Tribunal Books

In a way, Hibernia felt like a nostalgia trip to the good old days when Mistridge was on one hill, Windgraven over there in the next valley, and everything small.

That wouldn't work so well in the Rhine or Thebes or Normandy or Transylvania, as written, but Hibernia, yes. The Tempest might also play out in a classic way, and it fits canon well enough.

There's some strange chrome, perhaps, either to be enjoyed as is or easily stripped while retaining the same Hibernian feel: Peripheral code might rule that only vis in a sanctum or on one's person can be owned, the rest is contested, and also rule that Wizard's War against one member of a covenant can be answered by all, just like a clan.

One thing I have been wondering is why there has been a shift in the later editions of Ars Magica to introduce restrictions in creating covenants in each individual Tribunal.

As far as I can find the first book to have covenant creation requiring Tribunal permission was the 4th edition Novgorod Tribunal in 'The Dragon and the Bear', and that was a straight vote and was framed in the context of border disputes with the Rhine. Then we had Greater Alps in 'Sanctuary of Ice' forbidding new covenants completely with their vis source requirements for residency.

Then we come to 5th edition and it seems to have become a standard with the Rhine Tribunal needing a sponsor from each existing covenant (and the ensuing debts and favours to earn the sponsorship), the Normandy Tribunal requiring a vis source owned by one of the members personally or donated by a sponsor, and Thebes requiring the covenant to be to wrangle themselves a Patron Spirit and then get a Tribunal permission. I haven't yet got the last two Tribunal books so I don't know what they say.

But why? What was the reasoning behind the move?

I second the question and the feeling.

I can only speak for Hibernia and then it's just my take.

Putting requirements on founding a covenant makes for instant story potential; you have specific well-defined stuff you need to do in order to be recognised. For some, that might be a matter of politics and meeting the neighbours and for Hibernia at least there's a degree of adventure involved.

In Hibernia's case also, you run the risk of enemies trying to take your validity by stealing your wealth or trophy, so that is more story potential.

It is also another opportunity to differentiate the cultures in different Tribunal; they tell you what's important to the Magi there. In Normandy you might need to submit to more influential Magi and in Hibernia you get reminded that you don't have a right to the land, you just get to live there.

Ok, but it is also restricting the choices of hooks and boons when creating your covenant using the rules, forcing every new covenant in a set Tribunal into a degree of uniformity.

In play terms, I have played in 3 sagas starting a new covenant in the Rhine, and in each a part of the plot involved us having to try to negotiate sponsorship from all the other covenants. While maybe no-one else in those games had also played through that, and didn't mind so much, I don't think I will be joining any games set in that Tribunal for a while.

Well, while I take your point, I don't think I want the model to change. I think it's too useful a shorthand for the Tribunal as a whole. And it would seem a little strange to me to simply be allowed to pitch up and start a covenant when something as fickle as human nature is involved; the minute you have a Tribunal you have all the hierarchy and concerns that goes with it including magi wanting to make sure that those who are voting are allowed to vote and those taking resources from the land are allowed to do so.

There are ways around it of course. You set successive sagas in different Tribunals (I favour this approach - you get to play different styles of Ars Magica), or you start with an established covenant, or you drop or change the covenant foundation rules for the Tribunal. They're all within your gift.

I find myself back at the recommendation to pillage ideas.

Each Tribunal represents a different kind of governance and saga. Each struggles to be consistent with the Tribunal next door. But each book comes with extensive research and great ideas.

So... pillage.

Rather than start with a covenant, start with Tribunal design.

You know, that's a great idea.

Great idea. But it doesn't address the concern of someone who wants to play a saga "out of the box" and/or introduce the basic concepts of Ars Magica to new players. Now as for my own experience, I own Against the Dark, The Sundered Eagle, and Guardians of the Forest. Never ran games in any of them. There are features of each I like if I were to cherry pick, and features of each I dislike or do not yet understand. I dabbled a bit in playing in a saga set in the Rhine, but it never worked out. I do not own Lion and the Lilly, yet that is the tribunal I have played the most often in. I have my issues with that Tribunal, and I wouldn't want to run a game there. But the people I play with seem to like it, and the geography is nice :slight_smile: . For games I run, I prefer the old tribunals. Mainly Iberia and Provencal. It gives me some semblance of setting that by its nature needs modification (so there are no disappointed expectations of playing out of the box), I can say that they have they typical model of Hermetic culture as presented in the core rules, and I can draw a line of pseudo-continuity between current games and games I have run in the distant past.

ArM3, p. 300-301 notes that in the Tribunal of the Greater Alps, all covenants are very old and forbid the formation of new ones. It also notes that the tribunal of Rome puts restrictions on their covenants, as all covenants must have a town house in Venice.
According to the Rome Tribunal book, no new covenants can be founded in the roman tribunal, but enforcement is non-existant, so about half of the covenants present are not sanctioned by the tribunal proper.

It goes back atleast to the 3rd edition book.

PS: While we're on the matter: People keep refering to Novgorod restricting the founding of new covenants. I'm sure it's there, but I can't find it, could some helpful soul provide me with a page reference?

To echo Mark, the reason is story and to a certain extent "realism".

The Tribunal rules about covenant creation give a reason for your characters to interact with other covenants/magi/etc. It is also "realistic" because real human institutions tend to have rules about who may join. If being a covenant has any meaning in the Tribunal, then there will realistically be rules about what does and does not count as a properly constituted covenant.

