Royal Magus

[ThePedant]

@silveroak

Nobody swears fealty to the church. Respecting the church's authority does not require an oath of fealty, and indeed Fredrick II went to war with the Pope. He did get excommunicated (3 times, only reversed after the first) but it was not a violation of an oath of fealty. If you are in papal lands you might swear fealty to the Pope, but not the church. Fealty is for secular authorities, and the church is not considered a secular authority.

Most coronations in the Catholic world have a line where the king pledges to be subservient to Papal authority in one way or another.

According to Wikipedia, at least, the coronation ceremony to become Holy Roman Emperor includes the following question from the Archbishop to the Emperor, to be answered "yes":
"Will you be duly subject and show reverent faith to the Father and Lord most holy in Christ, the Roman Pontiff and to the holy Roman church?"

Richard the First's coronation in 1189 had the king swear "that he would all the days of his life observe peace, honor, and reverence towards God, the Holy Church, and its ordinances."

The coronation of King Magnus of Norway in Bergen in 1164 had the king swear "to be obediens and fidelis to the Roman Church, acknowledged the papacy of Alexander, and confirmed the arrangements negotiated a few years before with the papal legate Nicholas Breakspeare (later Pope Adrian IV) about the liberties of the church in Norway and the payment of Peter's Pence."

Here's how I break it down: a king has language in his coronation saying that he will defer in at least some matters to the Pope. If the king fails to do so, the Pope is considered within his rights to exercise the Pope's temporal power (excommunication, crusade, etc.) to force the Pope's orders on the recalcitrant king.

Frederick II is actually a great example showing formal (if disobeyed) Papal authority over kings in purely temporal matters. Frederick II's first excommunication is for failing to go to war on the Pope's timetable; that is, the Holy Roman Emperor was obligated by the Pope to make war, as if the Emperor was a vassal of the Pope. Furthermore, as the 13th Century moves on, later Popes appoint Anti-Kings to Frederick II's successors in Germany, essentially claiming the right to name the "true" ruler of Germany.

Now, because Frederick II was a particularly deft politician and warrior, Frederick II could defy the Pope and keep his crown for his lifetime, although up to his death he was at war with some group or another allied with the Church. But that doesn't change that the Popes thought, and had many people with armies who believed, that the Popes had some temporal authority over every ruler in Christendom.

[silveroak]

The theological discussion on this issue could range for years, but fundamentally the church was supposed to have religious, not secular authority. Now in the 13th century and a bit before they were translating this into temporal authority, but unless the land was directly held by the pope it is an oath of religious not temporal submission. In theory. In practice it would probably depend on the tribunal, and I'm certain they could find a great many issues regarding interfering with mundanes if they were of a mind to which were far more explicit than the oath of coronation.
The game does make it explicit that there are Tremere stronghold which are essentially non-vasselized states which are not in violation of the code. It would seem to me that the jump from this to "King" would be primarily one of scale- though the fact that accepting an oath of fealty traditionally requires an oath from the superior Lord as well might be a cause for some litigation within the order. Of course how you get to be king without ever swearing an allegiance is another...

[Ramidel]

@silveroak

Of course how you get to be king without ever swearing an allegiance is another...

Kings owe fealty to no one (except within the HRE). However, allegiance to the Pope is an area that could be litigated at Tribunal, and failing to give one's religious allegiance to the Pope might lead to excommunication and crusade (particularly in 1220, because Pope Honorius is a highly militant Pope), and getting a Crusade called down over this is the definition of "interference with mundanes to the ruin of my sodales." Unless you can spin it as pure self-defense. Good luck.

[Akriloth]

@Ramidel

@silveroak

Of course how you get to be king without ever swearing an allegiance is another...

Kings owe fealty to no one (except within the HRE). However, allegiance to the Pope is an area that could be litigated at Tribunal, and failing to give one's religious allegiance to the Pope might lead to excommunication and crusade (particularly in 1220, because Pope Honorius is a highly militant Pope), and getting a Crusade called down over this is the definition of "interference with mundanes to the ruin of my sodales." Unless you can spin it as pure self-defense. Good luck.

Oh that would be hilarious. "Sir, I do swear it, I became king, defied the Pope, and got a crusade called against the Order, all in self-defense!"

The Crusade itself would be... Far less hilarious.

[Jachra]

Well, recall, it only becomes an act of ruin if you impact your sodales. If the Pope excommunicates you, his invasion only impacts your lands, and no other magi (who didn't get involved themselves) are affected, then Tribunal has no legal case. This is not implausible.

Further, the idea that fealty to the Vicar of Christ is equivalent to fealty to a king is absurd. I'd remind you, most magi are Christian, and they ostensibly are already beholden to the pontiff.

[Akriloth]

@Jachra

Well, recall, it only becomes an act of ruin if you impact your sodales. If the Pope excommunicates you, his invasion only impacts your lands, and no other magi (who didn't get involved themselves) are affected, then Tribunal has no legal case. This is not implausible.

Further, the idea that fealty to the Vicar of Christ is equivalent to fealty to a king is absurd. I'd remind you, most magi are Christian, and they ostensibly are already beholden to the pontiff.

