(Canaries players, continue at your own risk )
In my saga, I am currently staging the Loch Leglean Tribunal meeting of 1224. One of the major cases, if not the biggie (at least as far as the saga's covenant of Insula Canaria is concerned) has to do with the universally-accepted Peripheral Code rulings that the master is responsible for the actions of his apprentice.
The situation is this. A Criamon archmagus, believing himself to be on the verge of Final Twilight, took on one last apprentice, and was hell-bent on seeing him gauntleted before he embraced the Great Mystery. To that end, he spent every season teaching the boy. No lab-work, no studying from books. Four seasons a year of one-on-one instruction.
This apparently went on for about ten years. Sometime around 1219, the apprentice Duncan turned to diabolism and replaced his master; at least, that seems to be the last time that anyone saw both of them. Faileas (the Criamon master) had been reclusive for a number of years, and he and the apprentice spent practically all their time in his sanctum, so his sodales thought it was odd, but were not concerned.
In 1221, Duncan was exposed but managed to make his escape (along with a good portion of the covenant's library). He has not been seen since. Nor has Faileas.
Now, it's the next Tribunal, and this will be brought up. I just have questions about the procedural side of it, based on the material in Houses of Hermes: True Lineages, pp. 56-58 (Tribunal Procedures).
My understanding or interpretation of Peripheral Code is that, since the master is responsible for his actions, and that his apprentice has turned to diabolism, that Faileas is responsible, and thus he would be the one charged with the High Crime of "Dealing with devils, lest I imperil my soul and the souls of my sodales as well." Assuming that this is the case (and if not, please explain where my logic fails), My questions are as follows:
Who would be the principles in the case? The Defense Principle would, naturally, be the accused Faileas, himself. But neither he nor Duncan have been seen since. Neither the Quaesitor who investigated the incident in 1221, nor Whitburh Frithowebba (the Quaesitor in Loch Leglean), nor any of the Hoplites have been able to find any trace of them by any means at their disposal.
Given that the accused is not there to present his defense, who would that duty fall to? Whitburh is the only Quaesitor in the Tribunal. Would she try to find someone who believed in his innocence, or at least would be willing to play devil's advocate (if you'll pardon the pun)? Or would it be a matter of "Oh, you're not here to argue in your defense? Sucks to be you"?
Given that this is a very serious High Crime against the order, I would imagine there would be no shortage of people wishing to act as Prosecution Principle? Who would be the preferred choice? One of his former covenant sodales? One of his filii (if they can be found)? One of the hoplites? Or whoever wants him Marched the most or wins the most Certamens leading up to the choice?
Publishing the case would also be problematic. Can't very well serve the defendant if he's gone missing. But if the Redcaps spend the better part of the last year asking around for Faileas, at every covenant and every aonaran's hut, would that meet the requirement?
If anyone's interested, this case is more or less a result of what happened in a thread in the In the Ruins of Bibrate saga, and while the events don't mirror exactly between sagas, they're pretty close.
Any input would be appreciated, as I really should have thought this through in advance.