Who are your friends and are they also murderers?

The question of "damage done" is only relevant to appropriate punishment - not whether or not the act itself violated the Code. If no damage is done, the Code may still have been clearly broken, and vice versa.

Oh! "legal affairs" vs "illegal affairs", not vs "personal affairs" - got it. Doy. :blush:

Oh, so the interpretation is

"The Tribunal has ruled that it's illegal to scry upon a non-magus, if by doing so you learn about the magus's activities, unless it's on a bandit grog who was a witness to those activites, and/or they later proved to be questionable." (Could you tell me where to find the original of this?)

"Illegal" is illegal is illegal - the circumstances may minimize punishment, but they do not change the fact of the matter.

And without having read the passage, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that to "forfeit immunity" a mage must actually have broken the Code, not be suspected of breaking the Code - proving at a later time that he ~may~ have bent the Code (in the eyes of one maga) is not justification for that maga scrying before she knew whether or not he had broken the Code.

By your own admission, she did not know the situation before she scried - so how could she know he had forfeited immunity??? You cannot rationalize an illegal search by the evidence that illegal search reveals. It's still illegal.

What, if it turned out he had not, suddenly those same actions become more illegal? Anyone can scry on anyone, so long as that target can then be proven to have broken some Code? :confused:

Further, I hate to point this out, but magi are not the arbiters of "legal vs illegal" in the Order. Tribunals are. So your argument that he broke the Code would have to be supported by Tribunal Judgement first - and until then, she is as justly accused as he (and maybe more so).

(Wouldn't surprise me if forfeiting immunity is a bit more specific and difficult than you're painting it, requiring a previous accusation to or ruling by a Tribunal, or even authorization of House Guernicus, and not just vague suspicions and unjustified actions by any nosy mage who wanders by.)

Laws, or in this case Tribunal rulings, are not made in a vacuum. They are made to address real or precieved problems.

The rulings concerning scrying are, according to the core rules, extremely strict. Even being invisible in the presence of another magus can be ruled as a violation. This tells me that Hermetic magi are a paranoid and suspicious bunch who jealously guard their right to privacy. I do not see that group letting a violation like this go. While the punishment may not be fatal, I think a Tribunal would definately have harsh words for our inquisitive maga.

Meanwhile, rulings concerning interfering with mundanes are much vaguer. I can see a firm alliance of Flamebeau and Tytalus magi passionately defending their "right" to do gervious bodily harm to mundane authorities who threaten them... or look like they might possibily think about the idea of maybe threatening them in the future. Meanwhile, I see more moderate voices argueing that such actions invite a conflict with the mudanes that the Order cannot hope to win. Ultimately, I forsee harsh words for our aggressive magus as well.

On another line of thought, I wonder how our "Tribunal" here would rule had the maga used her magics to question the forester, rather than on the grog?

IIRC, forfeit immunity does NOT need any formal recognition! In fact if you find someone in your sanctum, his immunity is lost. This holds true for all other charges. Each mage may slay another when she thinks that one has broken the code in a manner that tribunal would march him. However, next tribunal she will have to respond to her actions and if her case against the slain magus is deemed invalid, she will be marched! Guernici are fully aware about any of their decisions made due to their investigations may lead them to this fate which is the reason why they are extremely carefull when announcing a wizzard's march. Yet according to HoH: TL no Guernicus ever was convicted of falsely calling someone to be marched.


By your own admission, she did not know the situation before she scried - so how could she know he had forfeited immunity??? You cannot rationalize an illegal search by the evidence that illegal search reveals. It's still illegal.

Actually, she knew there was incident. She know that there had been deaths and she knew that witness had escaped. What she did not know was the precise details of the incident and stories that count and Marko's characters told were different. Especially since marko character told covenant that his companion slew the forester and implied he moved fast to give room. The multi-cast four wounds that weep on the grog that escaped was something else.

The scrying came after Marko's character warned covenant of the incident and the count told his original story in detail as he knew it. The fact is that our neighbor's lands are now going to be somewhat hostile to us as all their patrols will be more likely to kill first and ask questions later even if the Lord is our ally. They lost someone after all. (those damn difficult underlings that prefer to handle things themselves rather than trouble lord).

Yeah, she probably could get tribunal convinced of forfiet immunity. Especially since the Guernicus would not want to limit their investigation after admitted negative incident with mundane and no magical secrets ever touched.

What I should have done is chased down the other forrester and made sure to eliminate him too. But I am not a psycho killer. Just an Apromor magus :laughing:.

This is fun! It's like a littke mock tribunal that has no direct effect on the game but can influence interesting story ideas :smiley:

Anyways, I was not in forfiture. I never interfered with mundanes, they interfered with me. I have the right to protect myself. No ruin or even inconvenience was brought down upon my sodales. If anything, the counts men should learn not to be so haughty and arrogant when dealing with "scholars". Perhaps next time they won't be so quick to try and lay hands upon an innocent magus. They may choose to treat him with the respect and affability he is due, rather than try to deprive him of his natural rights and murder his servants. Yes, Murder! They murdered my man. My companion, Simon, reacted as any sane man would upon seeing his friend murdered in cold blood by someone abusing their authority. He retaliated.