I think "some" would be a far more accurate denomination than "most." There are more Christian magi than, say, Jewish magi, but I'm pretty sure if we're talking majorities, most magi aren't anything Abrahamic.

[Jachra]

I have trouble believing that, because the main stock of apprentices come from Christian lands. Unless they deconvert during training.

[Akriloth]

@Jachra

I have trouble believing that, because the main stock of apprentices come from Christian lands. Unless they deconvert during training.

Not an unlikely proposition. Most are taken at very young ages, taught to wield power through pagan symbolism, and are naturally predisposed against the Divine because its auras interfere with magic and its agents interfere with the operations of many magi. Even if most magi would passively answer "Christian" if asked for their religion (which I doubt would be the honest case, but I'm entreating the possibility here) most would be extremely non-devout compared to mundane neighbors.

[Jachra]

Bear in mind, there's nothing new about hypocrisy in the religious mind, so it's quite likely that most mages mix practice indiscriminately.

At this time in history, the most prolific consumers of magical grimoires were the clergy. Unsurprising, given that they were the most literate class. Those grimoires mixed Greek, Egyptian, Roman, and Christian mythology regularly - indeed, it was not uncommon to call upon angels and demons and gods in the same breath (we see this reflected in the Learned Magicians hedge tradition.) We have examples of spells and amulets throughout history showing the same.

It strikes me as likely that most magi are Christian, but that their idea of Christianity is complicated. Hermetic magic from the real world provides an excellent study of this phenomenon.

[Ramidel]

@Akriloth

@Jachra

I have trouble believing that, because the main stock of apprentices come from Christian lands. Unless they deconvert during training.

Not an unlikely proposition. Most are taken at very young ages, taught to wield power through pagan symbolism, and are naturally predisposed against the Divine because its auras interfere with magic and its agents interfere with the operations of many magi. Even if most magi would passively answer "Christian" if asked for their religion (which I doubt would be the honest case, but I'm entreating the possibility here) most would be extremely non-devout compared to mundane neighbors.

I recall somewhere saying that most magi are nominally Christian. The Order is itself very secular and open to all religions (though Muslims are less welcome than others, and I imagine Norse pagans would also be so) but ye average magus still tries to swear less often on Sundays and maybe even takes confession on Ash Wednesday. Furthermore, House Diedne's overt paganism was in large part the impetus behind the Schism War.

More to the point, though, it's highly unlikely that a Crusade wouldn't spill over onto other magi - the question is whether the Tribunal would consider it legitimate defense of the royal magus' own turf or not.

[Jachra]

That's why I say it's context more than an automatic "oh, well, you swore fealty to the Pope by becoming a King automatically, BOOM! You've broken the code."

Moreover, any (Christian) mage can be excommunicated, being a King just puts you closer to his political sphere. I mean, consider what would happen if the Pope became aware of the Roman tribunal and issued an order to them. If they failed to comply, he could excommunicate them (or even conduct military action if they lie within striking distance of the Holy See). Would that mean they've brought ruin upon their sodales? That seems absurd by any standard, let alone those of the Order.

Further, as has been pointed out, many Covenants are themselves sovereigns, and a Covenant can be said to be a landlord the same as any feudal lord. What is the functional difference between a Freiherr and a Covenant that owns its land outright? One is democratic and technocratic and the other isn't? That's not a distinction worth noting in fealty. The Doge of Venice can be excommunicated as readily as the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

I'm sure the Pope would love to know that there's heavily-armed Muslim sorcerers chilling out all around the countryside, but what the Pope doesn't know can't hurt him (probably.)

[Ramidel]

The Pope can excommunicate anyone he wants. He can call a crusade against anyone he wants.

Enforcing his will is another matter entirely. I personally assume that most Summer or later covenants will have at least one magus capable of a very large Group Creo Ignem.

[Berengar]

@silveroak

Nobody swears fealty to the church. Respecting the church's authority does not require an oath of fealty, and indeed Fredrick II went to war with the Pope. He did get excommunicated (3 times, only reversed after the first) but it was not a violation of an oath of fealty. If you are in papal lands you might swear fealty to the Pope, but not the church. Fealty is for secular authorities, and the church is not considered a secular authority.

A king taking an Oath of Fealty to the Pope is a rare thing around 1220, but it happened. King John Lackland took one in May 1213 for the Kingdoms of England and ireland, to make Pope Innocent III free England from the Interdict (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innoc ... ver_Europe ).
In general the concrete authority of the Western Church in the European kingdoms was a matter of negotiation. It is worth looking in detail at the complex negotiations of Friedrich II with the popes Innocent III and Honorius III before his coronations as German King and Holy Roman Emperor. Discussing these in an rpg forum is however quite impossible, and English wikipedia articles (like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_IX ) are an insufficient base.

Cheers

[Salutor]

The main Rules support the idea that magi are generally at least nominally Christians - page 202 states:

"Almost everybody [in medieval Europe], including most Hermetic magi, is a Christian, and the overwhelming majority of Christians believe that the Church is essential to their religion."

Obviously this will change once you go outside of Europe into Islamic lands, magi may often be heretical and there are still pagans sprinkled about, but note that even much of the membership of some of the major "pagan cults" in the Order consider it basically play-acting which isn't incompatible with being a Christian (see the heresy comment and page 17 of HoH:S).