I am going to drop this same message on as many lists as possible in order to engender some serious discussion on this topic. Please bear with me as this is a somewhat lengthy missive.

Fifth edition Ars Magica is not even a year old. To date we have the following supplements: the core rules, Calebais, Guardians of the Forests, True Lineages. Not many books there, but I already notice an important trend – multiple subdivisions of loyalties within the Order of Hermes. If this trend continues, not only will there be many more micro-groups within the Order of Hermes as a whole, but within the very structure of the Houses. Rather than moving towards anything like unity, the Order is in danger of being shattered into dozens of component parts.

The Order, we are told, is comprised of approximately 1200 magi. These are further divided into 12 Houses and 13 Tribunals. In the first Tribunal that we know about, the Rhine Tribunal, most magi also join one of six Gilds. Four of the Houses are Mysteries – Bjornaer, Criamon, Merinita, Verditius; these have special rankings within their structure. Tremere, as is shown in True Lineages, has internal subdivisions. If a book equivalent to The Mysteries (4th ed) is published, there will be further non-public divisions within the Order.

How, given all of these subdivisions, does the Order maintain cohesion?

I am already on record for my contention that the Houses would only truly be able to maintain themselves if Covenants followed a monastic model (i.e. most, if not all, Covenants would be Single House). No House has much more than 150 members and most have far less than that; even Ex Miscellanea, the largest House, only seems large – within it are many subdivisions based on the specific traditions within that House.

One of the greatest problems that I anticipate with this profusion of partitions is divided loyalties. Let us take a not-too-difficult-to-imagine magus. Stultus Toto is a member of House Criamon. He resides at Durenmar in the Rhine Tribunal and is a member of the Oak Gild. Assuming no other affiliations he now is loyal to House Criamon, to the Oak Gild, and to the covenant of Durenmar. Every seven years at the Tribunal meeting members of his House and his Gild meet for the three days prior to the actual Tribunal meeting; which meeting does he attend? Will missing out on one meeting preclude his ability to function within that division? On another tack, most of the people at Durenmar are from Bonisagus rather than Criamon; how is he to raise an apprentice to truly appreciate the Mysteries of his House if there is no one else around who follows this tradition? Since we don't really know about the status of these Mysteries yet, aside from the mechanics of the Outer Mystery, will this preclude his apprentice from advancing within the House (e.g. perhaps advancing within the Mystery Houses requires having more than one follower of the House tradition around to initiate someone into the deeper mysteries).

Some of the Houses, such as Bjornaer, have their own meetings. While not every magus would wish to attend every meeting of his House, there are still times when it would be politic to go; this would require quite a bit of travel if one's domus magna is in a different Tribunal. Traveling in Mythic Europe is not a matter of hopping on a train or a plane, but of slowly moving by foot (rarely by horse if you have The Gift) from one place to another. If a magus lived in, say, the Hibernian Tribunal, attending a conference of one's House in the Rhine Tribunal would not be a matter of taking a few days off, but probably multiple months, long time spent away from one's lab and covenant. On the other hand to not travel is to lose touch with one's House. Either way a serious choice must be made about where one's loyalties lie.

I worked up some quick statistics on the Rhine Tribunal last night. The Rhine Tribunal, we are told, has about 130 magi. Of these about one in six is a peregrinator, a magus with no fixed Covenant – this works out to be about 21 magi. There are 10 known functioning Covenants, 6 Gilds, and 12 Houses; there are also 4 Ranks, but these are a less divisive issue. By going through the information on characters in the book, I have identified 75 of the magi by their Houses, 60 by their Rank, and 54 by their Gild. The largest House is that of Bonisagus, having at least 14 members, 10 of whom are at Durenmar. There appear to be about 9 Mercere, but only 1 is Gifted; still, this is a lot of messengers for the Tribunal. There are 7 known members of House Tremere, but as this book came out before True Lineages the internal divisions from that House are unknown. House Ex Miscellanea has 7 known members – there are probably more, but how many different Traditions would be maintained with such a small number? The Gilds are roughly even, with Oak coming in at the high number of 13 and Ash and Hawthorn tied at the low of 6 members. Also, in an odd bit of statistical work, of the 60 magi we have Ranks for, none are Apprentices, 18 are Journeymen, 33 are Masters, and 7 are Archmagi – seems a bit top-heavy that way. Probably almost all of the magi we do not have ranks for would be Journeymen if we were to maintain any sort of sense of balance.

