Place: Loch lechlean tribunal, covenant of doironn goath(storm wind in english, my spelling is probably wrong)

Crime: I magically(perdo corpus) destroyed a hand of the lover (who was mundane) of the leader(maga) of the covenant. I did this inside our covenant, though I didn't check whether grogs were present.

I will detail the things that led to the crime itself, but only short. It can be admitted that the reasons for doing the crime were not justified, but fitted my character(who has probably every flaw that deals with making revenge).

Me, magus Nlam of exmiscellanea and several of my sodalis, were investigating a massmurder of a nearby monastery. There was a city nearby, which I went first to investigate. The guards captured me, seeing me as suspicious(no gentle gift). The captain of the guard interrogated me, but let me leave in the end. The companion whose hand I destroyed, arrived to the city just a bit after me, and went to talk with the captain.

Later on, while I were investigating the murder invisible, I stumbled upon the companion, who was talking with guards, and when guard said "the blasted mages did this, they should be all killed" (we play in finnish, but this is a free translation), the companion replied "mages are indeed a bothersome group, and they should be dealt with". From this point on, I started following him, and found that he had joined with the town's guard, and helped them investigate the murder.

A messanger then arrived(me, a cannibal björnaer bear and an enigmatic björnaer eagle, were present at the moment, the companion was elsewhere) and asked us to withdraw, since the incident had been dealt with(we had only found out that a group of highlanders had been magically forced to do this).

We then returned to the covenant. A few weeks later, an inquisition arrived to the city, and the companion was with them. They were suspecting us of the murder(this is what I understood atleast, I never spoke to them, but seems only fitting). I blaimed the companion for leading them to us, but he claimed that he had been trying to lead them elsewhere from us.

Of this, I got angered, and destroyed his right hand(I never liked him anyway, since he was the mundane spokesman of our covenant, and the leader maga allowed him to be present in the covenant meetings(even the ones with closed doors), which I think was a bad thing). only several grogs witnessed this.

The maga of the covenant then called a meeting up, and requested punishment upon me.

I suggested an eye for an eye punishment, offering the hand of my companion. No one liked that idea.

Several of them suggested that I should be wizard marched, I asked them to do this(I could just have escaped and brought the subject up at next tribunal, charging them of high crime)

Several magus insisted that I had done a high crime, invoking the wrath of mundanes upon mages. To this claim I laughed openly.
(there is a tribunal ruling in the wizards grimoire, which involves 3 knights, check that out for guidelines)

another magus then suggested that I should be cast out from the covenant. I also laughed at it, but the others stayed silent.

Then I was requested to give 4 pawns of vis to the covenant, research a spell that would heal his hand, and further pay any vis cost to heal the hand. To this I also laughed, and told that I would pay them nothing, because no mundane should get special treatment.

A voting was then hold, with the options of casting me out from the covenant(and healing the hand), or giving me the punishment of healing the hand(paying vis cost), and donating 4 vis to the covenant. I was not allowed to be present.

2 voted empty (the björnaer eagle, and verditius defence cordinator),
3 voted explelling me(one of them being the covenant leader),
3 voted just the vis and healing.

Since the leader maga voted expelling, and in tie situations his vote equalled 2, I was cast out from the covenant. I replied that I would do them no service, nor pay any vis, I then left the covenant.

Give your opinnions. I understand the voting of the leader maga, since I had openly guestioned his authority, and mocked him everytime I had the chance.

PC or no PC, if your character is anti-social you should expect other characters to reaction in a realistic manner. Perhaps in some games PCs can be sociopathic, but ArM is normally about building a community.

If your character wants to remain he will have to make peace with the maga he has offended. The other magi might help negotiate a mutally acceptable settlement. He must be prepared to be apologetic and willing to give meaningful recommence. Healing the injured hand is the minimum imo; he may have to go beyond this. You could make this a transformitive event for the character; such that he realises that he needs to consider and respect his sodales opinions (at least from a position of self-interest).