I think it is particularly helpful for political stories. For political stories you need to have factions that have things and factions that want things; "permission" to found a covenant is such a thing. The covenant founding rules also have story potential both if the player characters are young magi wanting to found a covenant, or if they are established magi acceding to a foundation request. Of course, there is the potential to tell stories about not doing what the Tribunal expects you to do, too.

It is also very easy to bypass the covenant foundation politics/story, if the troupe wants to. You can easily deal with it in a few moments: "The Tribunal votes to recognise the [player character] covenant; the vote passes. Done".

To answer the questions as to why this changed in "Sanctuary of Ice": a Second Edition book called Order of Hermes stated that the Greater Alps limited the formation of new covenants. I was just following that.

The chapter houses (which I didn't invent - I believe they were in an Icelandic book first) were a way of poking a hole in that limitation.

Similarly, OoH said there were only five covenants in Transylvania. and when I was writing the HOH:TL chapter on Tremere I mentioned that. THis locked me in, and then I discovered I was working in an area the size three Western tribunals. The "covenant as contract" iidea is as old as ther first version of Covernants (and it is why the scroll is os prominent on the cover of the new version: the covenant is the agreement). We used it in AtD to work around a barrie I'd put in our way, inadvertently, by grandfathering in data from Second Edition.

IIRC the first chapter house appears in one of the 3rd edition adventures. It is a Fengheld chapter house located in Cherbourg (yeah, Normandy tribunal) with a Flambeau maga. It is an adventure about fighting families iirc. Winter's tale, maybe?

Deadly Legacy, actually. But indeed, it appears there.

Oh, and answering Tellus:

The Dragon and the Bear, page 105. Its origin, not surprisingly, is a ruling to prevent those meddlers from the Rhine from “invading” Poland.

Thanks, I've been looking for that, but since my copy is in dead tree format, the search feature is terrible :slight_smile:

yeah, I have also found the InAu search spells to be much easier than the InHe ones.

So if I read the consensus right it seems that what I see as a change is a mix of implementing restrictions referred to from previous non-canon products and writers thinking it was logical that all tribunals would impose restrictions? Ok, that is part of a general rules creep that has been understandably occurring as the game matures, as for obvious reasons the writers need to flesh out the local tribunal rulings and clarify the Code.

What was bothering me was that in the 3rd and 4th edition books referring to really weak restrictions, like Rome or Novgorod covenants needing a vote to be recognized in their Tribunals, came across at the time I first read them as those tribunals being seen as strict. The new Tribunals being released were becoming progressively more restrictive as the editions wore on, and I don't know how the writing process works, so I don't know how much the writers discuss and take direction from Atlas itself. Which is why I originally asked the question.

Order of Hermes was canonical when I wrote Soi. The idea that cano resets to zeroe with the new edition is novel to 5th.

At that stage the writers didn't discuss anything. We talk a lot more now. Lachie shouted me some kofta balls just the other day.

I think these covenant membership restrictions are perfectly reasonable, and that they are different for each tribunal is reflective of the customs and mores of those tribunals.

I find the process for founding new covenants to be similar to the modern process of achieving a professional license. Typically, doctors, accountants, lawyers, engineers have to past a battery of tests designed by their fellow professionals and meet certain minimum standards. It's entirely reasonable that the existing covenants would demand that new covenants meet certain minimum requirements. It's not a perfect match, I admit.

The restrictions vary, some are inanely harsh. Translyvania new covenants (oppidum) are basically employees or customers of House Tremere. Non-standard as hell. Rhine Tribunal has what I think would be absurd requirements; I'm surprised more covenants aren't bigger jerks about it. Only social pressure keeps them from raising the cost. I don't see that working. And it only takes one covenant to mess up everything.

OTOH, The Theban Tribunal is easy. Sure you need to make friends with a dragon, but... free advancement and power and a team of helpful magi? That strikes me as a super-cool deal. The only issue is you need to learn Greek. Normandy is similarly easy if you are willing to be a vassal. Hell the laws outright encourage it! There is nothing preventing a vassal oath that amounts to: "You give us every pawn of vis from the Seisins we are granting you." They get to keep their leases in what amounts to perpetuity, and you get a covenant! That's a better deal for them than trying to get a lease renewed for the liege. Although why you would spawn a covenant in Normandy is beyond me. (Presumably setting dummy covenants to claim land gets you Wizard War's and general hatred.)

I haven't gotten the fifth tribunal book, so I can't comment. Anyway none of the four ones I have read are perfect. Rhine is super cool if you can jump through all the hoops. Theban is great if you speak greek. Normandy is pretty cool if you can attach yourself to a powerful covenant and don't overly annoy anyone. TV is cool if House Tremere lets you set up, but space is highly limited. However, there are at least two "easy" tribunals to set up covenants in even if the tribunals themselves aren't great.

I tend to disagree. The Normandy rules are custom made to require vassalage almost. Sure you could go on a quest for a vis source and set up on your own, but vassalage is a lot easier. Rhine is so extreme as being a near bar on new covenants. Imagine how many people could buy a house if you needed the whole blocks approval. TV simply can't have new covenants. Theban's requirement is merely "follow this one custom", and don't have a crap charter.

Licenses are more like some basic requirement. If you can do your job you can get it. You don't need to get every doctor's permission to be a doctor. Rhine is about making friends, not standards. Normandy is just "be a vassal". (Or find some vis.) TV is "no". Theban sort of has standards, but they amount to "don't be an ass", nothing to do with competence.

Tests would be things like: Do you have enough magi? Enough resources? A plan for your Aegis? Excepting in TV you could make a covenant and be completely worthless at it.