That is pretty much what I was thinking of. A river/sea-worthy raiding ship for maybe 20 or 30.
You have my brain working!
I know I've been more slow here recently so I just wanted to clearly state that my interest hasn't waned. I'm working and going to school full time and both have picked a "convenient" time to pick up the pace at the same time. I'll be endeavoring to make more progress on character creation soon!
2 Likes
No sweat. We'va all had our ups and downs. Thanks for keeping us in the loop.
Is "Something Unexpected" going to be an adventure centered on Regulus or on the covenant/covenfolk? Depending on the specifics it would be more interesting for me to pick a couple of grogs. Peter and Klaus didn't get much screen time, and Argos gotta learn something useful sooner or later.
Also, it doesn't need to be something to be dealt with now (IMO). The result of the experimentation wasn't a Disaster.
Centered aroung Regulus. He didn't get much screen time so far, so this would be a short solo story.
1 Like
So, in light of this discussion (and wanting to nail things down as I progress in my post-gauntlet time), I thought I'd bring this up here. I'd like to propose an interpretation / house rule that the laboratory process of fixing Arcane Connections be seen as a background activity akin to talisman attunements.
I have a second House Rule that I would also like to propose that I think is more substantive perhaps. I'll provide an example of what I find specifically disturbing first. Both are from Hermetic Projects pg 94.
Guttering of the Home-Fires - ReVi Gen
Guttering of the Home-Fires
ReVi Gen
R: Touch, D: Diameter, T: Individual
This spell temporarily suppresses an Aegis of the Hearth effect. The Aegis of the Hearth effect must be less than half the level of this spell + 3 magnitudes. The known Lab Texts of this spell incorporate a side effect: while the Aegis of the Hearth is lowered, the temperature within the affected boundary is lowered slightly, which sensitive characters might notice. This spell must penetrate the Aegis of the Hearth effect, of course. Note that if the Aegis of the Hearth is of a high level, then this spell may need to be a ritual.
(Base effect, +1 Touch, +1 Diameter)
Removing the Hearth's Keystone - PeVi Gen
Removing the Hearth’s Keystone
PeVi Gen
R: Touch, D: Momentary, T: Individual
The caster dispels an Aegis of the Hearth effect. There is no other evidence that the Aegis is absent, but alert magi crossing the supposed boundary of the Aegis may notice that they do not feel the characteristic tingle which indicates the presence of an Aegis. The Aegis of the Hearth effect must be
less than the level of the Removing the Keystone spell + 3 magnitudes + stress die. This spell must penetrate the Aegis of the Hearth effect, of course. Note that if the Aegis of the Hearth is of a high level, then this spell may need to be a ritual.
(Base effect, +1 Touch)
I see both of these spells as problematic because they are non-ritual spells that can be freely cast to overcome ritual spells that require vis to cast. It would be quite infeasible for any lower range Aegis to be effective against even a casual grade vim caster if they could dispel the Aegis with a lower formulaic spell than the Aegis ritual itself.
I think these guidelines (for determining magnitude affected in these two spells) are being correctly applied... and that doesn't really bother me. What bothers me is manipulating / dispelling ritual spells with non-ritual spells.
I propose that it requires a ritual spell to manipulate or dispel a ritual spell.
I have already presented comment regarding AC fixing.
For rituals: ruling certain spells from dispelling rituals effects is not new (see Quiet the Raging Winds and The Cloudless Sky Returned), so there is a precedent. It's ruled also that Disenchant is a ritual, even if it is not necessarily required based only on it's effect, and I believe this is a balance decision. So regarding that, I don't think there is a problem.
Looking at specifics. Let's consider a lvl 20 Aegis. It would always dispelled by a lvl 10 Unraveling the Fabric of Vim, or a lvl 5 RHK, as long as the magus manages Pen 20 (not that hard, casting total must be 30/25).
Lvl 25 Aegis (this is us): dispel with lvl 15/10 spell, requires Pen 25, casting total 40~35. A bit harder.
Lvl 30 Aegis:dispel at lvl 20/15, requires Pen 30, casting total 45~50.
Let's jump to Aegis 40. Dispel at lvl 30/25, requiring Pen 40, casting total 70~65.
I'm not concerned with Guttering the Home-Fires since it requires a lvl 25 spell against a lvl 20 Aegis, and it must also penetrate, requiring a casting total of 45 (reasonably high). A lvl 33 Aegis would already require a ritual GHF, and the needed casting total would be around 80.