Covenant membership is a privilege not a right.

Regards

- David W

~Alex

The judgement was not made based on our covenant's charter(I don't think we even have official one yet), it was based on what everyone thought tribunal ruling would be.

The matter was that I did not come along with others, I even made several associates, and had already done a deal about one of the wizards assisting me in laboratory, with a spell I was creating(I'd say, I belonged to the more popular half of the wizards).

Mundanes are so hold at high value, never have my wizards received such high appreciation, even after a maga of mine was maimed(to the last body level) and raped by fellow covenant member, he went unpunished.

So you think that their ruling was quite well done according to what a tribunal might rule?

ok, I accept. Still learning the ways.

also, as an additional background information, my quarrel with the leader maga began, when I suggested that keeping a mundane in the covenant meetings was risky, since it was quit easy for others to gain information about our decisions and plans, since he(the companion) was not protected by code. I further argued that if someone would gain information from us, by magically investigating the companion, we could not take the matter to tribunal, because we would probably be laughed at, and guided to not keep a mundane present in the future meetings(peripheral code already suggests that no mundanes are to be present at tribunals)

I did come along with several characters, the cannibal björnaer and leader maga were my adversaries. My character was anti-social, yes, but it didn't prevent him from getting several people, who he spoke to often(mostly about enigma, though).

In my saga, mundanes recieve the protection of their mage-guardians. Apart from the non-interference clause, mundanes get no protection. A mundane hurt that was considered the chattle of a mage however would have the protection (or at least vengeance) of that mage.

Depends on specifics though.

~Alex

If the issue in question is the maiming of the companion's hand, this would be flawed reasoning. Maiming a mundane's hand is not specifically a Hermetic crime. A *magus* would have to show that his or her magical power was decreased by the act (this would be a very weak case in this instance).

If they think they are punishing your magus for 'Angering Mundanes', it is not their place to do this. Such a case should only by brought to the tribunal, a covenant council has no authority over such a matter.

>>>Mundanes are so hold at high value, never have my wizards received such high appreciation, even after a maga of mine was maimed(to the last body level) and raped by fellow covenant member, he went unpunished.<<<

???

Personally I wouldn't play in a game where the SG allows PCs to conduct violent rapes on other PCs. I have a low tolerance for PC torture/rape in RPGs. What NPCs do is another matter, but as far as PC behavior is concerned, such extremes are outside the scope of what I consider acceptable within a game.

However, in any game I have played in violence by grogs/companions on magi wasn't tolerated. It is equivalent to a commoner assaulting a noble.

>>>also, as an additional background information, my quarrel with the leader maga began, when I suggested that keeping a mundane in the covenant meetings was risky, since it was quit easy for others to gain information about our decisions and plans, since he(the companion) was not protected by code.<<<

Do you really need to be this paranoid? It sounds like your covenant doesn't need any external enemies...

>>> I further argued that if someone would gain information from us, by magically investigating the companion, we could not take the matter to tribunal, because we would probably be laughed at, and guided to not keep a mundane present in the future meetings(peripheral code already suggests that no mundanes are to be present at tribunals)<<<

Using magic to pry into the affairs of magi is illegal. It is irrelevant if the scrying is on servants, magi or any other object/place; it is scrying. You would have a strong case if this happened.

>>>I did come along with several characters, the cannibal björnaer and leader maga were my adversaries. My character was anti-social, yes, but it didn't prevent him from getting several people, who he spoke to often(mostly about enigma, though).<<<

It sounds like your group is fairly dysfunctional. Reminds me of groups I knew when it was a teenager. If you are all good friends in real-life you might try and move things to a more functional level. If you're finding the PC vs PC fights are undermining your enjoyment of the game, say so. Covenants don't need to be hippy communes, but some level of cooperation and good will is usual.

If your covenant wouldn't be out of place on 'Jerry Springer', perhaps it's time your group thought about how they play?

