God does not care. God gets to be as childish as he likes. 8) God is, after all, God and if you can't see why he is doing something, like permitting the existence of Evil, then that's because you aren't God. 8)

The medieval God can be bargained with. He does this with Moses, and he does this with Saint Patrick, in two clear examples. As such, he has some sort of humanistic personality. THis may, philosophically, be untidy, but God does not care. 8)

There is some argument that the transmission of Greek and Roman learning was not valued in the West and did not occur until a later time. I'll leave that to others.

House Jerbiton has noticed this, and the Primus has some sort of idea of why this might be the case. House Criamon has noticed this, and have no set idea what it means but think it's quite an interesting observation. House Tremere have noticed this, but they are of the opinion that gods, generally speaking, are devious bastards anyway, and so they were kind of expecting it (IMO).

I can accept that some magi know this, sure, but what is known to one magus is not perfectly transmitted to all members of the Order.

Selection of the most comfortable model?

Still, that doesn't get you around the selection of the acculturated model.

Just because you know of three or four options does not mean that you get to just make up your own option, though. God may not prefer one religion over another, but we know he -dislikes- polytheists and apparently he's not a pantheist.

The Church does not do this. There are some types of magic the church allows. Long, long discussion here.

Only if magic is the bee-all of your life. You lose a +1 bonus? So what?

Yes, there is.

My basic point againwould be that just because God doesn't say which religion he likes, doesn't mean he doesn't like religiosity.

At its essence, I think that the people who came up with this wanted Jews to not be damned to Hell in game. We just do the best we can from there, IMO, and ask for some tolerance from readers for the handwaviness that follows.

Never was plausible no. Only way to make it such is to use the convenience explanation, that due to being based mostly in christian lands, to avoid troubles with the church, they´re "christian". That sits extremely poorly with the existance of supposed "hardliners".

Would they for certain? I dont have(or have access currently) RoP Divine so i dont know.

Unless they can also "know" that what causes dominion or gives power to true faith is something that cant be called divine, then i seriously doubt many would be serious atheists.

Ah, i figured something like it thanks to how you structured your statements.

Logically yes, but the abrahamic religions usually gets special treatment so unknown.

That bad, where?


I guess the philosophy student in me is unable to find the idea of a magic man in the sky and all its philosophical contradictions believeable. When people answer to those puzzles that god is a mystery or that he can do as he pleases it leaves a sour after taste. If someone puts forward a concept of god that is inerently contradictory and logically impossible then such answers seem to be hand waving. A game that had it metaphysically true that 2+2=5 would be one that I found difficult to play in, but thats just me. If I were to run a saga I would probably go with a deistic or pantheistic metaphysics. And account for conflicting auras as arising from the beliefs of worshippers, again thats just my preferences.

But I do have some trouble with your response to why magi would remain christians. you offered the following:

"Selection of the most comfortable model?"

But if a magi thought that christianity was not literally true then why would he be a christian? If jesus is not literally the son of god and god made flesh why would magi suffer through those boring sessions in church? Why take communion if you dont think it is the body of christ?


you said:

"Unless they can also "know" that what causes dominion or gives power to true faith is something that cant be called divine, then i seriously doubt many would be serious atheists."

you see in my view magi would know only q1, q2 and q3. you can infer all kinds of things. For example, why not conclude that there several divine realms each with its own "godling". The magi have no inside info to see that there is one overarching divine being. Alternatively, as I said above magi might just settle on deism or pantheism and view particular auras associated with particular religions as manifestions of the faith of the masses: a kind of magical effect. This would be a reasonable hypothesis especially since most divine auras are connected with worship. Something I think magi would know or could figure out.

Regarding whether or not magi would be familiar with the fact that there are christian, islamic and jewish auras you asked:

"Would they for certain? I dont have(or have access currently) RoP Divine so i dont know."

My guess is that they would for several reasons. Magi would encounter jewish divine auras in european cities, Iberian magi would also be aware of this, not to mention those that went crusading.

I can very easily see magi of house bonisagus being aware of this and taking interest in it. I imagine that there would at least be a number of tractati on magic theory that discuss this.