There is a further interesting note about the Rhine Tribunal. Due to the nature of the Gilds, most, but not all, magi not only join a Gild but also travel to Durenmar for few seasons of "brushing up". Usually this final bit of training is conducted, according to the supplement, by a member of House Bonisagus, thus allowing the Bonisagus to fulfill his requirement towards sharing knowledge. Gild politics, we are told, are highly important in the Tribunal. Since Gild training apparently requires two or more seasons at Durenmar and since this is usually conducted by someone from House Bonisagus, it would appear that loyalty to one's Covenant, or even potentially one's House, is of less importance than to one's Gild. The high proportion of wandering magi seems to reinforce this idea. In other words the structure of the Rhine Tribunal actively works to undercut the standard forms of loyalty found in the core rule book.

Monastic orders of the Middle Ages maintained internal traditions and standards by having monasteries entirely devoted to a single order – Carthusian, Augustinians, Benedictines, etc. The Order of Hermes, however, tries to maintain specific traditions through dispersal; Covenants have members of several Houses at once. This might be enough to undermine coherency within the Order, but the new proliferation of divisions, in the form of Gilds and in-House groupings, seems to work against any notions of cohesion. Is the Order of Hermes working towards disintegration by division?

I welcome any an all commentary.

Imo it started with the Mysteries. I made a similiar observation then, but how many Mysteries you had in your saga was optional. It wasn't really a problem as presented, but the pigeon-hole tend was set.

Quite how many factions, often with a long sophisticated history and weilding significant influence, can a society of 1200 people scattered over Europe, Russia and the Middle East support? My suspension of disbelief is stressed... Scenes from 'The Life of Brian' spring to mind. "The Judian's Peoples Front? He's over there. Spliter!"

I have the same problem with common conceptions of Order politics. With the numbers involved and with most engaged in near full-time study, are grand impersonal political campaigns feasible? Particularly as most people seem locked into a decided position with superglue. I would have thought Tribunal politics would be very personal, village politics, not the politics of modern governments. Many GMs seem to love this stuff though...

For some reason the pigeon-hole concept appears irresistible to most authors and the fanbase positively demand it. Like a preponderance of sociopathic characters, this is an artifact of current roleplaying culture.

Regards

- David W

Rank vise, we know that a total of 12 archmagi reside in the Rhine (only 7 are named, but it is stated that a dozen of the archmagi live there). As for the rest, I would guesstimate that half are masters and the rest are journeymen. Apprentices are not considered magi, and are just a single step above grogs.

The large number of wandering magi, could be in part due to the fact that magi trying to have a new covenant recognized are considered wandering untill the new convenant is recognized by all.

In the Rhine, the Gilds serve as political parties. So one could compare this to the conflict of loyalties a local politician comes under when he is both member of a party and hails to a spesific county.

It would also appear that the Gilds are simply a way for like minded magi to declare an allegiance.

Brian: "You are all individuals."
Crowd <chants>: "We are all individuals Lord."
Man 1 <whispers>: "I'm not."
Man 2 <whispers>: "Yes you are."

You are right though, there are alots of groups in a relatively small pool of magi. The fact that many of these groups are not exclusive does help though.

I believe that covenant divisions, guild divisions, mystery divisions and covenant divisions are fundamentally different enough that their purposes won't cross.

IMO of the houses, only the tremere and trianoman bonisagus are political factions. The rest of the houses won't have a party line for the there to be conflict with. I think that covenants are the primary political divisions in the order for most political questions with the guilds (in the rhein tribunal) dealing with issues that ionly overlap covenant or crime/punishment issues occasionally.

The other allegencies a magus have will provide them with responsibilities but having characters balance different responcibilities hardly makes the game lack verisimilitude.

Lets take an example

A magus of house Jerebiton, belongs to a mystery cult that seeks perfection through alchemy, he is a member of a multi-house rhein covenant not detailed in GoTF, he belongs to the oak guild, he has earned a reputation as a hoplite.

If you remove the oak guild (not that I remember what the oak guild's issues are) I don't see any conflict between our theretical magi's other affiliations. If true conflict between his affiliations does develop he could change any one of these affiliations (even house) without leaving the order.

I don't see this as particularily different form a modern person having a membership in a church, participation in a political party, belonging to a union, and taking an active role in local government.

I think that each magus having many different ties to different sub organizations within the order makes the order more cohesive rather htan less cohesive.

If your only organizations were houses (ala 2nd edition) and the houses formed single house covenants you could have drastic inter house conflict and one house might want to split off from the order (ala the schism war). Now with houses, covenants, mystery cults and gatherings (arch mages, hopolites, etc.) There is much more reason for the order to remain unified. Magi are loyal to more than their own little tribe.

The Order changed a lot from ArM4 to ArM5.