Regards

- David W

Paranoid? Sure :) I just think it of it as a preliminary problem prevention. what if inquisition got him(scotland is supposed to be pretty low on this on my opinnion, but they seem to run rampant in our campaign(which is not a bad thing)). Seems very unlikely, but I find it worth the effort.

And about scrying, the guide lines conserning it are pretty vague. What for example, if our insider companion travelled to a city near an enemy covenant, then they InMe:ed him to find what he was doing there, and then they found out that the mages had decided to... etc.
I can't explain what I mean very well, but I hope you can grasp some of it.

Apart from our little infights(most concerning rules, or their meaning), we come along pretty nicely.

That being said - just because the game's setting allows you to annoy the other players, there are fantastic reasons why you simply shouldn't. You need to trust these people in a crisis.

"Crime: I magically(perdo corpus) destroyed a hand of the lover (who was mundane) of the leader(maga) of the covenant. I did this inside our covenant, though I didn't check whether grogs were present. "

This is not a crime. It does not violate the code.
Does it really count as interference with the mundanes? Well looking at the spirit of this clause and the case law I would say no for three reasons.
1: This clause refer chiefly to political meddling.
2: This clause is meant to prevent a massive mundane backlash... was the victim someone of standing, it not then this is irrelevant.
3: The person was not a mundane. They were in service/affiliated to a Magus. They count as a grog.

It does not count as a crime against the mundanes Magus lover. Though I think it would be considered acceptable grounds for calling a wizards war (as no justification is actually needed merely desirable, see the WG).

What you are guilty of is incompetence. If your account is to be believed then you knowingly allowed a danger to the order to emerge and did nothing. (you should have tried to deal with the person when you first suspected them of betrayal).

"The maga of the covenant then called a meeting up, and requested punishment upon me. "

Well they have the right to expel, wizards war or wizards march you. Or impose any punishment that you are a) willing to submit to, or b) able to get away with.

"I suggested an eye for an eye punishment, offering the hand of my companion. No one liked that idea. "

A most honourable and just suggestion.

"Several of them suggested that I should be wizard marched, I asked them to do this(I could just have escaped and brought the subject up at next tribunal, charging them of high crime) "

Which they would have been innocent of. They might however have their wizard march overturned by the tribunal and even be subjected to one themselves. They would not however be guilty of a high crime.

"I was not allowed to be present."

Bad form. But life in not fair.

Basically if you came before a Tribunal in my game the general opinion would be,

'You committed no crime, Covenants are free to expel and recruit as they see fit. You have no cause for complaint and the matter is irrelevant'.

I respect that. I would have little patience for PC on PC raping (unless both parties were willing to run with it which seems unlikely). PC's raping NPC's fine... I like to play consequnces. Women might be regarded as second class citizens but its quite realistic for you to be beaten to death by her male relatives.

I dont like the idea of PC's being the good guy automatically. Especially in a game involving the amoral order of Hermes set in the medieval period.

(That said I would have to consider the feelings of my players as well, apoligies for the tangent).

I don't think many people demand that PCs are universally 'Good Guys'. I certainly wasn't suggesting it's a RPG requirement.

Paranoia is an example of a game where PCs are not 'Good Guys'. Managing to get other PCs killed is the name of the game. However, this is rather exceptional.

In ArM PCs belong to a community (the covenant) and that community should only stand an anti-social PC up to a point. I don't like the idea of PCs being blatant sociopaths and the community not being able to remove them because of PC-glow.

If a member of a football team arrived stoned for games, openly assaulted team-mates and committed so many stupid fouls that the opposition won easily, he would be thrown out. Given his behavior it would be outrageous to retain him, yet this happens in RPGs.

Because Ars Magica games are generally so long-term and community based, imo it has a lower tolerance for anti-social behaviour. I've seen games break up because a minority of PCs simply made the Saga untenable. It ended up like a 'Big Brother' house without any evictions or time limits. In the end most players don't find an endless quagmire of internal party conflict fun.