As far as my location, I am now in Albany NY, after a 2 year stay in Goa India. As far as I can tell, there are no ArM groups in the area. I am a poor student sans car: just a trusy bicycle. So, I guess I am stuck with theorizing about the game and coming up with sagas that shall never be played. I guess thats kool insofar as the phi program here is pretty competitive and I wouldnt have much time for running a saga. Hell, I have never even ran a saga :wink:


sorry i did not address directly the atheism question.

one could infer from q1 q2 q3 that there is no god, that there are at least three "demi gods" that is 3 or more powerful beings but not the traditional montheistic notion of "god" all powefull, all knowing, all loving personal creator. That is, the magi would be atheist in that they would see yahweh, allah etc as just powerful quasi people unworthy of worship in line with how socrates saw zeus.

Umm, who said its not literally true? God is certainly powering the Church, there is evidence that the birth of Christ was a metaphysical event of note. Saints and angels certainly have power. If anything, a magus is more likely to be "sure" there is a God than ordinary folk. The only area where Christianity (and Islam and Judaism) stumble in direct observation is the ecumenism issue and that's hardly insurmountable.

Scholarly sorts realize that Jews worship God and have a special place in his plan... the Church even teaches that. Its the Laity, not the theology that is anti semitic. Assuming a magus has determined that there is an Islamic dominion, its not hard to figure out that Islam also accepts Christ, albeit in a way more in tune with some heretical sects than the prime place he has in Christianity. Personally, I don't think very many magi would have actually been in a position to "realize" that there is an Islamic and Judaic dominion, especially those in Europe. Synagogues are generally in Christian towns and there aren't any mosques except in the Levant and Iberia. But even if they did, its not like an irreconcilable "OMG everything is false" sort of revelation.

On top of that, very few Christians accept 100% of the doctrine... medieval scholars of Theology are almost expected to get a hand slapping for heresy every once in a while. It isn't until some time after the Ars period that that actually became a real problem or hurts their careers.

It is possible for magi to reject God. Many do. Some follow Gnostic beliefs, some are pagan, some are effectively agnostic, some just don't think about the issue much. But there's nothing inherent in the practice of magic or the Ars Magica rules that reveals Christian doctrine to be false in a major way. Rather the opposite.

I can see that, but my point is that medieval people really did believe that it was possible for Moses to haggle with God, and Patrick to hold God to ransom. You need to get with that sort of mindset. God has the attributes and feeling of a father and a mother toward the world (Eziekiel). He is not just an unknowable primal force or the first cog in a giant clock. The Muslims, for example, have no problem with the idea that they are right, and that Christians and then Jews are closer to right, and the Zoroastrans are vaugely near right and that the rest of the world is nowhere near right. That is, truth is something you fall away from and are guided back to, and that during this process of guiding back, you are still within the keeping of God, even if you aren't in the House of Islam.

God is good.
God is the source of everything.
Evil exists.
God is the source of evil.

OK, so that's a bit old school, but there's a legitimate point at which you can go "This is too hard."

Hey, if that works for you, go for it, but how do you deal with polytheism, then?

Most Anglican priests do not think Christianity literally true and yet remain Anglicans. There are benefits to being a member of a religious community that are other than being perfectly correct.

Um, well as someone who comes out of the Protestant tradition, we have never really had a problem with the bread being merely symbolic of the body of Christ. I don't see why you have this all or nothing take.

If you assume that God exists, and that there are three paths to God that seem to work, and that Jews get treated really badly, and that Muslims get treated a little better but not much and they aren't allowed bacon or booze, assuming that reaching God is important to you, with the eternal life and all, why not just choose Christianity? All the God, but now with added snacks!


I dont think you followed my questions and train of thought. I posited the following: assuming,

Q1. Magi would be familar with atheistic, deistic and pantheistic philosophies from the greco-roman period.
Q2. Magi would be familiar witht he fact that there are Jewish, Christian, and muslim divine auras.
Q3. Magi would be familiar with the fact that non-christian persons have true faith (in the game mechanic sense).

What follows? It seems to me Q1 and Q2 are phenomena needing explanation. Now there are several possible explantions.