It apparently got more organized overall.
This could be explained by the effects of the Gift: magi encountering each other with their Parmae down - which is hard to avoid e. g. during sunrise/sunset, during the administration of healing/longevity rituals, during endorsements of testimony - will be bothered by each others' Gift, which can lead to very embarassing and destabilizing situations.
If senior magi have a good reputation (Hermetic Prestige) in their Tribunal or the Order, this counteracts the effect of their Gift on sodales. Such a reputation might be the result of a position in some hierarchy, of experiences and interests shared with other magi, and in general of structures which clearly tell a magus with Parma down what to expect from his sodalis.
The Order is well advised to maintain and reinforce such reputations whenever it can: they stabilize it.

The importance of the covenant got significantly weakened in ArM5, as the overall power of the Order and of elder magi got reduced: covenants are now rarely or never self-supporting, so their members will rely a lot on additional ties outside of the covenant to survive and succeed as magi.
Examples: We see young magi borrowing Vis from the local redcap and bartering with their Parentes for their first longevity ritual, and very old magi travelling to distant Tribunals to find an expert versed enough both in CrCo and Magic Theory to once more restore their last one.

Houses apparently are strengthened in ArM5.
This is due partly because now several are described as clearly concentrated in certain Tribunals, and having more or less secure bases to project power and influence from: e. g. Bonisagus in the Rhine Tribunal, Tremere in the Transsylvanian Tribunal, Ex Miscellanea on the British isles.
The currently better known Houses are also more structured than was described in earlier versions: their ranks, offices and meetings - as described in TL - do also contribute to their influence on the Order in general and their members in particular.

Regional Tribunals can maintain local practices in the face of the Order, but we do not (yet?) see them project their influence outward.
I would expect (but did not yet find) a few local offices at least in the central, older Tribunals, such as:
* Provider of longevity rituals - for the tricky rituals, supported in her studies by the entire Tribunal, and with a heck of a rep to keep the clients calm at the critical moment of ritual application,
* Protector of redcaps - keeping the roads safe for them, and investigating any troubles,
* Advocate of the Tribunal - a Guernicus representing the Tribunal in neighbouring Tribunals.

How can an average younger magus improve his position in such an Order of Hermes?
He cannot ignore it and rely on a covenant of 2 to 6 equals: he *needs* the Order.
He can - and should - try to work within the hierarchy of his House, using the ties he has there after his apprenticeship, but he likely is at the bottom rung of influence, and climbing up will take a lot of time, effort, luck - and also outside help and connections.
Here the Gild-concept of GotF comes in handy. By committing to a political agenda shared by many others, the young magus can find immediate support, training and company.

How do these different ties of a young German magus interwork? Are they somehow mutually exclusive? I don't think so.

His covenant - if he belongs to one - will usually represent the main economical base of his existence and all his activities. So even a moderately wise magus will work to preserve and expand it. 'Concordia Domi, Foris Pax' should in particular be the motto of the typical covenants of younger player character magi.

A Gild helps young magi, but requires also cooperation on its agenda - so most Rhine covenants should not have members of conflicting Gilds. (Looking over GotF, I find that all but two covenants have named members from only 1 or 2 Gilds - with the Autumn covenant Fengheld apparently powerful enough to manipulate the Gilds for its own ends.) Gilds know the Houses of their potential members beforehand and will not accept members from Houses opposed to their long-term goals (e. g. no Merinita in the Weissdorngilde). So, unless Gilds or Houses radically change their goals in short timeframe, loyality conflicts should be resolvable.

His House provides an ambitious young magus with the best long-term perspectives of advancement. (OK, this might not be true for Ex Misc.) His House also will know - and likely accept - that he needs support from his covenant and Gild to work for the goals of his House.
How much an elder maga successful in her House remains attached to her Gild will probably depend on how much the other Gild members could do to further her personal political agenda.

Kind regards,

Berengar

On request here a further elaboration of my views of the ArM5 Order of Hermes, this time with focus on internal conflicts within different structures of the Order.

If one outlines basics of structures within an organization, one can hardly avoid to initially describe how something *should* interwork, and to abstract from possible conflicts. But later one should analyze such structures for their capability to resist likely friction and internal conflict as well. I will again stick to the perspective of a young ambitious magus - because likely the most interesting for players and storyguides.

Let's start with the Houses.

In ArM5 they still appear as the only structures of the Order with resources for longterm strategical analysis and planning, hence those who would have to come up with solutions for the only fundamental challenge of the Order: the extending, encroaching Divine endangering the Order's magical resources.
Given that a resolution through all-out war and removal of the challenge is out of the question, all the remaining options imply cultural adaptation of the Order to the changing world.
Since the Houses (but Ex Misc) still reflect the cultures of their founders, magi from vastly different backgrounds, also the task to coordinate and implement the necessary cultural adaptation falls to each House.