Sociopaths can work as PCs in ArM, but they need to display enlightened self-interest. They need to consider the community's boundaries of conduct, not because they have any respect for them, but because there would be real consequences.

>>>Especially in a game involving the amoral order of Hermes set in the medieval period.<<<

Are you suggesting that most magi are amoral?

Regards

- David W

"In ArM PCs belong to a community (the covenant) and that community should only stand an anti-social PC up to a point. I don't like the idea of PCs being blatant sociopaths and the community not being able to remove them because of PC-glow. "

Yes I quite agree. Basically I view the typical NPC covenant (and the ideal PC one) as a group of Magi as existing in an equilibrium of cooperation and backstabbing (perhaps 'one-up-manship' would be a better term). Occaisionally this equilibrium breaks down and you have murder/wizard war and tribunals! The code itself allows plenty of suggestions for what happens when it all hits the fan.

I agree.. the PC's should not be blatant sociopaths. They could perhaps be 'evil' but they must have some ability to talk to the others without killing them. If they insist on being over the top then the code itself allows for their death. (which will hopefully each the player something).

"If a member of a football team arrived stoned for games, openly assaulted team-mates and committed so many stupid fouls that the opposition won easily, he would be thrown out. Given his behavior it would be outrageous to retain him, yet this happens in RPGs."

Yes thats because of deficient roleplaying. People imbue their characters with unrealistic behaviour so as not to cause offence out of character!

"In the end most players don't find an endless quagmire of internal party conflict fun. "

I think Ars Magica demands an endless campaign of competition. The best part of the game is not the Magic rules (IMHO) but the politics of a covenant.

>>>Especially in a game involving the amoral order of Hermes set in the medieval period.<<<

"Are you suggesting that most magi are amoral? "

To a large extent yes. They dont practice magic for alturistic reasons but for power, knowledge or just for its own sake. It is also an amoral age. Of course it would be the rare Magi who was completely amoral, but as a rule Magi are self-interested people. The order itself is based purely on the concepts of survival and mutual 'profit'. It is rather devoid of any rulings based on morality, its legalistic not nice. (Of course a moral magus can exist but there morality should at least fit in with the nature of the age).

Yes, but there is normal covenant politics and then there is PC-PC rape/maiming (which was the original problem). There also comes a point in covenants where the weight of pretty unresolved disputes leads to a complete breakdown of trust/cooperation amongst members. There comes a point where no one is enjoying the game.

>>>"Are you suggesting that most magi are amoral? " <<<<

>>>To a large extent yes. They dont practice magic for alturistic reasons but for power, knowledge or just for its own sake.<<<

Magical power is self empowerment. It isn't the power of a dictator, it's more like studying martial arts. It might be applied to gain power over others, but it's not a given. Do you think that people who learn martial arts are amoral?

How is the desire for knowledge incompatible with morality?

How is an deep interest in some activity incompatible with morality? Are football fans amoral?

>>> It is also an amoral age. <<<

Compared to when? Medieval people may have different morals to you, but imo it would be very wrong to call them amoral.

>>> Of course it would be the rare Magi who was completely amoral, but as a rule Magi are self-interested people. The order itself is based purely on the concepts of survival and mutual 'profit'. It is rather devoid of any rulings based on morality, its legalistic not nice. (Of course a moral magus can exist but there morality should at least fit in with the nature of the age). <<<

It's true that the Hermetic Law is only concerned with the peace and stability of the Order. This is the first goal of all secular legal systems. This doesn't imply magi are normally amoral. The Order isn't there to impose/enforce morality on individuals. It exists to give magi a measure of security.

Imo this doesn't imply anything about the average morality of magi.

