The Hermetic Market for Gifted Children

Games Discussion Ars Magica
41

THE most important part of any GM-Player relationship in any RP game is that everyone shares the same mental image and broad understanding of the "game world". Not just the tactile, the physics (including "magical" mechanics) and geography, but the zeitgeist - the philosophy behind and worldview of the populous as a whole.

So, if someone does something, the reaction from NPC's "makes sense", and catches no one off guard or by surprise - or when it does, it's because it's supposed to.

That's an interesting plot complication, and one I had not looked far enough forward to foresee. But you're right.

Debated how "hands-on" this Mage would be in training the prospect/merchandise - much would depend on the value he's adding to the initial price, and how "in need" he is. His motivations would not be purely mercenary - something in his background led him down this path, and I'm still toying with those formative experiences.

In passing I've also weighed the vision of an elite (and secretive) boarding school cum apprentice factory, overseen by over-paid mundane outcast scholars, where small classrooms of the variously gifted would learn all they needed to become either choice apprentices or lab assistants - but now that you mention it, that would be about as dysfunctional as it gets.

(Altho', maybe a self-respecting Tytalus would welcome that as an added bonus... still haven't decided on this guy's House.)

42

I don't think it's conclusive that the effects of the Gift stack in classroom environments. I tend to believe they do, so a room of 5 Gifted children is a -15 to the SQ of any teacher for teaching purposes. And if you don't believe that effects should stack, you haven't been a classroom of behaviorally challenged students.

43

Opening the Arts is one (usually the first) of the seasons of the fifteen seasons training an apprentice must receive. The wording in ArM5 (ArM5, last paragraph on page 106) is "One of your seasons of teaching must be spent training the apprentice in the basics of Hermetic magic....This is referred to as 'opening the Arts'".

44

bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26289459

A BBC news story about medieval apprenticeship, although it's based on 14th-16th century practices so past our time period.

45

We had a bit of a discussion about this, about a year ago - and the general idea I got from it wasn't that the penalties stacked (outside of the Teacher/Student one, which is RAW), but that there's a boatload of other consequences of putting a bunch of Gifted students into a room with each other, without the benefit of Parma. (Although it's pretty much all talked about on the last page of Apprentices, which is summarized on the last page of the thread).

46

I remember the discussion, and while the last page of Apprentices doesn't say it stacks explicitly, it is telling that only one Gifted student is allowed at Scholomance at a time and the structure of Polyaigos isn't described at all, while a previous attempt was mentioned that all of the participants ended up hating each other by the end of their term at the school. At Polyaigos, I could envision having enough tutors there to handle the up to a dozen apprentices that they might have on hand in a one-on-one environment, and keeping the apprentices segregated as much as possible. It's discussed in The Sundered Eagle that running the school is expensive, and to me, a school for 12 people wouldn't be expensive unless everyone has their own teacher...

Whether penalties stack for multiple Gifted students in a class is ambiguous, and YSMV.

47

Without re-hashing that argument too much (if anyone cares, they can click on the link above) - I disagree. It's not ambiguous at all, and all the behavior can be fully attributed to the penalties that occur with the RAW (ie, in a social scenario, the Gift penalizes the sender and the receiver, for a -6). There is no need to expand it further than that.

48

Two things. First, many slaves will not be Catholic. This could be an issue with some magi. Secondly, the amount of money involved might be interesting to many Sahirs, who tend to have high teaching totals and need money. That secret source of apprentices need not be in the order. Or maybe they are, hermetic Sahirs know parma magica. For only ninety pounds you can get an apprentice who speaks, and reads, both Latin and Arabic, and has Artes Librales, Philosophaea and Magic Theory all at 2. Just don't ask too many questions.

49

It's not the first or even the second time this has been discussed. There was another thread on it even further back than last year...

I want to say that I think it's a pretty terrible concept, and I think magi in the Order would respond poorly to a magus who regularly bought and sold children as apprentices. These are children, and the Hermetic equivalent of sons and daughters; there is a reason the term for master and apprentice is pater or mater and filius or filia. They are the legacy of the magi training them. I think most magi are still decent people, and no decent person is going to think it's acceptable to buy and sell the children (the future!) of the Order. Even almost 1000 years later, we find the Children's Crusade a deplorable event. I think the Bonisagus would have an unspoken policy of rescuing such apprentices when discovered, even in light of a "sale," and getting them in situations where they were not simply another commodity of factory lab work. I think other houses would assist them.