But apparently most Houses are not up to it. Often the analysis is carried through, theories and general strategies (Traditionalism, Transitionalism, Wilderism, Harmonism etc.) are developed, but no House has yet conclusively discussed and decided their application.
So, when the issue of the encroaching Divine becomes urgent enough that a general reaction can no longer be postponed, many Houses will likely break up, lose authority over their members and leave them to their own devices when facing the problem.
In the meantime, the Houses suffer crises in proportion to the unresolved problem's currently perceived urgency, weakening their influence within the Order. Ironically, these penalize Houses with open approaches to the problem (like Bjornaer) compared to Houses (like Tremere) who just ignore it and instead occupy their members' minds with illusions of competence and generic preparations for a war following the collapse of another House.

So an intelligent, ambitious young magus starting his career in 1220 should focus on his contribution to allow his House to come to grips with the extending Divine, or his in-House achievements and reputation will become meaningless long before he passes into final twilight - unless, of course, he before heroically dies for the glory of his House in an inane last civil war of the Order.

Now to the covenants.

Having lost their self-sufficiency with ArM5, existing in a more structured society of magi, and often needing sponsors and outside support already for their founding, a covenant in relevant aspects now resembles a late-medieval fief shared by several vassals.

We can assume that some thought was originally given to its charter and the composition of its members. Especially the charter should have been hardened against attempts to force members by Certamen or threats to represent interests of outsiders instead of their own. This can - even with TL - also in ArM5 still be done by having the charter (signed by each covenant member and witnessed by a Quaesitor in good standing) state, that it is as binding to its members as decisions of the Tribunal in which the covenant is located, and that each magus casts his votes in covenant council according to his own judgement. So a covenant can support individual members put under outside pressure by bringing case of attempted coercion to break the Peripheral Code before the Tribunal.

This leaves the conflicts of interests between covenant members still to be explored.

Basically a covenant is shared resources and obligations. So the material conflicts will be those centered on their administration, and the covenant charter should determine how these are resolved. Given the interests and obligations of many magi outside of their covenant in ArM5, bargaining for support within the covenant will often be more complex than in typical self-sufficient covenants of earlier versions, and jockeying for position can take place both within and outside of the covenant.
Comparing late-medieval situations - like the cases of Oswald von Wolkenstein against his family members for the use of Hauenstein - I expect that a few covenants will have to resort to Quaesitorial arbitration in matters of covenant charters, after administration and negotiations got out of hand due to inability and/or rancor.
Such situations can then become further complicated by attempts of a House faction (especially in a single House covenant) or a German Gild to take control of a weak or indecisive covenant by enlisting enough covenant members.
Of course all this makes a covenant lose a lot of prestige and influence within their Tribunal, so most will not allow conflict to escalate that far. There is also little point for a young, ambitious magus to remain a member of a squabbling and failing covenant: unless he can subvert it to his own ends, he better leave it before its problems become obvious.

Last to the Gilds.

They broker votes at Tribunals, but - given that they usually block each other at important decisions anyway - actually are far more important to young magi because they grant training, ease access to the Gild leaders and provide solid protection from Wizards' War.

Given their open nature - basically whoever declares allegiance is a member - discussions in the Gilds could IMO be rather frank, as long as voting at Tribunal is done as a faction when 'necessary'.
The critical internal conflicts within a Gild's young magi are for the ear of important Masters and Archmages: while wits, eloquence and charm usually will help here, pure competitiveness might not, and losing sense of proportion certainly will not.

Kind regards,

Berengar

> I am going to drop this same message on as many lists as possible
> in order to engender some serious discussion on this topic. Please
> bear with me as this is a somewhat lengthy missive.

OK, but I think that having exactly the same argument, using the same message, in several forums, is a bit on the trollish side, Angus.

> Fifth edition Ars Magica is not even a year old. To date we have
> the following supplements: the core rules, Calebais, Guardians of
> the Forests, True Lineages. Not many books there, but I already
> notice an important trend – multiple subdivisions of loyalties
> within the Order of Hermes. If this trend continues, not only will
> there be many more micro-groups within the Order of Hermes as a
> whole, but within the very structure of the Houses. Rather than
> moving towards anything like unity, the Order is in danger of being
> shattered into dozens of component parts.

I'm sorry, I was polite last time, but this time, I just have to call you on this: it's rubbish to say that just because a person has multiple identity groups, these -must- conflict.

> The Order, we are told, is comprised of approximately 1200 magi.
> These are further divided into 12 Houses and 13 Tribunals. In the
> first Tribunal that we know about, the Rhine Tribunal, most magi
> also join one of six Gilds. Four of the Houses are Mysteries –
> Bjornaer, Criamon, Merinita, Verditius; these have special rankings
> within their structure.

You are double-counting four of the Houses here.

> Tremere, as is shown in True Lineages, has internal subdivisions.