Regards

- David W

"Yes, but there is normal covenant politics and then there is PC-PC rape/maiming (which was the original problem). There also comes a point in covenants where the weight of pretty unresolved disputes leads to a complete breakdown of trust/cooperation amongst members. There comes a point where no one is enjoying the game. "

Yes I quit agree. Its a balancing act. When it gets out of hand then character death/retirement should work as a release valve. (I am talking thoery here, my current group is not mature enough to fully understand the IC/OOC divide but fortunatly in some ways we are not playing Ars). As for PC on PC rape I would probably just veto that completely... it would soon degenerate into giggling and a suspension of any sense of roleplaying as after many OOC tangents the rapist would reimburse the victim with a magic item they would then go fae hunting (or whatever) next season. Only if I had a very mature group and such events were pre-planned with anyones consent would I even stop to consider it for five seconds before saying no. Anyway i digress.

>>>"Are you suggesting that most magi are amoral? " <<<<

>>>To a large extent yes. They dont practice magic for alturistic reasons but for power, knowledge or just for its own sake.<<<

"Magical power is self empowerment. It isn't the power of a dictator, it's more like studying martial arts. It might be applied to gain power over others, but it's not a given. Do you think that people who learn martial arts are amoral? "

No but someone who studies martial arts obessively with no concern for any objective apart from becoming a master is perhaps 'amoral' (note not immoral).

Magic is differnt however. Being Magus drives a huge gap between you and 'humanity'. The typical Magus is outside the three pillars of human society. Their studies further alienate them. They cure themselves and favoured servants of diesease whilst the plague is dropping people like flies (okay they have little choice but I dount they regret the ability). They brew longevity potions whilst all around them people wither and die.

They study magic purely for their own gratification. Its very rare for a PC or NPC magus to study magic for the benefit of mankind.

"How is the desire for knowledge incompatible with morality?"

Its not. But the desire for knowledge for knowledges sake is 'amoral' in that it has no bearing on morality.

>>> It is also an amoral age. <<<

"Compared to when? Medieval people may have different morals to you, but imo it would be very wrong to call them amoral. "

Perhaps its incorrect to say that. Its a dark time where the people are hardened and brutal. Their is little concern for social welfare, equality of opportunity. They do of course have their own morality. Transplanted to our times however the many medieveal mindsets would seem amoral, immoral, or evil. It might not be a fair comparision however.

>>> Of course it would be the rare Magi who was completely amoral, but as a rule Magi are self-interested people. The order itself is based purely on the concepts of survival and mutual 'profit'. It is rather devoid of any rulings based on morality, its legalistic not nice. (Of course a moral magus can exist but there morality should at least fit in with the nature of the age). <<<

"It's true that the Hermetic Law is only concerned with the peace and stability of the Order. This is the first goal of all secular legal systems."

Yes but Secular legal systems do not begin and end purely with concerns for peace and stability. I think generally you would find a lot of morality and even religion leaking into them. The code however has pretty much no regard for anything but order, survival and stability. If you commit a major breach of morality such as torturing an apprentice to death, or Wizard Warring for pure greed the order itself will merely frown at you. Individual Magi might react, but the order itself will not care that much. To me the orders laws reflect the Magi themselves, naturally they would because the various rulings reflect the net personality of the Magi and this personality seems to be, selfish and amoral.

(Not sociopathic or out and out evil. However)

Also 'intuitively' I just feel that most Magi are amoral people. It fits with the literary image and feel of them. Its also the way I feel that Magi are from looking at the book.

Power corrupts. Its difficult to see how an elitist semi-secret society of people taught powerful magics from a very early point in their childhood with a set of rules designed purely to maximise their survival would produce many people we would regard as moral.

Dont get me wrong I dont regard the Order as a bunch of raging sociopaths. But they are fairly nasty.

Getting back onto the original topic for just a second I think the original poster tried to explain his characters behaviour because of his characters numerous personality flaws, that does set off alarm bells. A medieval magus will not accept the defense of 'I know I am a liability to the covenant but I got points for being raised by satanists and having an adrenal imbalance etc etc!

