Table Talk (OOC)

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. :wink:

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. :smiling_imp:

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? :wink:

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.

I finished reading through "Trouble with the Telsbergs" and I like the building drama and questions surrounding our local nobles. And the history of entanglement they have with the Covenant founder as it were. I'm interested in exploring where all of this goes, so good job Rafael!

1 Like

Seconded! I for one plan on getting into all sorts of... fun.

Also, as an aside, I wanted to get folk's thoughts on this before I dove too deep into creation. Familiars and advancement. I'm assuming that they're allowed to advance with their magus since I didn't see anything saying otherwise?

Familiars advance as magical creatures. So they do learn, but more slowly than magi.

(At least they the way I remember things being. We haven't advanced any familiar yet in the saga, I think.)

Once bound as a Familiar, they do not suffer a penalty of their Might to SQ. It's a perk of being bound as a Familiar

That may well be. I have not worked much on familiers. Do you have a reference on that?

There is the provision in the core that "Familiars can learn Abilities the same way as humans." (ArM5 pg 105) and I don't think anything in RoP:M explicitly changes that for Familiars. Also the other major "bad thing" impacting magical creatures being acclimation is specifically excepted for Familiars. So I think in general it seems reasonable to see the experience penalty as not being intended to apply to them.

2 Likes

So some of this recent discussion has made me reexamine Defixio Magic from Ancient Magic. Not something I've looked at in years but now it is striking me all new. And it seems quite interesting. And very much along the magical themes that I've been working into Vorsutus. Anyone interested in ruin diving? 8P

I have seen some debate on that. It just means that a familiar can read, be taught, practice, etc. Nothing to do with the impact of might on SQ. Of course, the rules regarding SQ being penalized by might only came wih RoP:M. So going by corebook only, familiars should suffer no penalty.

Personally I like the implications of RoP:M for familiars (you want a buddy to go dragon-hunting with you? Bind one with higher might, it will have higher resistance and more powers. You want someone to excel at lab work, or at a particular task? Find one with the lowest might you can, you will need to enchant/teach him, but it will pay off in the end).

IMO one should either go full corebook (with familiar stats adjudicated together with the storyguide) or full RoP:M (with the detailed design it proposes, but with the drawbacks regarding the familiar's development).


EDIT: there is also an errata to RoP:M regardind the issue.

Advancement (p. 51-2): On page 52, add the following sentence at the end of the first section, immediately before the Transformation header. "Finally, as stated in ArM5 (page 105), magic creatures bound as familiars to Hermetic magi learn in the same way as humans, and retain those Abilities if the familiar bond is broken."

Which I would say, implies no penalty (but since it doesn't really address the key issue of how (if) SQ is affected...).