Yes, but the idea that because I'm a member of my vexellation that this must mean that I am instantly drawn away from my House is just well, stupid. I'm sory, I'm trying to be polite, but I really doubt at this point you bothered to read the material you are criticisng. You are suggesting that if I'm a soldier in 1 RAR Battalion, I must, necessarily, be disloyal to the Army and my Command HQ. It's just silliness.

I'm sorry Angus, but your idea that I must have only one label on me at a time is just not how real people live. I'm a Queenslander and an Australian. Niether of these makes me less of the other. I'm a librarian, but that doesn't make me less of either of the others. I'm a member of a union, but that doesn't make me less of any of the others. I'm a member of Amnesty. That doesn't make me less of an Australian, a Queenslander, a librarian or a Union member.

Not all distinctions imply an exclusive loyalty.

> How, given all of these subdivisions, does the Order maintain
> cohesion?

People are plural in their identity?

> Assuming no other affiliations he now is loyal to House Criamon, to
> he Oak Gild, and to the covenant of Durenmar.

Well, I'm loyal to me family, my lover, my employer, my religion...what's your point?

> There are 7 known members of House Tremere, but as this book came
> out before True Lineages the internal divisions from that House are
> unknown.

Again, you have this weird idea that the vexellations of the House are antagonistic toward the house and each other. This is not the case and demonstrates to me that you are criticcisn my work in bad faith. I do not see how anyone who has actually read the section you are commenting on in HOH:TL could come to believe that this was the case. Therefore, I conclude you are cricitisng without having read the material.

This continues my apprehension that you are trolling multiple lists.

I'm sorry you feel this is trollish. The only reason I am doing this is to try and get as wide of a range of opinions as potentially possible. Conversely, I felt it was only fair to inform people who frequented multiple boards and lists that I was doing so. The point was to inform, rather than to bash people over the head.

My apologies if I have offended.

>>> A magus of house Jerebiton, belongs to a mystery cult that seeks perfection through alchemy, he is a member of a multi-house rhein covenant not detailed in GoTF, he belongs to the oak guild, he has earned a reputation as a hoplite.

If you remove the oak guild (not that I remember what the oak guild's issues are) I don't see any conflict between our theretical magi's other affiliations. <<<

Ok, that's a challenge (not really).

The Primus of Jerbiton demands members support a particular Grand Tribunal proposal.

The leader of his Mystery Cult opposes this proposal and makes clear that progress towards inner mysteries is dependent on voting against it.

The covenant council decide on a position and make it a membership dependent vote.

The Oak Gild does the same.

Various powerful members of these organisations threaten 'consequencies' if members betray the leadership.

Regards

- David W

Please gentlemen, let's keep it polite, okay?

While there may be situations where the various loyalties a magus can owe coincide with each other, I would say that more often they are likely to conflict, with the suggestion David just made as a perfect example. This is something that (I think) results from the way the game is conceived my most of those who write for it and play it. Mystery cults, political affiliations, houses etc. tend to have conflicting agendas; this generates dilemmas for the characters, which motivate plots, roleplaying and the like. This is different from modern western society, where it is (generally) less common for such varied loyalties to come into conflict.

Niall

//The Primus of Jerbiton demands members support a particular Grand Tribunal proposal.

The leader of his Mystery Cult opposes this proposal and makes clear that progress towards inner mysteries is dependent on voting against it.

The covenant council decide on a position and make it a membership dependent vote.

The Oak Gild does the same.

Various powerful members of these organisations threaten 'consequencies' if members betray the leadership.//

I cannot imagine how an Order where the elder magi behave that way could have lasted even 20 years. But it's supposed to exist for 450 years now, does it?

In general, leaders everywhere carefully consider requests to followers with conflicting loyalties. While possible, they avoid causing an all out conflict of allegiances, alienating followers and thus eroding the base of their leadership.
When in feudal Europe one party in a conflict attempted to call up those of their vassals with loyalties to the other party, too, this was a clear sign that this conflict had become an all out war to last for many years: after all, a vassal not heeding the call will be an enemy forever, also in future conflicts unrelated to the current one.

Kind regards,

Berengar

>>> I cannot imagine how an Order where the elder magi behave that way could have lasted even 20 years. <<<

Then you have a problem with many sagas... But we already knew that.

I'll not bite on the imagination angle.

Regards

- David W

//Then you have a problem with many sagas... //

Yep ... those where elder magi behave like kindergarten kids. I know very well that such campaigns exist, even as .pdf supplements.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Well one thing here...

Yes you can have factions, conflicts and so on. But there is a glue that holds the order together and that is the fact that if you leave it the rest of the order will hunt you down and kill you. Self preservation means that once you're in you're in for the long haul.