You say that getting on with people is poor roleplaying - people make their characters too nice, so that they don't cause offence out of character. This isn't true - you are suggesting that characters in real life would be more extreme than game characters, and this is not the case. Real humans, historically even those of great power, have cleaved together into teams to distribute risk. Characters who are all for themselves, in a state of permanent competition, are not realistic - they fail basic tests of real-life modelling.

The politics of real-life organisations are nota balanced mix of betrayal and co-operation: betrayal is rare. It's the surprisal value of betrayal that makes it possible. Your characters are acting like pieces in early zero-sum game experiments - the problem being that these have never been shown to have strong relevance in real situations, as opposed to later games based on co-operation, and mutual reward. Your characters are acting ot like people, but like game chips. AS such your defence that this is because you are roleplaying well looks askew to me.

That being said - I enjoy Amber and Diplomacy as much or more than the next person. I'm just suggesting that in neither game, nor in life, is the dynamic of play what you describe.

Role playing is a thing of compromise. There is the compromise between playing a character from another time/place while still putting something of your modern self into it. There is the compromise required between the players to get the most out of the game setting (whether it be on rules interpretation or simply when to play) and then there is the compromise between really "doing what the character would do" and holding back for the benefit of the game.

I feel that the last point is the important one for this discussion.

If the player wants to play an egregious character, then it should be done with the assent of the story guide and the troupe as a whole. At minimum, where the character is a "plant", a plot device almost on the level of an NPC, put there for some story guided end, the character should be short lived. This way the character can cause the mayhem required (seems to have happened going by the original poster) and then the players can get the payoff when they isolate the disruptive influence and deal with him. At this point, the player who was so gracious as to play the nasty guy gets to bring in a new character with suitable reward and kudos.

The problem arises when the player decides unilaterally to act the nasty guy with no end to the story. The compromise is not there, he does not get removed as the other players are having to suspend disbelief to help the nasty player keep his nasty character in play.

In this instance, I do think that the story guide should take a high level view on things and start to guide the story. If the "character" has become a liability, then the story guide needs to work with the player concerned to establish an end game for that particular story thread (yes, just treat it as a story thread).

In a past saga, we had a verditius magus who unilaterally violated hermetic laws and had to brought to justice. As a PC his position was untenable so we took him out and constructed a story about his movements until he was able to return in a story guided guest shot.

As far as the covenant is concerned, magi will see more benefit in being inside than outside. Whether the character is sub or super normal, this realisation must still be there. They player is responsible for the character, and if they decide that the character wants to jeapordise his position then the player must compromise for the benefit of all.

Of course it is. You have a group of self-interested people competing for the same resources.

"because for this to take place you nee a modern, democratic heirarchy,"

I am not sure that follows. A bandit gang is also likely to show a balance between cooperation and infighting. Hitlers 'cabinet' certainly did. Any human society does.

"which I think is not usual in covenants. Covenants have heirarchies of power which make your style, which is technically an N player co-operative game with equal odds, rare."

I never said anything to suggest that all the Magi were equal I dont understand this point.

"You say that getting on with people is poor roleplaying - people make their characters too nice, so that they don't cause offence out of character."

Again that is not what I said. What I actually said is that people frequently fail to react realistically in character due to out of character feelings. I have seen it happen numerous times and have been guilty of it as well. Though you clearly have to balance IC and OOC there are limits.

"Real humans, historically even those of great power, have cleaved together into teams to distribute risk. Characters who are all for themselves, in a state of permanent competition, are not realistic - they fail basic tests of real-life modelling. "

What like Caesar, Crassus and Pompey? It is realistic for alliances and society to show a balance between co-operation and infighting. This is realistic.

"The politics of real-life organisations are nota balanced mix of betrayal and co-operation: betrayal is rare."

Well I think they are. Betrayal would be best replaced by competition however.

"It's the surprisal value of betrayal that makes it possible. Your characters are acting like pieces in early zero-sum game experiments - the problem being that these have never been shown to have strong relevance in real situations, as opposed to later games based on co-operation, and mutual reward. Your characters are acting ot like people, but like game chips. AS such your defence that this is because you are roleplaying well looks askew to me. "

You are misreading my posts and confusing me with another poster.

"That being said - I enjoy Amber and Diplomacy as much or more than the next person. I'm just suggesting that in neither game, nor in life, is the dynamic of play what you describe."

All societies show a mix of cooperation and competition. It is utterly alien and unrealistic to conceive of one that does not show this.

This is the sort of thing that I was trying to get at. When the equilibrium of the game breaks down (or when a PC is being an ass) the game setting allows for a solution. Wizard Wars and Wizards Marches or appeals to the tribunal. (If a PC on PC wizard war.march requires a little ST assistance/fudging for the good of the game then so be it).

> Of course it is. You have a group of self-interested people
> competing for the same resources.

The idea that self-interest leads to backstabbing is fallacious - it's the sort of wooly thinking that was deep-sixed by the Nash Equilibrium Theory. Also, you assume that most covenants do not have members who share a goal. I find that unlikely.

> I never said anything to suggest that all the Magi were equal I
> dont understand this point.

Backstabbing requires effective capacity to harm, and to harm to such an extent that decisive retaliation is impossible. For all characters to be backstabbing, they need to meet this basic criterion, and I think this fails to be fulfiled in mopst covenants, because the younger magi lack this capacity with regard to their elders.

>>"Real humans, historically even those of great power, have cleaved
>>together into teams to distribute risk. Characters who are all for
>>themselves, in a state of permanent competition, are not realistic -
>> they fail basic tests of real-life modelling. "

> What like Caesar, Crassus and Pompey? It is realistic for alliances
> and society to show a balance between co-operation and infighting.
> This is realistic.

No, it frankly isn't - Ceasar won because Pompey died and he had the power to kill Crassus, who then surrendered all power and left the game. That is, Ceasar had the capacity to prevent effective retaliation. This doesn't happen in the Order of Hermes, where having your enemies convieniently offed is really quite rare. The same thing happens in the Second Triumvirate too - your style of modelling (which is Von Neumann's) was popular with the military in the 60s, because it works only with the obliteration of the stabbed side (Neumann advocated a "preventative first strike" as the optimal course for either side in the Cold War, for example).

The equilibrium reached when you have all players attempting to maximise their own interest isn't betwen co-operation and their interest, it's actually a point where none of them can reach their interest without an external force that breaks the equilibrium and shifts the game state. That is to say, players who attempt purely to maximise their interest, except in zero-sum games where players are eliminated, cannot achieve that interest.

> All societies show a mix of cooperation and competition. It is
> utterly alien and unrealistic to conceive of one that does not show
> this.

Ah, to this I can almost agree, but it seems to be a far more moderate statement than your earlier position, of an equilibrium between backstabbing and co-operation. We may be reading terms differently - as is the way of the Web, and I apologise if I've offended you with my reply.

There -are- limited examples of non-competitive power venues, by the way. For example, the captain's list of the British Navy used to have promotion to Admiral on seniority alone, not skill, because it meant there was no way patronage could affect the list after entry, and therefore there was no point in turning it into a political game. There were other games in the navy (for example, the game of who was sent to Jamiaca station and who got to stay in England away from the Yellow Fever) but in some limited areas, particularly the military, there are examples of power structures which deliberately lack associated games.

The troupe has to find its own level on what is acceptable. The representation of dastardly acts which add drama and encourage thoughtful gaming is one thing, and that falls well within my expectations of the game.

The representation of violence in the way mentioned (a few posts) above would not fall within my expectations. As a storyguide I would take the initiating player aside and discuss ways in which either the point can be made in a different less offensive way or veto it entirely. If the player persisted against my wishes, or the wishes of any of the group then our relative positions in that group would need revision.

I think in the end, we hide behind the "Player Character" phrase. It is important, in a game, to work out whether the character is being an arse or whether the player is. If the player concerned knows which it is, then no problem and he/she can play along with the punishments. If not, then it may need to be explained.

