"The ruling of the grand tribunal was that the church no longer qualifies as mundane, nor is it faerie nor infernal. Individual tribunals may determine their own guidelines on dealing with the church, with the caveat that while the church is not mundane it is entangled with mundanes and should be viewed accordingly. So regardless of what we might discuss burning down the village church by throwing balls of fire while flying through the air is out. In terms of the tribunal that would also violate the principle of secrecy, which for our new members, is the principle that the existence of the order should be concealed from mundanes wherever possible, both in general terms and in terms of specific locations and involvements."
Kriegeist says, "Secrecy sounds like an excellent principle. Has there been much in the way of incursions and settlements into the wilderness? Seclusion seems like it should still be a solution, if it is only development of trade routes. Auras of magic can be strengthened, which can allow them to overwhelm the divine, if it should become necessary; this is something I have done work on already and I will continue.
I think the grand tribunal's ruling has set the stage for further debate, but hasn't really changed things yet. Is a devout knight protected by his bishop mundane? Is his army marching forward with the same divine blessing? Since the divine gains power from the worship of mundanes, the true line of separation will have to be determined by rulings on future incidents, which hopefully won't happen here."
The first magus responds "the question now is whether we should respond to this situation by establishing a code for our tribunal, guidelines so we all know where the line may be, or do we simply wait to discover these limits by trial and error as magi are brought before the tribunal on charges? I for one believe new guidelines are in order."
Anastasia weighs in "Trial and error will no doubt occur as foresight cannot predict everything, but I agree that guidelines would be for the best. This'll save us arguments over whether a fireball on the village church while flying in the air is a bad approach compared to less overt uses of magic, or whether the only criteria worth caring about is whether the local armies can track down the action and pin it on a magi... No need to hang one of our own because we did not think ahead of what we could accept collectively. Do we have any previous cases in the tribunal jurisprudence that still has some use and hasn't been thrown out by the ruling of the grand tribunal?"
At this question the group turns to look at the man who started the conversation, apparently a guernicus. "There are of course numerous precedents, and I think the ones where a magus was found innocent can safely be assumed to be upheld. Two main ones I would expect we should consider overturned, three hundred years ago there was a case where a magus was marched for infernalism where the primary evidence was the desecration of a church to obtain a body for his experiments, and one a hundred and seventy five years ago where a maga was convicted of interfering with mundanes because she had impacted a town's divine aura in her attempt to weaken its defenses regarding a man whom she was pursuing with magic. Interestingly the tribunal did not convict her for interference on the basis of the damage she caused to his marriage, deciding that aspect of the case was too focused and pedestrian to be of significance."
Elia remains silent on the discussion. She hasn't been raised to worship the Divine, and so she didn't want to contribute to the discussion. As far as she was concerned, the Divine should stay in cities, and not despoil nature.
Kriegeist says, "Perhaps the standard should be perception? Or maybe it already is? So that anything of the divine but not perceptible by mundanes is not protected? And where a person is aware they can wield divine power, they are not considered mundane?"
The Jerbiton Prima considers this "I think this is fine for a definition of the division between mundane and divine, but we should also consider the potential to bring ruin upon our soldales by interference with the divine."
The Praeco stands "One issue at a time, those in favor of defining the separation between mundane and divine as proposed? Those against?"
Unsurprisingly the motion carries.
"Now as to the second part, do we, as an edict of the local tribunal, prohibit interference with the divine, in whole or in part?"
The gadfly stands up "consider, please, that if we prohibit interference with the divine in whole, this mans that we will not be able to stand for our own theological perspectives where they might clash with someone else's understanding. Conversely, if we select certain beliefs to protect and reject others, we are interfering with the conscience of our soldales."
Kriegeist addresses the Guernicus, saying, "Your knowledge of precedent is most encyclopedic, I have a question which may educate our debate on this matter, if you don't mind. What has precedent been in cases where someone is a noble, or otherwise influential in mundane society and capable of mustering armed force against the Order, but also a gifted hedge wizard and subject to being forcefully asked to join the Order? This would seem comparable to someone like a bishop or other holy man."
