Would you want a Tremere in your covenant?

Games Discussion Ars Magica
61

For the love of what's holy, let's not get into this debate again. This is your interpretation of what's presented in the text, and there is room for dissenting opinion. Yes, you qualify that this is your view, but I don't know that it's germain to the discussion. Do you really have those sorts of in character discussions when the new magus shows up at the covenant stoop:

"Ave sodales, I am Certamenus of House Tremere. I understand there might be room amongst your number for one such as myself. I come bearing some texts and vis as a token of good will.."

"What brings you to us, despicable servant of a genocidal, power hungry, political machine? Do you think to twist our home to your greater ploys?"

"I, uh, I thought there might a chance for me to uh, study...improve my Arts such that I might challenge my parens for my sig--"

"Come to force your culture of death and servitude on us?!?"

"No! No, I, uh, I wanted to join someplace where I could be free to --"

"Free to draw us deeper into your web of lies? To turn us against our neighbors?"

"I? No! I just liked the setting here near the lake better than those magi in the hills. ... Look, I'm just asking, there's no need to be so angry! I don't even know you!"

"Oh, but we know our history! Begone, druid-slayer! I smell the stink of your gore drenched hands and robes from here!"

"You know, I think I'll go back to the hills, they seemed secluded...sorry to bother you! mutter Crazy fool! No wonder the redcap looked at me wierd when I asked for directions."

....Let's not go there again, hmmm?

:wink:

-Ben.

1 Like
62

Funny, Ben, but the topic sought exploration of views and I gave mine. I warrant that others disagree and are free to do so but "discussion" involves responding to questions put to one's view and I have done no less than respond to those put to mine. Sorry if you don't like it.

63

It's a way of looking at it. Since the matter is left open, canonically, you can view Diednes as poor victims, or have them be horrible traitors to the Order, or find some kind of middle ground where no one was completely right. No version is more canonical than the other, so choose whatever works best for you.

I'd say that this is "ancient" history by the thirteenth century. Probably most magi don't spend much time worrying about it, unless something happens to remind them of it (like finding new written or archaeological evidence). However, from an in-character perspective, expressing views like BoXer's is likely to get your magus character few friends in the Order. Tremeres certainly would view it as gross disrespect for magi who gave their lives to protect the Order, and they probably would not be the only ones to believe that.

64

I've given this thought.

All else equal, I think a Tremere would be an awesome addition to a covenant.

  1. Since he's alone, why be afraid?
  2. You KNOW what his motives are--to increase his standing with his house. He's stable then.
  3. He didn't personally have anything to do with the Diedne thing, so it's a non issue
  4. He has little to gain from betraying my character, and he's practical, so he won't
  5. He is a VERY useful friend with other VERY useful friends
  6. He understands working for a larger organization.
  7. He appreciates help by design
  8. He appreciates order and clarity
  9. He's good at certamen which (should) support the covenant (except that certamen sucks in 5th)

The only people who should reject a Tremere applicant are the traitors to the order and the paranoid who see conspiracy under every pawn of vis (and then miss the real conspiracies). The more I think about it, the better I feel about it.

65

It's not that I don't like you expressing your views-- far from it.

But you have a sensitivity to discussions regarding Deidne, the Schism War and its moral implications. That was something I thought would take the conversation in a much more tangental direction. As I understand it, your answer is that you would say 'No,' given the history of the House and Schism War as BoXer interprets it. I need to review the thread to confirm my suspicion, but I'm fairly certain. If I'm wrong, please, let me know. (EDIT: Reviewing, I see the emphatic 'no' on the first page.)

I just didn't think we needed to go into the whole Schism War debate again-- reference it sure, but admissions of who was what for how many pawns of vis several hundred years ago has little bearing on whether or not you'd accept a Tremere as a covenant member.

Personally, I think it depends on the character joining, the established characters and the saga. I'm also pretty open to people exploring strange character concepts for the most part, so I tend to be ambivalent on a "Would I/Wouldn't I" question.

For our current saga, we have had a Tremere as a founding member, and he's been quite reliable and a source of some fun stories. As scary as it is, he's probably the most hermetically social of the group, but then he's also less advanced Artistically because of many of his interactions. I don't think I'd give him up, though; he's shaping up to be our best expert on the Divine.

-Ben.

66

looooooooooooooool :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
Great account!

The only problem being that you present your view as a fact and the only real possibility.

I see no problem with playing in a saga were the diedne were innocent victims, just as I see no problem with playing in a saga were they were devil worshippers.
This just doesn't seem to be the case with you, and I think this is what spooks people.

Things would be a lot different if you said something like "While I acknowledge the possibility of tremere being heroes, I very much prefer to have them as villains".

67

I state my position with conviction, sorry if that bothers some. The accounts that are given, whilst freely intrepreted by whosoever wishes as ambiguous, speak clearly to me of flagrant and maliciously intended excess beyond the bounds of just retribution even IF some Diedne had engaged in diabolist practices.

The Code calls for marching the guilty, not exterminating an entire lineage because it doesn't happen to accord with the prevailing cultural prejudices of the rest of the Order. In that, yes I DO maintain that Diedne was victimised and self-justifying claims by the lead House as to its belief on the subject does not give it or any House for that matter, the right to betray its sworn oath and pursue fratricide. Given that it did, I think it should rightfully bear the distrust of other Houses and many a mixed covenant as to what its members may yet intend for the future.

Every SG is free to treat the Schism history and the views of other magi toward Tremeres as they wish, this is MY position whether popular or not.

68

Seeing as most people do not distrust all Germans they meet in their lives because of events in the past History of Germany, or Italians for the same reason, or a whole lot of other nationalities, I think your argument that Tremere should all be distrusted is moot and invalid.

Unless you call all Russians communists and refuse to deal with them, or, in case you are not American, distrust all Americans for fear of being bombed.

The Tremere have been distanced from the obvious villain type, as much as the Flambeau have been distanced from the pyromaniac sociopaths and other houses have changed as well.
I, like you, think House Diedne was great and the Order lost one of its greatest things during the Schism War, but in canon, it is not said whether they were wiped out justly or not.

You can continue saying you see it as obvious, and others can continue saying they don't, but I just don't see it getting either of us anywhere.

The question, in this thread, is: Would you want a Tremere in your covenant?

If you would not like to be friends with a German person, just because they are German, then, by all means, it makes sense for you to say: No!

If not, then I would think about it, and perhaps answer "I generally don't like the Tremere, but I guess it depends."

69

Faulty analogy, as is your additional reference to Russians, Americans, et al. All Germans were not Nazi's but would you trust any member of a present-day Nazi Party despite the fact that that Party happened to pursue a genocidal agenda generations ago? Would you want to live and work with one, if he/she told you that they were "different" now?

You can't compare nationalities with subgroups and expect to have a valid argument. In this case Tremere is more likened, by what I suspect is your intended analogy, to those who would belong to the aforementioned Party, or to the US military (which is the actual one bombing other nations, not the general US public) or any expansionist military if you will.

In this vein, my comments are perfectly in line with the OP of this thread and with ample commentary as to the reason why I would not want any Tremere within a league of my covenant.

70

Yes.
Considering their loyalities.