So... is this really a problem? A low level Aegis has marginal utility against other magi anyway, it's function is to protect against low level Realm critters. A high level Aegis won't be easily dispelled. And either way, interfering with an Aegis is grounds to a charge of deprivation.
Yes, a specialized magus is capable of destroying a high level Aegis right out of the gauntlet. But a specialized magus is also capable of burning Paris alone with the right set of spells.
At the end of the day, are we going to be involved, as a covenant, in the type of story where hostile magi would find it reasonable to supress/dispell the entire Aegis at once?
Overall, while I don't see any problem with the houserule, I don't think it is really necessary. If we are concerned with that happening to us, we can spend a few seasons working together to invent a high level Aegis (or buy a lvl40 Aegis from Durenmar). If we do that to other covenants, this is going to be invastigated and prosecuted b hermetic law.
Such houserule also has implications towards rituals in general, which I have not considered in depth.
I tend I think to see Magi in the Order as being somewhat more fractious?
That if a Covenant had an enemy of sufficient age/power that they were capable of dispelling their Aegis without having to expend meaningful resources themselves ... it would be all too common to use such power to squash an undesired new Covenant just by squeezing their resources. Imagine the "beneficent" Tytalus who knows perfectly well how to dispel things and conceal their casting sigil/traces both ... and comes by to "help" you by making you more vigilant every couple of years. Or every year if you are annoying as well.
It seems all too real a possibility to me in the setting that such abuse could and would occur if it is possible. Yes it can be punished by the code, but that is not a foregone conclusion either. Hermetic Justice exists but is often a misnomer, especially when a case has different power levels of Magi on either side.
It also however simply doesn't seem like something that should be possible (dispel an Aegis and storm the castle as it were) without expending resources to make it happen when resources have to be regularly expended to provide a defense. Otherwise the defense is meaningless and far more costly than offense. I'm ok with defenses being able to be defeated I just don't think defeating them should be casual or free.
The Schism illustrates that when Hermetics fight, they are capable of overwhelming defenses and destroying one another. That is ok. But it shouldn't be casual and require no investment/expenditure.
I also don't see this as specifically related to the Aegis, though it serves as a practical and ready example, and think the applicability is more broad.
Vis is one of the primary meta-currencies of Ars. It constrains the ability of the Magi to do really powerful and/or permanent things to the expenditures of a finite resource. Overall I think that is a good thing for the game/setting.
It provides stakes to stories, meaningful rewards, and the ability to build and/or cast important and impactful things that can further shape the game as it progresses.
To me that sort of meta-economy and its story/setting impact/exchange if you will is negatively impacted by things that devalue the expenditure. Such as being able to dispel or suppress an Aegis with non-ritual magic. But the same could be said of other sorts of ritual magic. Creating a powerful active effect via ritual only to have it casually negated/dispelled (by easier spells even) without any similar resource expenditure on the other side just doesn't seem like something that is a positive possibility if you will. A lack of balance that has negative impact on gameplay, stakes, and story.
Best regards gentlemen.
Maybe it's the Guernicus in me talking, but I think it's exactly to stop this kind of thing that the Code exists. For small cases, yeah, the stronger magus will prevail. But for things that can have long term consequences to the safety of the Order (and a magus arbitrarily dispelling an Aegis counts as such IMO) the tendency would be to have a fair trial.
But well. I'm ok with any decision. =]
There are two sides in this issue.
First, it is in the nature of the universe that destroying something is much easier than creating it. That is reflected in Hermetic magic, as we see that permanently creating something requires raw vis while destroying the same thing doesn't. In this way, being able to bring down an Aegis without requiring raw vis is consistent with the nature of the universe. However painful it can be, it is a fact of life.
Second, the economy of the Order of Hermes relies heavily on raw vis. Collectively, maintaining the defenses of covenants through castings of the Aegis is probably one of the big vis expenditures of the Order. As Vortigern mentions, if it is too easy to bring down the Aegis, then it becomes worthless as a defense. Or, if it is easy to do, then there must be a reason why it just isn't done.
By temperament, I tend to be a builder rather than a destroyer, so I would like to make it harder to bring down the Aegis. It is a reflex. But is it the right one?