The cynic in me also thinks any magus willing to buy an apprentice is also the sort of magus who wouldn't be able to trust that the child they purchased didn't have some kind of secret manchurian-candidate type set of orders deeply placed in their mind, and that would likely drive them to find their own apprentice. By virtue of this distrusting nature, I also think they wouldn't want the Arts opened yet, because they couldn't be certain the magus who opened the Arts didn't have some kind of deficiency.

Overall, it's a truly abhorrent concept.

-Ben.

50

Sorry, I'm missing the unspoken significance of this - why? I would think that, if anything, a devout Catholic might only be more potentially problematic as an apprentice than otherwise, all things equal.

I think the strong pro/con personal reactions seen in this threat would be reflected in what is defined in canon as, if nothing else, a truly varied and unpredictable membership across The Order.

Some might condemn it and vow to see it stopped (one way or another!), some applaud and welcome it (or would except for fear of the previous). I think the only thing that is predictable is that there will be a full spectrum of reactions.

So, caution is the word.

Don't think that hasn't crossed my mind. 8)

But as a PC, unless the SG gives it the greenlight as a main (sub)plot, I tend to let the SG provide my enemies, and don't go out of my way to invite more than my share. :laughing:

(Also, the level of sophistication of a long-term spell that is also undetectable by a Parens on their Apprentice... tough.)

That brings me back to the whole "black market deal" environment. Whether you're buying illegal diamonds or weapons or a joint, trust is paramount, but unless this is your "regular dealer" any trust is totally without foundation - a paradox. Assureties are going to be questionable at best. Is one side going to cheat the other? If they do, what are the recourses available to either party?

Using a know Redcap as a middle-man seems like one of the better solutions - a level of anonymity for the actual procurer, while the actual transaction is still represented by a (well?) known member of The Order who is responsible at face value and both knows the identity of and vouches for the person ultimately responsible.

And Redcaps have a reputation for not being fools - there would surely be some "Open in case of death or disappearance" scroll in the possession of some trusted sodales, I just know it. :wink:

51

An instantaneous CrMe effect to put a subconscious command in the person's mind would need no long-term duration.

"On the night after you learn to access magic, and each night thereafter, you will attempt to kill the person who showed you how to access magic while they sleep and never remember this attempt in the morning or the creation of this imperative."

Boom. Magus time-bomb waiting for the arts to be opened. No ongoing effect, just an implanted command waiting to be triggered. Once it's created, it's not even magic any more, it's just a memory.

-Ben.

52

Wouldn't that only last for an instant, though? I'm not sure a ritual to make it permanent would work (and even if it did, that's not cheap and would leave a trace that could be detected). Also, I think as a Creo spell that would make a person think about doing it, but wouldn't create any compulsion to do so - you'd need Rego for that.

Edit: you probably could create a permanent memory which would give the child a reason to try to kill the magus, but that's the sort of thing that's also potentially detectable.

1 Like
53

Exactly.

First, CrMe covers "thoughts, emotions, and memories", not "commands". So, as S states above, a true "command" would be Rego, and require an active Duration to not become anything more than a memory of an inexplicable thought now long past.

More, the CrMe Guidelines (p 148) state that "...These creations interact normally with the target's other thoughts, and may be changed in the process." Whatever driving emotion you placed there would immediately begin to be tempered by future experiences - a crapshot at the very best.

Besides, if it were that easy, a rival could just spam a similar "command" into every mundane in the covenant, and wait for the inevitable - no need for an apprentice.

Beyond that, let's just say that the threat, whether trivial or no, is potentially valid, and move on. As the OP, I'll ask that we not pursue this OT topic here. If you want to start a new thread, more than happy to discuss it there, thx.

1 Like
54

By RAW, the Gift evokes feelings of envy and mistrust. That's the reason groups of Gifted people end up trying to kill each other, not the mechanical -3 penalty to social rolls. That only comes into place when people try to overcome the reaction to the Gift. A group of envious, mistrustful students won't even try to overcome it - a pair of Gifted people basically instantly hate each other.

