Considering the length of a covenant charter, you can understand that it is written quite small when doing it this way!
If you get the impression that I am trying to get the magi to accept the charter as is, you are correct. I don't want this discussion to drag on for weeks. The charter was designed to justify some stories in the future. So I'm fine with your magi expressing their discomfort regarding some of the clauses in the charter, but in the end don't expect it to change significantly.
I'm letting you know ahead of time so that we don't waste too much game time on it.
1 Like
Regulus will only propose his addition to the Charter (the one which was already discussed and mostly rejected at the OOC topic). I don't think we need to roleplay it. He proposes the change, is rejected, and he will try to pass a general intention to treat apprentices well at a further date.
1 Like
Clusius is certainly in favour of treating any apprentices well.
1 Like
But would he agree to compensate apprentices for incurred damages, or to give them the right to chose their masters? =9
I've posted Regulus next actions assuming the matter of succession is already fully discussed, but if it is not I can delete the post and wait a bit.
I'm getting caught up here tonight, and I should hopefully get something up before I go in for work tomorrow morning.
That would be more a matter of ruthlessness and greed than being martial, I think.
FYI, Julius is not present at the meeting of the magi taking place right now.
Oh, ok. I assumed he was since Clusius asked him to bring Augustus and Regulus to the Council Room.
If Regulus and Julius have met, the core of his answer doesn't change (assuming Julius introduced himself, as he has done with every other magus). If not (either if they didn't met or if Julius didn't state his name) Regulus would assume that Julius is a somewhat trustworthy mundane and would just change pronouns.
They may have met only briefly, and it isn't a certain thing that Regulus saw through the illusion in that short a time. I seem to remember that the Ease Factor made it uncertain (I am away from my books at the moment).
So make a roll (no need to post it here) and adjust your post accordingly if you want! 
6+ mag of the creature's Might, according to the core book (not sure if RoP:M brings in any different rules applicable to the case).
With the aura bonus Regulus will surely notice, unless he botches (which he didn't, I just rolled).
Julius is hidden by a Hermetic MuIm effect (a lesser enchantment ring created by Leonardus, who was strong in Muto), not an innate power. This may change the Ease Factor.
She certainly isn't martial enough anyway!
In that case it would be 6+mag of hermetic effect. If the effect magnitude is no higher than 4 he still makes it with ease due to the magical aura (+3 Per, +2 Second Sight (hermetic effects), +5 aura +0 (minimum possible value for stress), beating EF 6+4. Note that SS doesn't need to penetrate).
I think Leonardus expertise wouldn't really change anything? The item effect will be lvl 35 if I'm not mistaken, and Leonardus could surely manage a lvl 70 lab total for such an invested device, but the spell effect itself would still be level 20 (assuming the ring has some version of "The Phantom Image").
But even considering the full level of the ring, the effect's magnitude is 7. Regulus makes it with a bit of luck (10 + stress against EF 13, he needs to roll 3 or above. I rolled a 7).
1 Like
What has that got to do with swearing an oath?
Swear:
- make a solemn statement or promise undertaking to do something or affirming that something is the case.
- use offensive language, especially as an expression of anger.
Some Christians would say that a Christian shouldn't swear; their words are to be true without the need for oaths. Swearing is unnecessary at best and corruptive at worst.
If we want to get nitpicky...
... (I think we don't), I'm not sure if that is the orthodox view of oaths on medieval Christianity. Or if, for example, swearing an oath would be seen as heretical (instead of simply "inadequate"). From the sheer amount of oaths and swearings in medieval texts I'd say it's only inadequate, but I'm no expert.
Matthew 5:34-37
34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Fun aleatory fact: there is at least one documented instance (to my knowledge) of people swearing "by the straw", meaning "by the one who made this straw". Thus you could meet someone on the street and make an oath "in the name of God" without asking if that person is muslim or jew... I mean, if he is a muslim and you two swear "by God" (assuming you are catholic) that doesn't bind him, because he believes in Allah. But if you swear "by the one who made this piece of grass"... =]
So nobles and knights are bad Christians for swearing fealty to their lords or king? And monks are bad Christians for taking an oath of of celibacy? 
From all the killings (look at the Crusades!!!), I'm sure nobles and knights are bad Christians. XD
Idk about the monks. =9
It's a matter of personal belief, I suppose.
When and where we are it would probably mark you as a Waldensian, a reformist biblical literalist group of Burgundians formed in the late 12th century, who are about to be declared heretics in 1215. Refusal to swear oaths was used as evidence of membership in the group for the next 50 years as it was persecuted.
However, it is still not officially heretical yet and it would not be an unheard of position in the area
2 Likes