Wizard War

Games Discussion Ars Magica
7

First of all; I fully concur with YMMV, so of course you can give anything as little or great important or even give it an complete makeover.

Secondly - I would never prefer nor condone my saga to become a rampage of Wizard's Wars. I actually even play in Stonehenge and we haven't had a single War yet and I don't know if it will ever happen. And if I ever had players who wanted to play the bully part I think I would seriously had botched my presaga aligning af expectations. Some might enjoy it - In most cases I wouldn't personally. I also only believe the setting is able to ruin a saga if you let it - in other words, that's if the troupe isn't cohesive.

Thus I certainly didn't speak in favor of the right of might in itself - I just argueed the question of the essence of the Code and Hermetic Law, something I found that some of the former posts had lost sight of. This isn't the same as advocating rampant use of Wizard's War but rather to stress that the use of Wizard's War is regulated not by law but by the political realities - being that this alone would make most sane magi think twice before declaring a War. And I do believe that even though weak tribunals might make it easier I would still make rampant War's an improbability. Not because of law but because of realities.

"Endangering the Order" is actually an explicit High Crime which, whether catch-all or not, I don't believe is used this way that often - especially if you look past the obvious kind of endangerment by interfering with mundane affairs. And in the context of excesive use of Wizard's War (the one time it was used in this regard in the TMRE cited as an exeptional case) I find the "we the powerful and many don't approve of you the one"-formulation might more appropriately be rephrases "we who are powerful because we are many don't approve of you because you as the one is far more powerful than we".

The citation of "certain conditions" from the Peripheral Code only relates to the processual conditions mentioned in the same paragraph; namely the process of how to proper declare the War. This is in the Periphal Code seen as the conditions to let you step outside of the boundaries of the Hermetic Oath and actually sanction the killing af another magus. These condition are nowhere, to my knowledge, portrayed as "conditions" of fairness or just cause. One Tribunal actually, on advice from Flambeau himself, acknowledged this and acquitted a magus of "wrongfully", or for inadequate reasons, declaring a Wizard's War. This is the only other Tribunal ruling cited on the matter in HoH:TL's expansive Guernicus chapter on hermetic law. I believe the same goes for the Code's phrase of "justly executed" - that the operational term isn't about the reason but the way you conduct a Wizard's War. The way you declare it, and that collateral damage isn't allowed. Which of course has to be completely by the book as you would otherwise not enjoy the counterparts forfeited immunity from the protection normally granted by the Oath. In other words that you are up for Quaesitorial trial on murder if you do not.

To conclude: I think this issue is important in understanding the legal frame of the Order. As a balancing equilibrum and not as just. But I'll also reiterate that I'm not making a case of gunslinger mayhem. My point is just that the mechanism holding people back from overdoing Wizard's Wars is the caps presented by political realities, community sentiment and the discouragement of more level-headed magi quite possibly returning the favor on the "wanna-be-bullies". I think there's plenty of cause to discourage players from going on a rampage by enforcing that the NPC magi are independent and nuanced individuals that will, whether alone or in unison, react to the players choices and actions and if needed be, whether backed by hermetic law or not, sanction them. Either by political moves or by using their own claim on declaring Wizard's War.

This is my prefered take on the issue - and I do believe this is close to the published line but do correct me if I'm ignorant or pigheaded - this however doesn't change my strong adherence to YMMV and these are my preferences only. Whatever makes you tick makes me glad on your behalf! :smiley:

8

If your players go around declaring Wizard Wars, they shall not complain when they get their collective arses kicked. It's a tacit authorization for the storyguide to play dirty. Unless their target is a complete pansy, anyone actively involved who's not covered by a Parma should expect to die. Painfully.

They'd better not underestimate their victim, who may very well have a Rod of Smiting The Hermetic Magus, possibly borrowed from a Covenant mate. They'd also better not piss of anyone, lest they end up being served with a declaration of Wizard War. Possibly by several magi at once. Without even bothering to bring charges of "Endangering the Order" at Tribunal. Flambeaus may be easier to persuade to take actions than Quaesitores.

Finally, they'd better make sure they take into account their Tribunal's rulings. There might be something to trip them up... how many of them actually have a score in Code of Hermes?

9

I agree with Fruny...

If your players are "going rampant" with WW, then simply make that "Whimpy" magus over there a "Wolf in Sheep's clothing". It is kind of a let down for players to attack that poor Verditius, until they find out he isn't very combustable, but his Rego Corpus/Mentem spells/items work fine...right before he cuts their throat....

Basically the whole thing revolves around resonableness. If you declare WW on one Magus...the two of you had a problem...now it's resolved.
If you have WW with another Magus..well, that can happen too....
When you start to have problems with more than that (and you haven't been killed yet), then either you are trying to control the Order, or you are a social misfit (among misfits), and your constant killings are eliminating the Order one Magus at a time...You have to go in either case...

My two Pawns of Herbam

10

I cannot remember which edition it was but wasn't there a time where a wizards war is only legal if a scroll declaring wizard's war, witnessed by a quaesitor is delivered to the target.

If you use this version then wizard's war cannot be declared without permission from the quaesitor. If the storyteller doesn't want to give permission then he doesn't have to. A perfect way of regulating the use in your game.

11

Thanks for the input on this troubling matter.

I imagine that a wizard war would be relatively limited in that, like a declared feud between clans, families, Hatfields and McCoys once a single declaration is made between wizard A against wizard Z, wizard Z will have "kin" and could rapidly escalate beyond the control of A. As one can declare a war for vegence's sake, and Z could hide in covenant and if A damages the covenant the U,X,Y of the covenant could get pissed and extract vegeance.

From a game theory approach to the problem, it would seem that A is only going to declare a war if: 1) makes a gross error in judgement, 2) has "kin" to back him up when the McCoy's come back on against the Hatfield A, 3) when A is really powerful and believes himself immune to retribution or 4) when Z is friendless. So, there is a self-enforcement mechanism in response to an overly agressive magus, vengeance that serves as a nonlegal mechanism to balancing the variety of interests within the order.

Although... I still like the idea of a quaestor giving a check-off or recordation of the event.

12

The HoH:TL states that the Redcap delivering the declaration of the Wizard's War is the legal witness of the declaration, but that some tribunals might have more elaborate procedures - so a quaesitorial witness might be a likely local custom. The role of the Redcap also gives them their usual possible role of being able to tweak things by "delaying" the message a bit in order to buy time for one or more of the parties involved.

I still wouldn't advocate giving the Quaesitors the power to regulate or deny Wizard's War. They might - granted you have a tribunal that have a local custom of the quaesitor giving witness to the declaration - haul the process but not entirely stop it. Otherwise the Quaesitors only power is to ensure that the proper procedures are followed.

As another testiment to the fact that declaring Wizard's War is a legal right no matter the motives or reasons, and thus cannot be denied by the Quaesitors, can be found i HoH:TL (p. 57) under the headline "Lawful Tyranny". This paragraph is about the trouble with magi under charge of a crime declaring Wizard's War against the "prosecuting principle" - the magus who is going to lead the case against them - and thus undermining hermetic law! Here, again, the problem with Wizard's Wars is not solved by law or quaesitorial control but by ensuring that such an approach would be very unattractive by either transferring the case to a more powerful magus that might not be bested in a War, preparing to hide the targeted prosecuting principle, or by using Guernici advocates defended by Hoplites.

Just remember that while two warring magi have forfeit immunity it is only against each other - thus third parties can only legally become directly involved if they themselves declare a Wizard's War or if a part in the War does something to forfeit their immunity versus said third party.

I totally agree. And at the same time a legal mechanism, namely the possibility of Wizard's War, serves to balance certain other interests, namely more warlike magi that might otherwise leave the Order, undermine or even war it (Flambeau...).

YMMV and even though this is how the 5th edition HoH:TL present hermetic law it also emphazised that this is traditional hermetic law and that there's plenty of room for changing and adapting this to one's own saga. These differences, and that the published line also supports it explicitly, is IMO one of the strengths of Ars Magica. I prefer to run a traditionalist approach to hermetic law and thus Wizard's War is an "inalienable" right, and the tab on its use is the powerbalance within the Order stressing that in spite of Trianoma and Bonisagus (the Parma) efforts the Order is still a bit frail. Or maybe that's exactly why their efforts are so worth celebrating. I prefer to run a traditionalist hermetic law - even if I don't personally find it endearing - but not as a fixed absolute, especially since I have plans of plots contesting it and am also planning a character who's a transitionalist Guernici advocate - the blind Jew from Prague mentioned in an earlier thread

13

Within my Saga and interpretation of hermetic law there is no legal restraint on wizards war the contol is social. If an older magus is putting pressure on younger mages by threatening them with wizards war it is likely that an older or more combative magus will threaten him with wizards war as he has made himslef fair game (Live by the Sword , die by the sword) .
Likewise if a mage seems to have no reason for waging wizards war then his victim may well be championed by an older magi from house Guernicus or his own house in the interests of justice or by a freind.
If on the other hand people think the wizards war is a result of the behaviour of the target then they are likely to shrug and leve them to it , maybe cheering on the more popular of the mages.
I am currently seeing if some of my pc's can be persuaded to resort to wizards war by having an NPC magus with particularly unpleasent habits annoy them but without said magus actually breaking the code

14

This passage is causing me no ends of headaches, as it seems entirely contradictory to the code as writen, and interpreted in the paragraphs before it.

This seems to implicitly state that you CANNOT declare wizards war for the purposes of seeking vengence against the winner.

This also seems to support the case that vengence for another Wizard War is infact, illeagal.

And, for sake of clarity, the case in question:

Things that are especialy confusing:

  1. "Dominicus of House Jerbiton was charged with seeking retribution after an amicus of his was slain in a Wizards war, by declaring Wizard war on the victor." Does this not specificly contradict "should I be slain in a Wizard War no retribution shall fall on the magus who slayed me." and "It also forbids other magi from persecuting the victor for the slaying."?

  2. "Dominicus claimed the charge was invalid, as it sought retribution for his own Wizard War and the code protected him from such charges." How is this his wizard war? Aparantly the war was between his slain amicus and the wizard who slayed him.

  3. "Flambou proposed this provision of the Code for the express purpose of seeking vengence, therefore the defense wqas sound. " The text, as Flambou specificly wanted, as writen, says you CAN"T do this...?

15

I suspect the Code is a living document, subject to various interpretations over the centuries.

I totally agree that these two things are contradictory, but sometimes politics does that. What's the true story? Only the Storyguide in your saga knows for sure. Maybe the Quesidoris at the particular Tribunal hated Dominicus, or owed House Flambeau a debt.

16

Here is my take on the matter...

  1. The initial magus declared Wizard War on the amicus of Dominicus. This was a valid declaration of Wizard War and within the rights of the magus.

  2. Dominicus declared Wizard War on the magus that slew his amicus. Though he did it to avenge his slain friend, it is his right to declare a Wizard War and this is a valid and legal declaration.

  3. Bringing charges against Dominicus for the Wizard War HE declared (not the initial Wizard War that resulted in the death of the amius) violates the Code, as that is seeking retribution for a legally declared and executed Wizard War.

I think the key here is that Wizard War is a trump card in the Code... and "vengeance" and "retribution" are not necessarily the same thing. Legally, you can declare Wizard War for any reason, and be completely within your rights. But that doesn't mean someone else can't declare Wizard War against you (or even a tribunal declare Wizard March)... as that is perfectly within their rights.

A Tribunal, however, cannot punish you for declaring and executing legal Wizard War by, say, fining you vis, or killing your familiar, or any of the other common punishments, as this would be retribution.

17

I see this interesting thread has been revived - and it revives me as well!

Actually the problem, as I see it is that the Code isn't a living document - the is exactly why the Transitionalists are so ardent about wanting a change - it is a crystalisation of the power structures at the time of its making. And I can't help to add that such is a very common historical phenomenon (for a modern equivalent just look at the UN Security Council). In line with your post it is a political document. This also underlines the theme I've stubbornly been promoting in this thread - that the Code and the equilibrum of the Order isn't an ideological concept of fairness, though there are inklings of such, it is a compromise to ensure the mechanisms allowing the Order to exist in some what peace. It stresses the volatile and potential volient equilibrum. The Code exists as a peacekeeper and vent for power that might otherwise bring down the Order.

The Code is only a living document - not because it leaves much room for huge deviations - when local tribunal power structures are mobilised enough to bend them..

degamer, I understand your headaches - I had them with that passage as well. The key to the paragraphs in the Code and the example from the specific ruling in the case of Dominicus is that the term retribution carries a significance beyond just revenge - it is revenge seen as authorities punishment of someone convicted. Thus when the Code speaks of immunity towards retribution it is simply saying that it is not lawfully wrong to kill someone during Wizard's War so you can't "prosecute" the killer on grounds of breaking the code. In other words your opponent had forfeit immunity and thus you yourself are immune to the letter of the law (that you may not kill another magus). The sames go for the word persecuting. The problem is that these words have become readily used substitutes for revenge - but in the letter of the Code they are in their original sense: juridical terms of what "authorities" might do. In this case the magi using the Code to slay a magus. You might ask why these paragraphs are there - some would find these statements self-evident (which I guess is a reason that it is so easy to interpret it differntly) - they are mainly there for two reasons: I) Many of the Founders would never have joined the Order if it entailed giving it certain rights - and thus giving up some of their on freedoms; II) Hermetic Law actually grants any gathering of magi the right to exercise the law (judging AND carrying out the sentence) except only that they might be refuted and overruled by a bigger gathering of magi (namely the tribunals and Grand Tribunal) under the pains of being punished themselves. With this in mind it is rather important that the Code explicitly states that retribution - in the sense of a legal action - isn't allowed.

This however doesn't include the "universal" right of declaring Wizard's War. A right so universal that it is even you right to declare it against someone, even a Quaesitor, about to prosecute you within the Code for real breaches of the Code! Fittingly the HoH:TL nominates this as Lawfull Tyrany (p. 57).

But just, as is my habit, to reiterate: YMMV! Even though this discussion naturally rests on the text of the published Ars material - and that we are arguing the interpretation of those - anything goes in all our respective sagas. These variation are just the better the more informed we are of the original text - and to achieve that the forum is eminent.

On a different and much more general note I think it would also be interesting to discuss what kind of Hermetic Law people prefer in their sagas? Most often we seem to get bugged down in the interpretation of what is and painstakingly trying to apply these preferences to this interpretations instead of simply stating what one prefers.

18

After reading the posts, I'll put up what happened in our saga...it was interesting in that it didn't get out of hand

One of our Magi was actively traveling about looking to trade a large quantity of Vis. She was attacked after leaving another Covenant. During the fight she went into Twighlight (oops?). The attacking magus fled because this could be seen from the Covenant....
After recovering from her fight, the Maga in question set about finding her attacker. She located what she thought was her attacker, and spoke with a visiting Quaesitor, who took it from there.
He went to the Covenant in question and questioned the Magus in question. The general concensious was that he would be charged with attempting to murder a member of the order at the forthcoming Tribunal.
The next full moon a politely worded Wizard War declaration arrived. Several weeks later, while the Covenant was casting its Aegis, he attacked. (We won't discuss some of the help the Maga got during the fight from others :wink: ). The battle soon found its way into the Maga's sanctum (she chased him in there) where a vicious battle ensued. (In another thread I asked about the fact that spells that do little damage can't kill someone, only do light wounds.. :laughing: ) After the fight, the Magus left, and the visiting Quaesitor confirmed the death of the Maga in question.
The night of next moon, a declaration of Wizards War arrived at the Magus' door, courtesty of the Tytalus from our covenant. The Tytalus killed him about a week later.
No further Wizards war have been announce yet...
The Quaesitor has closed his books on the matter because both the parties involved in the orginal attack have been slain, so no charges can be filed or filed against..
Of course there have been other ramifications..but no Wars....yet.
:unamused:

19

Quite interesting. Why did one PC delcare Wizard War on the other after the first was dead?

I mentioned that the Hermetic Code is a living document earlier because as I see it, it can be added to with the Peripheral Code in order to cover things that wern't thought of during its creation and to change those things in it which fall out of favor.

As for the type of Hermetic Law I prefer, I like the idea that there is this rigid structure that compels the PCs to act in a predictable way to certain situations, and that leads them to the same expectations of the NPCs. But I also like them knowing that there are ways around it if you are bold enough, and that in reality the situation is like the Old American West, where they're on their own till they can get a Sheriff in town. Oh and that all Sheriff's aren't entirely trustworthy.

20

Thanks for the input - I vividly remember you posts on those "silly-moments" when the mighty magi fought!

I agree mostly with you second tought - the one of falling out of favor - but I reckon it would more be along the lines of ammendments than true change.. I think the Founders might have thought of a lot of things but I still prefer in my saga to present it as a political result more than a utilitarian. An interesting question is if, and if so how, the Code itself might be changed? Surely some fraction - such as the Transitionalist - might be interested in such changed. See the issue with the Peripheral Code is that it can only offer interpretations or additions to the Code - I doesn't seem to be apparent that it could actually change the original wording, which in several cases makes somethings rather impossible to change by using the Peripheral alone?

I really like your wording! For my saga - and especially because some metaplots of my saga are deeply rooted in the Schims War and especially how the Order tackled it (and the PC now started to inquire into things better left in the past...) - I stress the Code as an uneasy compromise. A way to keep the mighty egos of the mighty magi sufficiently in check to ward of a collapse of a somewhat potentially unstable Order. This almost happened during the Schism War. So certainly yeah: the Sheriff might not be entirely thrustworthy... But he might have many agendas - and not necessary only agendas of personal power. One agenda might simply being willing to pay the price - even sacrificing justice - to keep the peace...

21

Quite interesting. Why did one PC delcare Wizard War on the other after the first was dead?

Well, I didn't really ask...but I can guess...

  1. He killed one of his sodales..
  2. He tore up he tower. If we were going to use the tower over, WE had to clean it up... :blush:
  3. He attacked her originally for the purpose of taking her Vis....

Would you want him as a neighbor?
:open_mouth:

(plus, she isn't dead....no witnesses... :wink: )

22

I want to ask interesting questions too... :frowning:

lol :laughing:

Two things make we wonder:

There is an interesting issue in the fact that he attacked while they were performing their covenants Aegis. This strikes an interestin case in the sense that while the two magi involved in the Wizard's War have mutual forfeit immunity - but this doesn't go for the other magi of your covenant. Although the magus might attack the maga unrestricted in her very home - the potential of disrupting the Aegis might be seen as an attack on the other magi of her covenant thus he forfeits his immunity toward them as it might be seen to rob them of their magical power and even threatening their lives. In other words if this played the way you told he might have just given them a carte blanche to kill him - at that time and place that is. In retrospect they might have been able to strike a case against him at tribunal.

Then again I guess that anyone with a resident Tytalus don't have to use such options anyhow.... lol

You do mean a week into the War right? Or did the Tytalus itch so much he couldn't wait the month? :wink:

Lovely :exclamation: Ramifications = Roleplay :exclamation:

23

I feel the same way about it. They could have killed him there and then.

24

Another excuse to help in a wizards war other than 'he broken our aegis'. The fellow mages in the covenant who attacked the invading mage are safe depending on how much they have been told. If their fellow who was killed in the battle had not informed them about the forthcoming wizards war, then an invading mage attacking to kill their sodales would seem unjustified and thus it was permissable for them to intervene. In this case they have the best legal position the less they know. Any call by the attacker that he was prosecuting a legal wizards war could probably be ignored with the excuse that you weren't sure if you believed him. Without seeing the paperwork and knowing that such an attack was legal you erred on the side of caution by defending your sodales, as your covenant charter demanded.

25

Well, since the Quaesitor was sitting at the table when it was delivered, nobody could claim ignorance.. :cry:

...Not really. She wasn't casting the spell, only participating in the Ritual..I guess that would depend on how much someone is involved when not actually casting...<shrug???>.. As long as no collateral damage...

Nah, a week into the war..
:laughing:

Roleplay???

Well, the Quaesitor threw him across the room for screwing up his work...
:unamused:

26

Ahm ... that would require an enormous amount of goodwill towards the 'erring' magi at Tribunal. The Code of Hermes has no provision excusing ignorance, or valueing intentions over results.
So if a magus has killed another without being able to prove the killed one's forfeit immunity, he better prepare for the worst.

Kind regards,

Berengar