Now that doesn't mean you have to get along with every other mage in the order. Nor does it mean that the order as a whole has to be politically bland. Conflicts between loyalties will arrise when you have different interest groups, and different interest groups will arrise when you have 1200 mages. To be blunt look at the 150 year covenent project and count the number of mages and count the number of special libraries that were founded. Did 5 mages agree on all things all the time? Heck no. Did that mean they would not work together when it benifited them? Of course not.

You can have divided loyalties and keep an organisation together when it comes together when the going gets tough. Where the order would run into problems is when it DOESN'T do so.

Also using modern examples is a bit pointless to prop up an arguement as few organisations today expect "loyalty." The fact you are an Australian and a Queenslander must come into conflict from time to time when it comes to taxes only you don't have much control over that. But if you were a polition I think you would find it conflicting. Heck currently in Canada the Ontario government (Liberal) is in conflict witht he Federal government (Liberal) over taxs.

Also there are checks and balances to this whole thing, the biggest being being ejected from the Order will be terminal. The second is that if you screw up there is someone waiting for you to fall. So if you are going to force a conflict of interest you had better be damned smart and sucessful about it...plus have a few fall guys between you and the rest of the Order (Col North's please apply here).

So both views can exist...the order can't be too divisive or it would not survive and it can't be to bland as frankly that is a bit to unbelievable for anyone who has been taught group dynamics and leadership theory.

Also there is another check. Other powerful mages can challenge you if you do something so if you want to really stir the pot but good you better have loads of friends. And if you want friends you have to make sure to keep their bread buttered, and that means you can't be straining things.

I would imagine that this leads to subtle manuevers which are no less challenging to loyalties...and in my mind generate better stories then something so overt it would work as the plot of a TV show.

But in the end the glue that holds the Order together is quite simple...quit and die or stay and enjoy a ripe old age. Tought choice for most people.

We see such people in the real world too... Old, young, inbetween, roleplayer or senior politician. Silliness, naiveté, incompetence, bloody-mindedness, and self-defeating behavior surrounds us.

Perhaps the drive certain roleplayers have to fill their game worlds with übermenschlich stems from insecurity over this reality. It also lies at the heart of conspiracy theory fanatics; characterised by their ability to spin elborate suppositions out of scant, ambigious data and then insist it is 'The Truth (tm)'.

Regards

- David W

> Also using modern examples is a bit pointless to prop up an
> arguement as few organisations today expect "loyalty." The fact you
> a re an Australian and a Queenslander must come into conflict from
> time to time when it comes to taxes only you don't have much
> control over that.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you mean, here. I don't see how such a conflict is possible within my system of government. Perhaps our systems work differently? My states don't have any strong taxing power. They are able to levy some charges, but get 85% of their funding from the Federal Government.

My State and Federal leaders are on opposite sides too. Niether of them expects this bond to cause any sort of trouble, because they understand the concept of federalism.

"I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you mean, here. I don't see how such a conflict is possible within my system of government. Perhaps our systems work differently? My states don't have any strong taxing power. They are able to levy some charges, but get 85% of their funding from the Federal Government."

Canada has a Federal and Provincial Governments. The provinces charge income tax (based as a fraction of the federal tax) and levy various sales taxes and so on. The lions share of some programs funding comes from the federal government but they have to balance their budgets on their own. This leads to significant Federal-Provincial disputes.

The amount of money a province gets for resources is a contentious issue, the amount of money ottawa gives for health care is a contentious issue, the money that a province must pay to ottawa for "transfer payments" is contenious.

When the provinces can they stick the federal government for everything they can get. Alberta did so over oil, the current Ontario goverment over transfer payments...politically it would be suicide for the Federal minority to p.o. the province that has most of the population of Canada in it, so billions are now going to Ontario to cover education (I think).

And I would rate Canadian politics on the boring side of things. So clearly to me if you can get us boringn Canuks having disputes like this...which significantly effects politicions I can see the order having some significant internal tensions. What is good for alberta is not always good for the rest of the country but an alberta politicion will make a big deal out of blaming everything he can on Ottawa (who is the big enemy after all.. *sigh* idiots).

"My State and Federal leaders are on opposite sides too. Niether of them expects this bond to cause any sort of trouble, because they understand the concept of federalism."

Count your blessing. A good chunk of our federal polititions are from the Bloc Quebecios who's sole purpose is to remove Quebec from Confederation since apparently there is some advantage to them in preserving their language and culture in doing so...what that is exactly is beyond human comprehenion since their birth rate is below two and most of the immigrants granted immediate immigrant status because they speak french don't know a Caban d'suc from a pine tree. But anyway enough boring Canadian politics.

The main point is that when you have levels of government you have conflict visible to the public or not. This exists starting at the town/city council level. Essentially so long as you have to ask for money from a higher governing body you are in conflict with it, unless you never ask for more money then they can provide you.