I don't think it is, at least as far as Hermetic Magic is concerned. Because there are other mechanisms in place in the setting that prevent magi from doig so. By the Code of Hermes, bringing down the Aegis of a covenant falls under "I will not deprive nor attempt to deprive a member of their magical power" clause. It can also fall under "I will not endanger the Order through my actions" clause, if done repeatedly, as it risks the peace and security of multiple members. So I believe that the act of bringing down another covenant's Aegis would be investigated quickly and punished severely. After all, magi would consider that if it is done to one covenant, what is to prevent it from being done to theirs?
How severely would it be punished? A first offense could easily result in a severe fine in raw vis, plus the loss of a familiar, apprentice or some other valuable resource. Repeated offenses would almost certainly result in being cast out of the Order and Marched.
Just knowing such a spell, if one isn't a well-recognized Hoplite, would certainly raise questions. Much more than knowing a Parma-destroying spell, since that can be a legitimate weapon in a Wizard's War. Waging war on a covenant is rarely legitimate without Tribunal sanction.
1 Like
I agree fully in principle that it would be a serious crime if such were to occur outside the auspices of a Wizard's War. A War however I would note can be declared on an entire Covenant and/or be between entire Covenants. It isn't strictly only between individuals.
The issue I have here is the assumption that such a crime being investigated would "naturally" seemingly be solved and the culprit punished. Someone who can bring down an Aegis without sweating very hard is also someone with the Vim skills to conceal their traces and/or simply mask their sigil. Not to mention that the spell could be cast either at say Sight range, or through a Tunnel/Conduit from anywhere.
How does the investigator even know where to look for what?
The investigation of such a crime would be serious but also incredibly challenging if not often simply impossible.
And in the case of a Wizard's War ... there is no crime. There might be social reservations about any potential escalation of conflict, depending. But ... if a War were declared and a Magus who was capable of knocking down an Aegis came and did so, then stole vis and/or books, gave people a bloody nose, and then went home? He could easily go to Tribunal and say that was an act of mercy since clearly he could have killed everyone in that Covenant that was so much weaker than him. They should be grateful and learn their lesson not to trifle in the affairs of greater Magi. (harrumph harrumph)
I'm not advocating for all of that being a daily occurrence as it were. But it is within the norms of the Order when conflict happens. The Order isn't perfectly peacable and friendly, instead it is mostly orderly and that is partly achieved by allowing limited conflict such as Certamen and War. The Order is not "fair" it is "stable", and that stability is maintained by explicitly "not fair" means. Also the mindset of Magi is frequently one of their power directly equating to entitlement and due respect etc. He offended me by not giving due respect doesn't seem at all an outlandish reason for a Certamne/War to me in Hermetic cultural terms if the power disparity is large enough.
Regardless ... the point being that such acts are not guaranteed to be rare or to be caught and punished when the occur. Especially since the competency for doing the deed and for concealing it in this case are significantly overlapping. Having to expend resources at least raises the bar from being able to be done casually "ok I cast the spell" to it both costing vis and taking significant time.
I don't think what spells people know is necessarily general knowledge. I mean ... I'm not going to tell anyone when I research my own copy of Parma Breaker for example. But the basic idea that there could be social onus on knowing spells more or less expressly for combating other Hermetic Magi isn't something I'd completely disagree with. Though I would say ... just because no one -wants- another Schism (ok, maybe there is someone out there in theory, but in general no) doesn't mean another one won't happen. Or that someone won't declare on your whole Covenant. Being acknowledged as competent in "Hermetic Warfare" is arguably the best deterrent you could have vs. being aggressed if there are reasons to aggress you.
Anyway ... I'm fine with the decision. I just thought I'd point out a different perspective on the reasoning. I think eventually Vorsutus would/will be interested in learning such things, but it will take a bit of time to get there. So to me it seemed relevant re: just how easy it seems to be when I was looking at it. But I'm perfectly content to play by the rules as established/interpreted.
Fair Trials don't exist in the Hermetic world.
There are only the votes of your peers in open Tribunal. And they can vote on the facts or they can vote based on the fact that you are their powerful friend and/or the ancillary fact that you offered them a rook of vis or to build them a magic widget for their vote. And any version of them casting their vote for any reason is legal. The Order is not a "fair" institution, but the Guernicus and Q's try to make it both better in that regard and to keep it stable. But the people and institution itself are not structured in a way to make either of those tasks consistently possible or ever easy I think. Which is also part of why Certamen/War exist. Because Magi are proud, have disagreements, and feel entitled based on their power... and thus all these things make them prone to conflict all too often.