And I was fully forthright and honest when I explained what happened. I was accosted by two men, one of them killed my man first, Simon killed him, the othet forrester fled, and I destroyed all the evidence (I Perdo-ed both bodies, tied all of tthe forresters possessions in a bundl tied to a rock, and dropped it into the river). The count and the other forrester don't even know he is dead.

So she already had the truth :slight_smile:
She could have picked the forrester's brain first, and needed to do no more than that to placate the situation as it turned out. She could have also asked me my permission to mind-scan my men. I would have gladly cooperated :laughing:

I am not actually going to bring up charges, and my character will probably never mention the incident. Need to get in on good terms with these magi so that they will accept me as a member. I think I have the qualities they will need in order to survive and prosper under the yoke of a fascist forest patrol and an oppresive leige covenant :wink:

Almost the same, but not quite.

The foresters came with hostile intent and Markos response was to teleport away. The foresters shouldnt have attacked from that, gotten stunned or surprised perhaps, but not instantly killed a grog. That shows they DID have hostile intent. If neutral their first reaction wouldnt have been to attack the instant when something odd happens.
But the whole is extremely near the line, and its easy to say he crossed it even if i dont think so.
While teleporting away MAY be a way to prepare for an attack, it is NOT initiating hostilities. Killing someone IS.

The maga DID cross the line, BUT did so in direct response to Marko´s actions and the need to "fix" the whole damn thing...

Your clear intent in reading the mind of the forester was to find out about Marko's character's activities, so proving a state of forfeit is the only hope of beating a charge of scrying. Discovering magical secrets by scrying is the worst breach of the clause, but it is not the only one. Anything another magus does that is not a hermetic crime is protected from scrying (though covenant defenses are often treated leniently, not that that is relevant here).

Its not at all clear that Marko's character broke the code. Defending oneself in the fashion he did is not 'interference with mundanes'. TL clearly explains that that provision is mainly about forming alliances and getting entangled in political matters. Perhaps a case that he endangered Ladyphoenix' covenant could be made, but it sounds like the count came to ask questions of the 'scholars', not persecute them. Given that said count is apparently the subject of repeated mental manipulation by said maga, it seems unlikely that she was in any danger...

I think if this came before a Tribunal, the result would be both magi earning the opprobrium of their fellows, but ladyphoenix would be the only one to be convicted of a crime.

My dear soldalis, would you like to join the guild of the Ash? Upon joining us and pledging to hold up our aims, we will give you proper guild training including a season's study with Phillipus Niger archmage and follower of Flambeau, lineage of Apromor. At the end of your training we will give you a letter of reccommendation to join a convent suiting you. Waddenzee will most likely be very happy to meet you.

"opprobrium"???!!! :open_mouth:

You win the word of the month prize, V! MAD RESPECT! Approbations, even! (For having the balls to use that word, much less just know it!) :laughing:

  1. Phiilpus Niger is not alive yet. Rhine tribunal in 1059.
  2. He is a member of the Ash guild with Guild Training
  3. He was coming to our covanent with a letter of recommendation from the Flambeau at Durenmar (his Paren)

The count had dealing with the covenant but with members that were gentle gifted, friendly and outgoing and saved him. They only had three men at arms (grogs) at the time and they were dressed like professional soldiers and conducted themselves as such with respect for his mundane authority.

This was first time for these men dealing dark sorcery: Someone that dressed in black, hooded his face so his features couldn't be seen, blatant gift, cultivated sinister and threatening nature. He was accompanied by three brigands. He would not say where he was going and then openly displayed magic by disappear from in front them to a distance.

This is what starts witch hunts of Mundanes trying to find and kill wizards. Geee, Paris is not safe for wizards in our saga right now because dark sorcery affected a noblewoman of high rank that as things worked out, there was major purge of the beggers of Paris to kill the sorcerers hiding among them.

:smiley:, Valten of Flambeau at your service, card carrying Ash Guild member, Lineage and School of Apromor :wink:.

This game is set some time bacl, mid 11th century, less than a generation since the Schism War. My parens is the anscestor of Philipius Niger (basically the same character with a different name).

Glad to know that I am noticed and respected by my guild brothers :laughing:.

Edit, this bit below is all wrong:

No because she didn't use magic on YOU. Sure she scried so mundanes, but that's perfectly legitimate (and if wasn't all of House Jebiton would be wizard's marched about weekly. If she had scried the guards and one of them had thought "Gee looks like some of my solades are investigating me, I hope they don't find out I'm a member of the order of Hermes or I'll have to explain what's happening." she would be guility of scrying.

Ok, so why I think she's OK by the code is that the affair became hers as soon as the Count came in and started questioning her.

You are correct, Mike - that is "all wrong". :wink:

There is no "escape clause" in the Code, no "justifiable Scrying", no excuse that carries any weight re Guilt - tho' that ~might~ be taken into consideration in sentencing/punishment.

The Code works like that quite often - technically clearly guilty, but the punishment is light because "your heart was in the right place" (or they just don't like "the other guy"). :wink:

However, personal business, or even Covenant business, is not "in the right place"; not even if you claim you're being a free-lance enforcer of the Code - that's still no license to scry.