If this is applicable to the order of hermes is not so clear since I don't see the Tribunal for example "funding" a covenent. But on the other hand if a Tribunal has a say in allocation of vis then yes there will be conflicts. Also what may be good for Tribunal A may not be good for the Order as a whole.

But you clearly can have conflicts even between things you don't see as conflicting. Even if you personally don't have them other people on this planet do. And frankly most of the things you listed: Australian-Queenslander-Union Member-Librarian-Amnesty member are very exclusive of one another. And none of them impose things on you beyond taxs (union dues being a tax) for the most part.

But go back in time a bit '30's and see if you would not find a conflict between the union and the government (I can't imagine the Librarian Union staging a violent strike but unions for others did during this time...even in Canada the army was called in a few times). And lets say Amnesty condemed the Australian participation in Iraq what would you do?

I think that reality can provide sufficient examples of conflicts even within "small organisations" so there will be conflicting loyalties in the order of Hermes. BUT I see no reason why this should be of the more blantent sort that are like Kindergarten bullies since frankly that sort of leadership never lasts.

In the end I think both views are not mutally exclusive...by this I mean people who say there can't be conflicting loyalties and those who do. The conflicts simply have to be subtle and to an extent self-canceling, unbalanced conflict of interests would be disasterous but balanced ones simply generate internal tension.

Does this make more sense?

Another issue we haven't addressed here yet is that of public vs. secret organisations. While a leader might want to avoid giving his or her minions orders that will bring them into conflict with other loyalties, this breaks down if the leader doesn't know of all the groups to which the minion owes loyalty...

Niall

//We see such people in the real world too... Old, young, inbetween, roleplayer or senior politician. Silliness, naiveté, incompetence, bloody-mindedness, and self-defeating behavior surrounds us.

Perhaps the drive certain roleplayers have to fill their game worlds with übermenschlich stems from insecurity over this reality.//

Well, there is a wide gap between the all too common, cheap and boring kindergarten bully elder magus and an Übermensch, isn't there? Unless of course we look at their self image: then both fall together.

I know its a change for some, but: what if we assumed that a proven Hermetic politician's judgement is at least sufficient to run a farm or a small castle?

Now to bring that back to the thread's topic: did anybody here claim that the life of magus, a covenant, a tribunal or even the Order could not be ruined in a week by utter "silliness, naiveté, incompetence, bloody-mindedness, and self-defeating behavior" of a chosen four elder magi? Or that a kingdom could not be ruined in a month by "silliness, naiveté, incompetence, bloody-mindedness, and self-defeating behavior" of its king and his advisors? Certainly not me.
But the Order so far is not ruined.

So why bother with an example of four kindergarten bully elder magi in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.10? It is of no concern about the topic, how loyalty conflicts in the Order are resolved.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//While a leader might want to avoid giving his or her minions orders that will bring them into conflict with other loyalties, this breaks down if the leader doesn't know of all the groups to which the minion owes loyalty...//

Is this a hint at something from books in the making? Verrrry good then ...
... ooops, I guess I outed myself as a conspiracy theorist again.

Yes, secret loyalties are the business of the guy holding them, and keeping them secret. I expect, though, that the secret organization has a few provisions and rules to guide him in common cases of conflicting loyalties.

Kind regards,

Berengar

>>>I know its a change for some, but: what if we assumed that a proven Hermetic politician's judgement is at least sufficient to run a farm or a small castle?<<<

Why? The Order is small, around 1500. Tribunals are even smaller. These people are selected by their supernatural ability (The Gift), not their political ability or potential. Most are concerned primarily with their personal magical power; which depends most on time investment. Imo it is perfectly plausible that all that is required to be a Heremtic politician is to be a loud-mouth egotist.

It is imo perfectly viable to assume most 'politics' in the Order is at the 'Big Brother' ego-led level of sophistication.

It might sometimes be at the level of a village council (parish council for UK). The quality of people sitting on such is not particularly high in general. Town councils are not much better.

As for enough 'politician's judgement' 'to run a farm or a small castle', it takes none to run such poorly. There are and will continue to be many poorly run enterprises at this level.

Regards

- David W

//These people are selected by their supernatural ability (The Gift), not their political ability or potential.//
Apprentices are selected by their Gift *and* their intelligence - so make a rather unruly lot. But you are quite right that they are not selected for their pleasant personality, which often enough got challenged by living down a not so Gentle Gift for a decade or so anyway.

//Imo it is perfectly plausible that all that is required to be a Hermetic politician is to be a loud-mouth egotist.//
As long as a Hermetic politician is just a magus who spends his time with politics, you are quite right. I assume that there are a few of this type around in every Tribunal, House or Gild.
It is IMO very unlikely, however, that such a guy gets into a leadership position, if he is an incapable bully to boot.