And those peers also include Tytalus and Flambeau and Tremere as much as they do Guernicus and Bonisagi and Jerbiton. There are I think a significant number of Magi who are of a more bellicose temperament and mindset and underplaying that to my eye makes the Order feel a bit less historic if that makes sense.
But like I said before I think that this isn't something to really dig in with / argue about. It intrigues me at times how Ars players can see the world of Ars so differently and/or the ramifications of things likewise. But since when do we all agree about Ars, right? 8P
I disagree. There is no provision in the Code for a magus declaring War on a covenant. He can simultaneously declare War in several magi, even all the magi of a covenant. But the covenant itself is not a legitimate target of the Wizard's War.
That might seem like splitting hairs, but it makes a huge difference. You can wound or kill a magus during Wizard's War. You can kill his familiar, plunder and destroy his sanctum. But you cannot target his covenant's assets. And that is because a covenant is a construct that is recognized at the Tribunal level. The Tribunal can sanction a covenant, or even disband it. But not an individual magus. (That is of course nuanced by the specific Peripheral Rulings of each Tribunal. That is why it is ok to raid a covenant's mundane resources in Normandy, but not elsewhere.)
Just my opinion, but as I am the one who started this saga, I think it matters quite a bit here. 
Interesting distinction to make. I can't say I agree but I won't quibble overmuch.
I do think there is a counterexample if you are open to such. Praesis being outright conquered and taken over in a Wizard War in Hibernia. That would seem to be a firm example that the Covenant can not only be targeted but destroyed or even completely occupied and refounded as a new Covenant. The issues with the Hibernian Code re: War that appear controversial are with the potentially extended nature of Wars and methods of declaration etc. There isn't really implication or statement that the extent or applicability of War is different there. And the English/Latins seem just fine about having conquered a Covenant.
Inter-Tribunal affairs are much more complicated to adjuticate, because you have to wait until the next Grand Tribunal. 
And that is a good thing for your covenant.
But nothing is certain in life. There are general rules, a semi-functional legal system that tries to inforce those rules. And powerful people who abuse those systems. Does that sound like real life?
I think Praesis doesn't qualify here (as inter-tribunal) because the Magi who undertook the war and conquered Praesis ... still live there, in Hibernia. And the Hibernian faction in the Tribunal doesn't like what they did but consider it a legal war.
I will say that the inciting event for this war is the (somewhat) sympathetic cause of the Pater of a killed (for reasons/under conditions that are part of the dispute in the Tribunal, but that is complicated) Magus coming from afar to declare war in revenge for the lost filus. This does seem like something that most Magi would consider sufficient grounds/casus belli if you will.
Otherwise though in principle here (conflicts across Tribunals are hard to do anything about legally speaking) I agree completely!
It certainly can be! I'll look forward to trying to exploit that.
Completely agree.
In general I think you could probably ask any 3 Q's for a precise legal definition of almost anything in the Code and get 5+ answers, especially on something like Wizard's War. Making any of them stick would be a matter of votes!
We have three magi who have recently been in Thebes and witnessed (in varying degrees) the fall of Constantinople. We also have two Jerbiton, who might be interested in the fall. Should we get one of us to be the authoritative view on that?
For example, according to cannon there was infernal influence on both sides... but, how much exactly? Cannon also suggests the possibility of hermetic magi assisting the crusaders, but leaves the matter open to troupe decision. Each one of us is bound to have different views on the exact events, key figures, and degree of involvement of the several parties.
So I'm thinking that, if we want to dive deeper into the fall, maybe one of us should take the mantle, if only to have a coesive view. That might be worthwhile even if we are not going to have much interface with Thebes.
OTOH, I'd like to avoid making Thebes and Constantinople too big on this saga... I'm more interested in exploring Tugurium and it's position between the three surrounding Tribunals, with Thebes/Constantinople as background, only occasionally surfacing.
Thoughts?
1 Like
I think it would be worth doing, if someone is interested. And since the three of us all have character history there and potential entanglements I am not sure who could be the most objective or uninterested party.
I agree that having access to Thebes and occasional adventures there is good and I interesting, and also that I wouldn’t prefer it to dominate the game at the expense of local affairs.
That is a fine line though, and perhaps not one we all would draw precisely the same as it were.
If you guys want, I don't mind being the 'impartial' beta-SG to take that on, for when we want to involve that in the game.
But I'll have to review each Magi's history in that regard, to come up with a cohesive idea.
1 Like
Sounds great to me! It'll be a bit until I'm fully fleshed out, but you can certainly start reading up on the others/the canon.