E1. There is one god, a personal creator all powerful, all loving all knowing ect. that somehow tolerates the conflicting doctrines of the 3 abrahamic faiths: each of which are mutually exclusive, they are not all literally true.
E2. One of the abrahamic faiths is the true one and the others are infernal, masquerading as divine.
E3. there is no monotheistic god, just one or more or zero powerful beings in competition with one another and divine auras are the product of the faithful.
E4. Deism is true, each of the 3 religions are literally false and auras are a product of faith.
E5. Pantheism is true, each of the 3 religions are literally false and auras are a product of faith.

Now E1 has trouble because to of two reasons
A. it involves all kinds of philosophical problems that theologians hav not resolved.
B. (more importantly) Magi that belive this would not have a good reason to remain a christian.

E2. has trouble because anyone in the OoH that is aware of the auras and true faith (in the game mechanic sense) would know that those are really divine auras.

E3, E4, and E5 are much simpler and stronger hypotheses. Assuming someone in the order had access to the info ofQ1, Q2 and Q3. Which I think they would.

So when I was asking:
"But if a magi thought that christianity was not literally true then why would he be a christian? If jesus is not literally the son of god and god made flesh why would magi suffer through those boring sessions in church? Why take communion if you dont think it is the body of christ?"

It was in response to Timothy stating that a member of the OoH that had access to q1 q2 and q3 and that believed E1 could choose to still be a christian based on "Selection of the most comfortable model": which I dont think is reasonable. Now in my view q1 q2 and q3 coupled with E3 does not lead to being a christian.

Of course, you are right that q1 q2 and q3 do not necessarily require that one MUST be a theist or and atheist. however, it seems to me a likely upshot especially if the conclusion is that none of religions are literally true.
Granted, one does not need to accept doctrine 100% (look at all the pro abortion divorced catholics). But if you reject he divinity of christ, etc etc I dont see how you are a christian in any serious sense, especially in the context of ME.

Of course, fulcrum of this debate is whether or not magi are aware of q1 q2 q3.

Actually, its pretty clear that magi do not have the tools to be certain that a dominion aura around Mosque is not a trick of the Infernal. What Intellego spell does your magus have that violates the Limit of the Infernal? I don't think there is any way of detecting True Faith either. Or that wizards in character would be talking about it like a fact. How do they know its "true faith" and not some kind of divine or infernal magical training? Or just God being pissy and dropping miracles on your head?

Further, believing that everything stated by leaders of one's religion is /literally/ true isn't especially commonplace. The three Abrahamic faiths aren't fundamentally incompatible, except on the issue of Christ's importance (which is a key point, admittedly, but not one that would be an automatic source of discredit to the idea of a ecumenical God). I doubt it would be a shock to anyone that some of the things the Church teaches are wrong. It especially wouldn't be a shock to any wizard. That doesn't mean said wizard would automatically fall out of the faith entirely.

I understand your arguments. I don't think that the starting premises are true and I don't think the Es automatically follow from them even if they were. Some magi would reason as you have, but its hardly the "one true conclusion" possible. Most wizards are probably no more inclined to theological speculation than anyone else even if it were the only rational response.

I think Timothy's "most comfortable model" response as somewhat facetious. But its true that acculturation can account for a lot of common practice.


one issue, if magi cannot test the claim that a given aura is infernal or divine (that is, is this appearant divine aura an infernal one in disguise) then one must apply it across the board.

If I cant rule out the jewish divine aura is really a secret infernal aura then I cannot do so with christianity nor can I do sowith islam. If that is the case then shouldnt I be a skeptic? A situation where I cannot test or know such things doesnt seem to entail theism.

We can take it a step further and call into question whether or not their is even a god in the monotheistic super powerful magic sky daddy sense. Why not just accept that there are numerous non-human powerful beings?

The way I see it occams razor should lead to skepticism, agnoticism, or at least rejection of a literal acceptance of one of the abrahamic by magi. The end result being that it seems unlikely that most magi would be christians in any meaningful sense in ME.

Of course we both disagree about q1 a2 and a3.

No, inability to test does not always lead to skepticism. If it did, you'd have a whole lot more skepticism in the world than you do. You are also ignoring that rationalism isn't dominant in medieval europe like it is today. Magi are no strangers to mysticism, though obviously not all (or even most) are mystics in a meaningful sense. The idea of 'testing' for God's existance doesn't really have a lot of traction in this era.

As an aside, William of Ockham isn't even born yet and won't be for quite a while. :stuck_out_tongue:

And yes, that should apply across the board. In fact, there is a comment to that effect in the Core Rules when discussing the Limit of the Infernal. Something to the effect that some snarky wizards argue that we can't even prove God isn't just a powerful Demon fooling everyone.

Disclaimer - I'm just a computer geek. I last studied philosophy in high school. And I don't have access to nearly as many books as Timothy here (but who does? :slight_smile:), so this is just my ignorant self's opinion based on Ars itself (with a dash of wikipedia on top, and we know how reliable that is)

Hermetic magic may not know with absolute certitude whether a given aura is infernal or divine, but unless there is a demon actively working at deceiving them, they can tell the difference. Anyone with a basic grounding in Intellego would have been warned against deception by demons (thus highlighting their being in a special category). Furthermore, people with Sense Holiness and Unholiness, some of which may be magi (possibly Holy Magi) can tell the difference with greater certitude, even with a demon around.

Thing is, there is no such thing as a "christian", "jewish" or "muslim" divine aura. Priests from any divine faith can influence the dominion, even in a contradictory manner (see RoP:D page 41).

There are. Plenty. Everywhere. But only one of them is the omnipotent capital-G God. Hermetic magi with a basic grounding in Vim know of and can tell the difference between an angel and a faerie, even without the extra information coming from the relevant Realm Lore.
And people (magi?) with True Faith just know.

Alas, William of Ockham is still some decades in the future, the scientific method further away. And if "plurality ought never be posited without necessity" (if wikipedia has it right), then it makes it easier to accept a single God than many. :wink:

And yet, even today in our very real world where there are no blatant supernatural manifestations of God's omnipotence you will find plenty of believers. Why would it be different in Mythic Europe, where they actually have proof?

What reason do they have to place greek or latin philosophers above the word of the Bible and of christian scholars? The classics education they may receive during their apprenticeship (which is highly dependent on their master's own inclinations) has to be weighted against the society they grew up and live in. Which in ME is both religious and pretty down-to-earth as to the existence of supernatural forces.

In the end, I think the preeminence of pagan/agnostic/atheist magi in the Order is more due to player choice and comfort than to in-setting reasons. In RGPs, player characters are often min-maxed caricatures. Why acquire a book on and study Theology for little obvious game benefit (although some of our local players have had some grief come to their characters for lack of such knowledge :smiling_imp:) when you can do Ignem and cast a bigger fireball at whatever obstacle you're facing?


Remember, Medieval europe in 1220 is barely starting into Scholasticism. Its nowhere near to adopting Rationalism.


I think part of my assumptions also rest on just how much philosophy members of the OoH read. I have to admit that there are many a house that would have low score in artes liberales and philosophiae. But seems to me that Jerbiton Bonisagus and Criamon characters are likely to have some grounding ancient phi. I think there would be enough people writing in the OoH on the issue that anyone who was interested would have to see that christian theism at least isnt an obvious conclusion.

Also, I dont think a member of the order could go their whole career without bumbing up against some else that is not a christian theists. Of course, they could just choose to ignore the matter still.

Kind of reminds me of years ago (damn im old) in my freshman physics class. The prof started the semester off by saying that physics in particular and science in general did not contradict any religions. I asked him how he could justify that. Well, his account of religion was so general. Of course, if you dump the bible say and just believe that god is an undefined higher power then I guess his claim is correct. But such nebulous notions of god seem so detached that I dont see why people think they are justified in believing in them.

I mean, that idea (of a monotheistic god) comes historically from concrete systems of religious beliefs. If you cut the foundation out, by dumping the bible, then what justifies the vague notion of a god? Why hold on to it? isnt it simpler to be agnostic or an atheist?

Oh, yeah I know occam is post ME, I thought someone would bring that up :slight_smile: Even though the principle is an anachronism, I think the thrust of the idea is as old as philosophy itself.

I'm sure they read a lot of Philosophy and are active in the burgeoning Scholastic movement. But there's a lot of philosophy that does not lead to scepticism or even empiricism.