Mark

Well I am not sure what the Nash Equilibrium theory is but I am talking about basic common sense and obserbvable behaviour.

Limited resources lead to competition. Its really quite basic.

"Also, you assume that most covenants do not have members who share a goal. I find that unlikely."

No I never made that assumption. I made the assumption that 'all' covenants have members who share a goal

> I never said anything to suggest that all the Magi were equal I
> dont understand this point.

"Backstabbing requires effective capacity to harm,

More accurately it suggests that the backstabber believes he has the capacity to achieve the 'backstab'.

"and to harm to such an extent that decisive retaliation is impossible."

No...
You can rely on secrecy or intimidation for a start.
e.g. embezzeling vis,

You could also convince your peers that retailation is more hassle than is worth.

"For all characters to be backstabbing, they need to meet this basic criterion, and I think this fails to be fulfiled in mopst covenants, because the younger magi lack this capacity with regard to their elders. "

Not true. You seem to be considering this in terms of 'who can make the bigger fireball' or who can kill who. I am clearly referring to backstabing, infighting and co-operation to a whole range of possible actions. Older Magi are not invincible, they might not notice arcane links going missing, books being borrowed or poisen in their wine. They might not realise until the next tribunal that someone has destroy their repuation with gossip.

>>"Real humans, historically even those of great power, have cleaved
>>together into teams to distribute risk. Characters who are all for
>>themselves, in a state of permanent competition, are not realistic -
>> they fail basic tests of real-life modelling. "

> What like Caesar, Crassus and Pompey? It is realistic for alliances
> and society to show a balance between co-operation and infighting.
> This is realistic.

"No, it frankly isn't - Ceasar won because Pompey died"

They went to war with each other

"and he had the power to kill Crassus, who then surrendered all power and left the game."

Exactly.

"That is, Ceasar had the capacity to prevent effective retaliation."

Yes sometimes the Equilibrium ends. The example fits.

"This doesn't happen in the Order of Hermes, where having your enemies convieniently offed is really quite rare."

Firstly we are talking about individual covenants. Secondly we are not nessercarily talking about 'offing'. (I dont know about you but personally I think the Quaesitors always try and record the course of death, of course it might be years before they realise there is something to record).

"The same thing happens in the Second Triumvirate too - your style of modelling (which is Von Neumann's) was popular with the military in the 60s, because it works only with the obliteration of the stabbed side (Neumann advocated a "preventative first strike" as the optimal course for either side in the Cold War, for example). "

No I think you might be taking my idea of the co-operation/competition balance to mean compeition alone... by competition you seem to read 'who can kill whom'.

"The equilibrium reached when you have all players attempting to maximise their own interest isn't betwen co-operation and their interest, it's actually a point where none of them can reach their interest without an external force that breaks the equilibrium and shifts the game state."

Well its unrealistic not to compromise sometimes. Sometimes its in your own self-interest not to be so self interested!

That is to say, players who attempt purely to maximise their interest, except in zero-sum games where players are eliminated, cannot achieve that interest. "

Character death is a natural part of the game. As long as it does not get out of hand.

> All societies show a mix of cooperation and competition. It is
> utterly alien and unrealistic to conceive of one that does not show
> this.

"Ah, to this I can almost agree, but it seems to be a far more moderate statement than your earlier position, of an equilibrium between backstabbing and co-operation. We may be reading terms differently - as is the way of the Web, and I apologise if I've offended you with my reply. "

No I am not offended. I never set out to use precise language and have been swapping terms (competition, infighting, backstabbing) or (equilibrium, balance) to mean basically the same sort of thing. As two words rarely mean the same thing (and their meaning is warped by context) misunderstandings can be frequent!

What I mean is this. I believe that your typical covenant will have a mix of competition and cooperation. For the best enjoyment of the game (and realistic survival of the covenant) these two factors will generally be in a balance or an equilibrium, but this will sometimes break down possibly leading to character death (or just a squabble). It will generally start up again.