"I was able to prepare for likely questions, my knowledge is not as encyclopedic s it might seem. However as I recall the period when hedge wizards were being asked to join or die was about the time of Charlemagne, who had a policy of enslaving all wizards, so anyone who was a hedge wizard at the time could not be a noble. As such there is a woeful inadequacy of such cases to draw from."
"What is wielding divine power, exactly? Sense holiness and unholiness? True faith? Ceremonial influence and powers? Can we avoid the word 'aware' in the ruling, and simply default to 'can wield divine power'? Having an argument over whether a person is mundane or divine because we're not quite sure whether the person knows he can produce a miracle, or simply has enough faith to produce one would be quite unwieldy and lead to constant arguments which would be hard to assess without necromancy - and we know how unreliable calling a soul to give testimony with magic is with those buried by the church."
Kriegeist says, "It's not hard for an investigator to detect intentions and perceptions, if that is their specialty. And while the spells to detect the various forms through which divine power is channeled are not especially well-developed, nothing prevents us from detecting them, other than the study required to work up an array of spells.
I also agree that a general rule against interference with the Divine, preventing even the strengthening of opposing auras, is a bad idea, I think if there must be a blanket rule it should be as minimal as possible."
The primus of Jerbiton speaks up, "Even without aware the line is blurry, perhaps even more so. Is the person who is unaware they are using divine power actually using divine power, or being looked after by angels?"
The woman who was recruiting for her mystery cult about using divine energies speaks up "one thing about the divine is that it tends to be very specific in its retribution, if we ignore mundane agencies who call upon or claim to represent the divine. Endangering one's soldales is, in practical terms, not a concern, so long as mundanes are unaware of the interference. Given where we have drawn the line, I see no need to protect the divine any more than the divine protects itself."
Kriegeist rises, and addresses the Jerbiton primus. "I think you are addressing a very narrow case. If, for instance, a knight had the protection of an angelic power, that he got simply by sitting vigil praying, he would be mundane. He isn't using a divine power. If an angel appeared before him, he would be aware, but it's still not his power, in either case he remains mundane, just as a grog under the effect of a spell is still a grog. It might be inadvisable to battle an angel, but to do so covertly is probably only a danger to oneself; to do so overtly is likely to raise great alarm and cause accusations of infernalism. Though it may reflect only on the individual, not on the whole Order, as my sodale suggested. I am not an expert on the divine, but I believe bishops, and men of great faith, can wield power much like we do, can they not? I think they should be treated as what they are, members of an external magical tradition, who happen to draw their power from a different source.
Doesn't it ultimately come down to preventing actions that would cause the church to raise a holy army against us? Quietly dispelling a divine effect, or covertly dealing with an aura, is harmless, but destroying a church or slaying a bishop in broad daylight is likely to bring ruin upon sodales. The latter is why I raised the issue of what the code should be when it comes to those who wield supernatural and mundane power together."
"There are court magicians, usually learned magicians by tradition, and hedge witches, who are generally initiated mundanes. Issues of interference with either of those hasn't come up, primarily in that it would violate the rule of secrecy."
Kriegeist looks around, then to the Guernicus. "Then... is the rule of secrecy not enough?"
He shrugs "I suppose one way or another that this is up for vote."
The praeco considers this and then raises it as a vote "In light of the new changes do we consider the rule of secrecy to be sufficient to cover other possible situations, for the newer members, the rule of secrecy is that whenever possible magi should avoid revealing the existence of the order, the locations or identity of any covenants, or the presence of powerful magi to anyone not either already involved in the order or who is not in the final steps of being recruited to the order, except to what degree of knowledge they already possess. Thus, for example, revealing the existence of powerful wizards to hedge wizards is not forbidden."
The gadfly raises his hand before voting "under the new rules would clergy qualify as hedge wizards?"
Inwardly Elia groans, and is that close to uttering her thoughts. Maybe we would better off to declare him a hedge wizard...
The Guernicus considers "I suppose, yes. Obviously they would be unGifted, so no join or die justifications, but even the weakest of clergy at least claims some level of divine power. That could complicate certain issues, but somewhere we have to rely upon individual judgement."
"It seems to me that considering the rule of secrecy is a sufficient norm to manage this. It gives enough leeway to covenants to take action to defend valuable auras and vis sources from falling to the dominion, without risking a conflict with the church through open intervention."