Further, you are talking about wizards. They are going to be hip deep (or more) in neo platonism, pythagoreanism, gnosticism, and the rest of the mystical-magical side of philosophy a lot more than they 'hard science' side.

Oh, and you haven't 'cut the foundation out' in any way that I can see. Even if you can 'prove' that more than just Christianity definitively draws on divine power, so what? Accepting that Jews and Moslems might not be completely out of favor just makes you a heretic, not an unbeliever.

Ok I know in ArM there are fae and magical creatures demons and angels. What I have in mind is the theological philosophical notion that god is not just another piece of furniture in the universe. Rather that god is the metaphysical "ground" and source of things. This would contrast with the opposing idea that "god" is really something like zeus or lolth, just another piece of furniture (a powerful one) and not the very fabric and foundation of being.

ok this is often a misconception about philosophy. philosophys are not dogmas to be left unquestioned. Most of the history of philosophy is pretty combative and the aim is to ask questions and provoke thinking. Although medieval phi tended to be dogmatic. They pretty much aimed at justifying christianity and resolving paradoxes in christian faith by use of greek phi. but even in that period there was fair degree of dissent and openness given the limitations of the assumptions that the chrisitan faith was certain.

Anyway, I am not claiming that magi would be indoctrinated in greco-roman philosophy that stands in opposition: like some kind of ancient faith. My point is magi familar with greco-roman phi would have access to many alternative theories of reality and they would have access to skills in logic. What is more study of these things often leads people to take the task of justifying their beliefs pretty seriously. Which means IMO that they would find the topic of religion not so easily discarded.

by the way, I almost never frequent forums and I never IM chat. what does "ymmv" mean?
your mom makes veal?
young mellow mice vote?
you must meet virginia?
yellow mastadons masticate verily?

Your mileage may vary.... its shorthand for "of course, you can disagree reasonably"

I see, I had figured out IMO and a few others by message context. But man, I just couldnt figure out ymmv. I would have never gotten it. I was seriously thinking it might have to do with viagra :blush:

Im a dork

The Ars Magica FAQ has a section on abbreviations. If you want to understand occult capitalized words, like RAW or SMArM - that's the place to go.

Personally, I find it hard to believe many wizards would be Church-going, or even in favor of worshiping god, as this has detrimental effects on their magic (which is not just their power, but also their ability to understand the world). That said, I also think that Hermetic magic is strongly anchored in medieval and Roman philosophy that takes God as a given, and that society at large does as well, so that most magi will believe God exists (i.e. that it isn't just some powerful demon or faerie). So I think it makes most sense for magi to generally believe in god, but see themselves and their lives as tangential to his worship.

Different magi will take different paths to accomplish this. Some will see the Gift of Magic as a divine gift, and the work of magic as having a special place in the world; certain brands of gnosticism fit here. Others will see magic as a power separate from the Divine, and see themselves as standing outside Creation; a (HoH:MC) Criamon, for example, might see the Divine as the primeval Harmony that is the root of all things - a point of great bliss and goodness, but ultimately still trapped in the cycle of time. Others might take a dim view of all supernatural entities, God and gods included; (HoH:TL) Tremere come to mind here. And some might seek out a way to worship god without interfering with magic, perhaps developing (RoM:TD) Holy Magic.

I think only a few magi, however, would deny God his central place as the Creator, the root of all things. Dark gnostic cults may see him as the corrupter or a demon. A fair number of magi would be pagan, and at least some of these would see God as merely an usurper deity.

Equally, only a few magi would participate in the vulgar, mundane worship. Both the erosion of their power and their way of thinking are opposed to this. What is the promise of heaven for a Bjornaer, seeking to unite with his ancestral spirits? What vain Verditius, laboring to prefect his masterpiece, would contaminate it with Divine influence? What would a Merinitia seek in the Dominion, which is anathema to Arcadia? It is only in Houses less concerned with magic that worship is likely to flourish. House Jerbiton, with its emphasis on beauty and interest in all mundane things, is most susceptible; House Criamon, with its interest in truth and compassion, too. God-worshiping magi may very well exist in all Houses, but I don't think in large numbers. Especially I don't think they would in Flambeau, even though the official depiction of that House says otherwise.