using a petty noble to control a castle...

...and seeing that petty noble becoming a big one...

My players were wanting a castle as convenant. They found a petty noble with a big empty castle in Brittany, conclude a deal with him, managing to give nothing in exchange of their presence (in fact the noble is now played by a player) and establish their convenant inside the walls, in the abandoned towers and caves of the castle.

This is allowed in Normandy Tribunal by the ruling of 1095 and nobody objected on that point in the tribunal.

However they soon became a pawn in Tytali schemes and it happened that the petty noble they choose might get the Duchy of Brittany crown.
Establishing its convenant in the castle of an unsignificant noble is one thing, keeping it in a castle of a Peer of France is another.

Then could the Order close its eyes on the situation?
What arguments could be risen pro or con the magi staying in the castle?

Hi! I think there are two strong arguments against the magi. First, they could be charged with "interference with mundanes", because there will be a lot of new servants, knights and clerics that will come to greet, serve, or even blackmail him. They would be closely watched (moreso if they haven´t the Gentle Gift, with a terrible outcome if one of its magi have the Blatant Gift or similar Flaws). Second, they could be ALSO charged with being "court wizards", helping a major noble like that (not that they need proof, because helping him in any way (even defending the castle) would have repercussions in many lands (wich could be in control of lonely wizards, even covenants).

They have only (i think) a possible argument, and that´s that they (the Tribunal / Quaesitors) can´t prove anything of that, and that they can´t accuse them of something they haven´t done still. It would depend on their Hermetic political power, but if they are defending against a Tytalus in Normandy Tribunal, the horizon is grim... :stuck_out_tongue:

If the Count of Brittany only controls a single castle, he is not much of a peer of the realm. So the easy answer is make him move around, like nobles tended to do, and place teh castle under a castellan's control (a new dupe). The magi will need to lay low each time the noble visits, but that is it. This is the situation with quite a few covenants out there, so no biggie anymore.


Couldn't the friendship links between the new Duke of Brittany and the magi be a legal problem for them?

Or should they explicitly work for him to be guilty?

Depends who's their enemy in the tribunal.

Mere freindship can be wrangled by enemies into "aiding", as opposed to mere conversation.

Actually they can strike back at the tytalians for messing up with mundanes as well, so the potential for a tribunal conflit is extremely cool.


Yes, and conflict makes things better, as any good tytalus magus could say. :slight_smile:

By the way, how do you present tribunal conflicts to your players?

I depict them as electoral campaigns, with shitloads of clientelism, corruption, blackmail and such nasty things. It makes the game entertaining and my players know what to do in that context.

More or less the same. We have even seen tactical wizard wars declared so that magi that were willing to vote for the other party (or that are great orators supporting the other side) fear attending the tribunal.


Isn't, accoding to the code, the tribunal a no-wars-land, some sort of a neutral ground?

Indeed. But you have to move to the tribunal first and return home afterwards, right? :smiling_imp:


Thank you very much for this (quite nasty I dare say) idea. I will try it on my players and see how it works... :smiling_imp: