Wizard's March Question

[Ramidel]

If there's a "need" for a Wizard's March that's so dire that an emergency Tribunal would have to be convened, though, the usual procedure is for a Quaesitor to call the March and ask forgiveness rather than permission.

[Jonathan.Link]

Either ask for forgiveness or it's a centrally located and easily accessible location to request a Tribunal. Being renounced posthumously is, of course, rather likely, but fraught with some element of risk. Imagine the poor slob who gets framed.

[ExarKun]

@Jonathan.Link

A Tribunal can be convened at any time with 12 magi from 4 different covenants. It's not strictly held every 7 years if there is sufficient need. Transylvania hold Tribunal every year.

Do you have any reference to those two affirmations? I did not remember such rule and it's interesting.

[Berengar]

@ExarKun

@Jonathan.Link

A Tribunal can be convened at any time with 12 magi from 4 different covenants. It's not strictly held every 7 years if there is sufficient need. Transylvania hold Tribunal every year.

Do you have any reference to those two affirmations? I did not remember such rule and it's interesting.

For the latter see AtD p.20 box Annual Tribunals.

The former is more tricky. We have:

@"ArM5 p.14 [i

Tribunals[/i]"]A legal Tribunal must be attended, in person, by at least twelve magi from at least four different covenants. There must be one Quaesitor present to oversee the legality of the proceedings, and while the Quaesitor does not vote, he does count towards the quorum.

This only states the "12 magi from 4 different covenants" as a necessary condition. And we also have:

@"HoH:TL p.49 [i

Voting Rights[/i]"]The term Tribunal, as used in the Oath, is now interpreted to apply to the Grand Tribunal and each magus’s residential Tribunal. Each regional Tribunal needs to be officially recognized by the Grand Tribunal before it is valid.

So 1220 AD it is no longer true, that any "12 magi from 4 covenants" can meet in Tribunal and then decide over every matter that comes up.
The Lotharingian sodales from Rhine (GotF p.29 box) and Normandy (TLatL p.115f) Tribunals otherwise would have founded their own Tribunal long ago.

Cheers

[Jonathan.Link]

I wasn't speaking about the political subdivision, but the meeting. As I read it, the number of attendees from the different covenants is [strike]the same[/strike] [i]what is necessary for it to be a legitimate and legally binding gathering of said political subdivision.

Ars Magica's use of Tribunal is imprecise. I try and use a capital 'T' Tribunal to denote the political subdivision and a small 't' tribunal to denote the gathering, alternatively, I also use the term tribunal gathering if I think there's some ambiguity here. The context of the discussion suggested that we were discussing the gathering, so I didn't add it. Thanks for helping me to make it clear, One Shot.[/i]

This message has been edited, anything in italics is what I added in the edit.

[Berengar]

@Jonathan.Link

Ars Magica's use of Tribunal is imprecise.

Yes.

@"ArM5 p.13 box [i

The Hermetic Oath[/i]"]I will abide by the decisions made by fair vote at Tribunal. I will have one vote at Tribunal, and I will use it prudently. I will respect as equal the votes of all others at Tribunal.

So the Oath refers to the Tribunal meeting, not to political subdivisions. So

@"HoH:TL p.49 [i

Voting Rights[/i]"]The term Tribunal, as used in the Oath, is now interpreted to apply to the Grand Tribunal and each magus’s residential Tribunal. Each regional Tribunal needs to be officially recognized by the Grand Tribunal before it is valid.

also refers to the Tribunal meetings.

This puts the magi of the regional Tribunal (as recognized political subdivision) in charge to establish the rules for their Tribunal meetings. Unless prevented by Grand Tribunal decisions, they can in regular Tribunal meeting empower other meetings of "12 magi from 4 covenants", but need not do so.
The Transsylvanian magi did e. g. empower their yearly "emergency" Tribunal meetings.
The magi from other Tribunals (as recognized political subdivisions) might not have done so. And without any such previous empowerment by a regular Tribunal meeting, "12 magi from 4 covenants" from the region can decide nothing that binds other magi through their Oath.

Cheers

P. S.: Does somebody recall the film 'The Oxbow Incident' by Lamar Trotti and William A. Wellman? There's an excellent treatment of the social dynamics and consequences of an illegal impromptu Tribunal meeting.

[Flarg]

Is a Quesitor strictly nescessary to march a magus?
Say if Tim the Enchanter ex Flambeau witnesses Drolog the gay ex Jerbiton talking to a demon. Can Tim not just immediately renounce Drolog, declare a Wizard's march and slay him?
Later a Tribunal or Quesitor may have to ratify Tim's decision in order to clear him of the high crime of killing his sodales in a unjustly declared wizard's war?

I mean if someone is committing a high crime such as dealing with demons, molesting the fay or bringing ruin to his sodales you don't have to wait for a Quesitor do you?
In the Canon setting there are two Quesitors in the Rhine, one a senile old man who doesn't like investigating anything the other a wanderer who may be hard to find.
Would you not stop the said magus in some way first, then talk to a Quesitor or just wait til someone brings it up?

Albert: Where is Drolog? I haven't heard from him in a while? ¨
Tim: Oh, I marched him last year, he was clearly violating his oaths and endangering me. I intend to bring it up on next Tribunal in 4 years.

Edit: After sleeping on it and reading about the Code I have following addendum to the case of Tim the enchanter. If Tim decides to march Drolog on his own the moment he discovers Drolog is clearly commiting a high crime for wich he would be cast out for at a Tribnunal, then it is OK. Tim must however immediately inform a Quesitor of this, afterwords. The Quesitor must then bring the case before Tribnunal to ratify the decision.

A Quesitor can always march a magus on the spot and must always have the decision ratified on Tribunal.

[Berengar]

@Praenuntius

Is a Quesitor strictly nescessary to march a magus?
Say if Tim the Enchanter ex Flambeau witnesses Drolog the gay ex Jerbiton talking to a demon. Can Tim not just immediately renounce Drolog, declare a Wizard's march and slay him?

Tim can't renounce anybody, can't declare a Wizard's march against anybody, and if he slays a sodales he is in violation of his Oath. With such actions he throws himself completely at the mercy of his surviving sodales, and can only rely on a valid Tribunal recognizing later the sufficient (HoH:TL p.45f) Forfeit Immunity of Drolog - which doesn't get any more likely with Drolog dead.
Futhermore, if "Tim <...> witnesses Drolog <...> talking to a demon", Tim can be wrong about the situation in far more ways than I can list here. Drolog may e. g. not recognize the being he talks to as a demon (see HoH:TL p.51). Or Tim might have identified it as a demon by mistake. Demons like to dupe violent or careless magi.

@Praenuntius

Later a Tribunal or Quesitor may have to ratify Tim's decision in order to clear him of the high crime of killing his sodales in a unjustly declared wizard's war?

Unless Tom the Reckless ex Tytalus saw Tim slay Drolog, "renounced" Tim on the spot for killing a sodalis, "declared a Wizard's march" and slew him. 8)

A Quaesitor in Good Standing (HoH:TL p.61f) Calling a Wizard's March (HoH:TL p.63) independently of her Tribunal does so, to assume complete responsibility before the Tribunal and thereby protect her helpers. Thus Calling a Wizard's March puts herself in the same situation as Tim: she and her helpers must trust her judgement and thorough knowledge of all the stakes and risks. But by attracting helpers, the Quaesitor in Good Standing greatly improves her own chances of success.

The kings of England in the 13th century went through great effort, to reserve capital justice to their higher courts. So do Tribunals of magi - even quite corrupt ones - try to keep this right to the Tribunal meeting.

Cheers

[Flarg]

Tim can't renounce anybody, can't declare a Wizard's march against anybody, and if he slays a sodales he is in violation of his Oath.

I agree that he completly throws himself at the mercy of Tribunal.
Tribuanls renounce magi, and Quesitors can certainly do so without a Tribunal first. Indeed TL states that most marches occur outside Tribunals and are later ratified by the Tribunal. It also states that never has a Tribunal failed to ratify a Quesitors decision of a Wizard's march.

But I can not find anywhere it explicitly states that non-Quesitors can not renounce a magus. Possibly they have a poor chance of gaining later support. But if ratified later?...
Say you are in a remote covenant. An elder magus emerges from twillight, rather deranged he announces his intention to rid the countryside of all life and sets out for the nearest village. OK as long as he leaves no witnesses this is legal. But his rampage continues and he wipes out a faierie forest and heads towards a larger settled area intent on killing all in the nearby valley.
A Quesitor is maybe a month away. The nearby magi find an arcane connection to the deranged magi and there only hope at stopping him is to use the covenant's wand of instant death.
At what point can they claim that the deranged magus will imminently bring ruin upon his sodales, thereby breaking the Oath and legally kill him? Oathbreakers must afterall be killed according to the Oath. Can they at any point kill him without declaring wizards war and waiting? Will murdering the madman be approved at a Tribunal?
Is this a case of it being legal but technically the madman is not renounced or marched at this point?

[silveroak]

Tribunals are determined by the Grand Tribunal, so you can't just vote yourself into being a Tribunal. What gets interesting is if the requisite number of magi from Latin covenants in the Theban tribunal, for example, meet and decide that the current Primus of the Theban Tribunal is in violation of the oath by excluding them from the regular Tribunal meetings and preventing them from taking apprentices, and declare them marched. Of course then the regular tribunal gets together and declares them insurrectionists, and declares them marched... etc.

[Berengar]

@Praenuntius

But I can not find anywhere it explicitly states that non-Quesitors can not renounce a magus. Possibly they have a poor chance of gaining later support. But if ratified later?...

That is the wrong kind of argument. What Tim the Flambeau can legally do is circumscribed by his Oath. Details are described by the respective Peripheral Codes. Tim better show why he could go against his Oath and kill his sodalis Drogor without regular Wizard's War.

@Praenuntius

Say you are in a remote covenant. An elder magus emerges from twillight, rather deranged he announces his intention to rid the countryside of all life and sets out for the nearest village. OK as long as he leaves no witnesses this is legal. But his rampage continues and he wipes out a faierie forest and heads towards a larger settled area intent on killing all in the nearby valley.
A Quesitor is maybe a month away. The nearby magi find an arcane connection to the deranged magi and there only hope at stopping him is to use the covenant's wand of instant death.
At what point can they claim that the deranged magus will imminently bring ruin upon his sodales, thereby breaking the Oath and legally kill him? Oathbreakers must afterall be killed according to the Oath. Can they at any point kill him without declaring wizards war and waiting? Will murdering the madman be approved at a Tribunal?
Is this a case of it being legal but technically the madman is not renounced or marched at this point?

What you are looking for is this:

@"HoH:TL p.45f [i

Forfeit Immunity[/i] (underscores mine)"]The key form of defense from Hermetic charges is to claim the victim had forfeited their immunity. Normally a magus is under the protected (sic!) of the law. In other words he is immune to attack. However, in certain circumstances he might step outside the protection of Hermetic Law, either partially or totally.
<...> This lack of legal protection is called forfeit immunity. A magus is also under forfeit immunity while committing, preparing to commit, or shortly after committing a crime. By his criminal act his legal protection is forfeit. While forfeit other magi may act against him, but the response should be proportional.
As with most aspects of Hermetic Law, forfeit immunity is a matter of degree. In some cases a response may be seen as justified and in others it will not.
Thus a magus may claim his attack on another magus was legal, as the victim’s immunity was forfeit at the time. The Tribunal will weigh up any claim of forfeit immunity in the light of the actions of both parties.

Renouncing Drogor, i. e, throwing him out of the Order for good and declaring a March, is beyond the power of Tim - but in case of need Tim can do what is adequate to prevent or counter an Hermetic crime, and trust that the next valid Tribunal meeting will justify him.

Cheers

[Berengar]

@silveroak

Tribunals are determined by the Grand Tribunal, so you can't just vote yourself into being a Tribunal. What gets interesting is if the requisite number of magi from Latin covenants in the Theban tribunal, for example, meet and decide that the current Primus of the Theban Tribunal is in violation of the oath by excluding them from the regular Tribunal meetings and preventing them from taking apprentices, and declare them marched. Of course then the regular tribunal gets together and declares them insurrectionists, and declares them marched... etc.

If "the requisite number of magi from Latin covenants in the Theban tribunal, for example, meet", they are not a valid Tribunal meeting, unless a valid Grand or Theban Tribunal ruling has made them so before. That is the gist of HoH:TL p.49f Voting Rights (for details see above https://forum.atlas-games.com/t/the-break-room/102/1 ).

Cheers

[silveroak]

It depends where you look- in terms of Tribunal meetings it states that any meeting of 12 magi from 4 different covenants is a tribunal meeting. Thus in such a meeting someone who is a rival of said 12 could, as written, be marched.

[Berengar]

@silveroak

It depends where you look- in terms of Tribunal meetings it states that any meeting of 12 magi from 4 different covenants is a tribunal meeting. Thus in such a meeting someone who is a rival of said 12 could, as written, be marched.

Please provide a precise quote. ArM5 p.14 Tribunals (see https://forum.atlas-games.com/t/the-break-room/102/1) gives "12 magi from 4 different covenants" only as a necessary, not as a sufficient condition.

Cheers

[Arthur]

You cannot simply March a magus for no reason. You need to bring a case before Tribunal and then he needs to be convicted and sentenced.

So you first need to present your case. HoH:TL p.56 specifies that:

The prosecuting principle must make reasonable effort to inform the defendant, the Presiding Quaesitor and the Praeco, what charges are to be brought, including a detailed list of the allegations. This should be done no later than three months prior to the Tribunal. Redcaps are normally contracted to deliver these notices. They also witness that they were delivered in time or that reasonable effort was made to deliver them. This is called publishing.

Crimes that occur, or are discovered, within three months of the Tribunal can be published at the Tribunal only if the defendant attends. Such cases are heard last in order to give the defense time to prepare and find an advocate if they wish (see below). If the Tribunal is busy these cases are often set back to the following Tribunal. Great pressure is brought to settle such cases out of court.

If a case is properly published and the defendant fails to attend, a Guernicus advocate will act as his defense principle. Although the advocate will do his best, he is obviously at a disadvantage.

As a result, one cannot March another magus without at least trying to inform him that a case is being brought against him.

[Flarg]

What you are looking for is this:
HoH:TL p.45f Forfeit Immunity (underscores mine) wrote:
The key form of defense from Hermetic charges is to claim the victim had forfeited their immunity. Normally a magus is under the protected (sic!) of the law. In other words he is immune to attack. However, in certain circumstances he might step outside the protection of Hermetic Law, either partially or totally.
<...> This lack of legal protection is called forfeit immunity. A magus is also under forfeit immunity while committing, preparing to commit, or shortly after committing a crime. By his criminal act his legal protection is forfeit. While forfeit other magi may act against him, but the response should be proportional.
As with most aspects of Hermetic Law, forfeit immunity is a matter of degree. In some cases a response may be seen as justified and in others it will not.
Thus a magus may claim his attack on another magus was legal, as the victim’s immunity was forfeit at the time. The Tribunal will weigh up any claim of forfeit immunity in the light of the actions of both parties.
Renouncing Drogor, i. e, throwing him out of the Order for good and declaring a March, is beyond the power of Tim - but in case of need Tim can do what is adequate to prevent or counter an Hermetic crime, and trust that the next valid Tribunal meeting will justify him.

Thanks One Shot. That was exactly what I was looking for.
So Tim can't march or renounce Drolog but he can claim that he forfeits his immunity.
This is also the case with the deranged magus who sets out to wipe out all life from the countryside.

[Ramidel]

Indeed. Tom the Reckless cannot "March" a Magus outside of Tribunal, unless he is a Quaesitor, in which case he can do so per HoH: TL p. 63 - but the March must be ratified later by Tribunal. If he kills Drogor, Tom must merely risk someone bringing him up on charges, and if the latter occurs, show that Drogor had forfeited his immunity.

The essential difference is that Quaesitores are given greater benefit of the doubt due to their institutional prestige. There are likely some individual magi who can claim similar degrees of authority in that their calling a March would likely not be questioned either out of auctoritas or dread. (Do you want to be the one who tries to prosecute Philippus Niger for murdering some Ex Miscellanea tyro?)