As for stacking penalties, I don't think they do. Each of them suffers -3 to their social rolls, but the net effect is not the same as having -6. For example, one person using Charm to make a good impression suffers the -3, and the other person might use Folk Ken to discern what the first wants and he suffers -3 on that. Both are likely to make bad rolls - the first makes a bad first impression, and the second miss-interprets the attempt as something more sinister than it was.

55

Thanks for utterly disregarding my simple request, above. In case you missed it, I made it a little easier to notice.

This thread is about "The Hermetic Market for Gifted Children", NOT teaching multiples of them.

As I said above, if you really want to discuss that, then by all means PLEASE DO start a new thread, and I'll be happy to join in the discussion there. Otherwise... :wink:

56

In cracking open my Apprentices, I find the following:

The discussion goes on to say that no, really: apprentices are treated like property, and can be stolen in Wizard's War, or used as collateral, or traded like pawns of vis. And that the Code supports this sort of thing - the only legal protection an apprentice has is BECAUSE of his status as property, not of any sort of innate human right of dignity.

So, in conclusion: apprenticeship is already slavery, and the slave trade is alive and well in the Order. They just don't call it that. Sure, they may dress it up as a parent/child relationship, and I'm sure many of them feel that: but at the end of the day, there's always a HUGE power inequality, and the paren can pretty much kill the apprentice whenever they feel like it.

It's slavery. As such: no, I don't see any tribunal getting up in arms about the gifted trade at ALL - unless it was somehow funneling a bunch of children into some sort of slaughterhouse. In which case it reasonably could be considered "depriving my sodales of magical power", or something like that.

Or to look at it another way: if treating apprentices like chattel and abusing them were causus belli for a Wizard's War - then House Tytalus wouldn't exist. But they do. So that's going to have to be the standard that you judge "how, at the end of the day, do they treat the proto-apprentices under their care? Is it worse than the Tytalus? Y/N?"

Up until then? Not seeing it - not with the way that apprentices are treated already.

1 Like
57

Agree, but there is a distinction between any Tribunal, as a whole, and individuals taking action.

And the latter is far more immediate (and unannounced) threat.

Which leads to a related point, earlier discussed - altho' a wizard could "claim" a child that was being sold, he could not (legally, ahem) do so with any more impunity than if he were to steal any other valued and valuable possession.

At worst, the wronged party (the previous "owner" of said property) could sue in court (Tribunal) for both reasonable value and punitive fees for the act of theft. More, until the 1st day of the season when the Arts are being opened, they could also undertake the same action - and simply steal them back.

58

Unless the apprentice has had his Arts Opened, then under Lex Hermetica, he's well within his rights to "steal" an apprentice.

59

Some houses may have difficulty with Muslim members. Also, it complicates the relationship between the order and the church.

60

Ah, I see. Possibly, but no more than the kidnapping of a noble's child or a Scandinavian one, or the previous apprentice of a Marched Hedge Wizard.

In large part, unless the apprentice is on the older end of the bell-curve, any previous ties are wiped away by the time 15 years have passed. (How religious is a typical 5-10 year old, after all?) There will be exceptions, personal beliefs (from whatever source) that are irrefutable and possibly invisible to Parens, but that's the possible nature of any such relationship.

Yes and no - the right to "claim" does not give him the right to actually "steal".

We've established that such a child is "property" - nothing more, but still that, at least. And valuable property, inarguably.

Stealing any "property" from another magus will not be viewed as friendly, and becomes a crime if it "deprives a member of magical power". And if the value of a Gifted child to a mage can best be measured in Vis rather than mundane silver (and I submit that is the case), then this clause would be triggered the same as if the theft were of the selling price of the child in vis.

That has nothing to do with opening the Arts or even Bonisnatching (specifically b/c the "property" is NOT an apprentice!). It is stealing property of a value of X vis - nothing more - that is what the issue devolves to at that point, at least as far as the CoH is concerned.

(I think(?) there are examples in the Peripheral Code that would support this - cases where an apprentice or uniquely valuable mundane is killed.)

1 Like