Try to look at it this way: in a Tribunal or a House you have some 80 to 120 clever people looking out after their own interest. Of these some 25% (20 to 30) roughly are old, learned and experienced enough to strive for leadership of the bunch, as a Primus, as a Praeco (if the regional procedures allow that), as a Gild leader, or perhaps - a few books from now - as the leader of a mystery cult. A significant part of these 20 to 30 have other interests than leading the rest, so it comes down to some - say - 5 to 15 actually considering the job.

None of these ArM5 leadership positions of which we know now can be had for the asking, even by an egotistical loudmouth.

The Primus of both House Bonisagus (also Praeco of the Rhine Tribunal)and the Primus of House Tremere are appointed by their predecessors - so will be deemed capable and dependable by these experienced and usually very conservative magi, and certainly will have successfully absolved the most difficult tasks in the service of their House before. (Think of the adoption of a successor by a childless Roman Emperor here.)
The Primus of House Guernicus is elected by the full House council, so will be deemed capable, reliable and sufficiently sociable by the 30 most experienced Magi of his House. (Think of the election of a Pope by and out of a college of worldwise cardinals here.)
The Primus of House Bjornaer is apparently elected by the entire House at the Gathering of the 12 years, so is certainly not known to be a bully. (Think of the election of a chief by his tribe.)
Somehow I don't find yet anything at all about the Primus of House Mercere, or of the process to determine the Primus of House Merinita, so have to skip these Houses. Perhaps it is just late ...

//It might sometimes be at the level of a village council (parish council for UK). The quality of people sitting on such is not particularly high in general.//
There were no incapable bullies in town councils I knew of.

//As for enough 'politician's judgement' 'to run a farm or a small castle', it takes none to run such poorly.//
I know that it takes only a little judgement to run such places day by day, and hence made this rather low standard my assumption.
Still a bully incapable to the degree of your worthies (arbitrarily and without any attempt to mediate challenging - and likely losing - the loyalty of their followers, or warmongering against unknown opponents for an occurrence they did not even try to understand) would have lost the farm or castle within a year.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Berengar (>) wrote:

> Somehow I don't find yet anything at all about the Primus of House
> Mercere, or of the process to determine the Primus of House
> Merinita, so have to skip these Houses. Perhaps it is just late ...

I suggest that the Mercere primacy is inherited. This makes it possible to have poor, ineffective, dumb or even crazy Mercere Primi. However, Prima Insatella is a shrewd businesswoman and a good administrator. I imagine she doesn't concern herself much with House affairs so much as keeping Harco running smoothly, and she probably trusts the senior Redcaps at the various Mercer Houses to see to their Tribunals. Her second-eldest daughter Maria seems ready to take her place, though the elder sibling(s) could possibly dispute the succession if we were looking to make a story out of it.

-Erik Dahl

>>>Try to look at it this way: in a Tribunal or a House you have some 80 to 120 clever people looking out after their own interest. <<<

Look at it this way. You have a small bunch of academics looking out for whatever it is that floats their boat...

Clever does not equal wise. University departments are run by the cleverest of people. Do you alreally believe they are the best run organisations, with the best leaders?

Clever people are often the biggest fools.

>>> Of these some 25% (20 to 30) roughly are old,<<<

Oldness certainly is the factor.

>>> learned <<<

In Hermetic Magic, not good governement. This is simply age.

>>> and experienced enough to strive for leadership of the bunch,<<<

Experienced? 25% are simply old enough to be considerable for high office in Hermetic culture. Of this 25%, a faction will be wise, a proportion will be ambious for power; the overlap of these two sub-sets will be smaller than the available positions.

The ability to win office doesn't alway translate to being good at the job.

>>> Praeco <<<

The Praeco is simply the eldest magi... This gives a clue as to the general leadership culture of the Order.

>>> The Primus of House Guernicus is elected by the full House council, so will be deemed capable, reliable and sufficiently sociable by the 30 most experienced Magi of his House. (Think of the election of a Pope by and out of a college of worldwise cardinals here.) <<<

I did write the Guernicus chapter. Iirc the last time they picked a relatively unknown outsider. The current Guernicus Prima had no leadership experience at all.

>>>Still a bully incapable to the degree of your worthies<<<

I assume you are referring the to the protagonists of the 'Icelandic Wars' pdf suppliment.

>>> (arbitrarily and without any attempt to mediate challenging - and likely losing - the loyalty of their followers, or warmongering against unknown opponents for an occurrence they did not even try to understand) would have lost the farm or castle within a year.<<<

Iirc, only one of the expedition leaders held a Tribunal office (Presiding Q); she was an expansionist. The other was a hoplite; an architypical Flambeau bully. They led a group of like-minded volunteers. They all thought they were on a jolly hedgy-hunt. As ArM4 archmagi they had every reason to be confident. Had they only faced Iceland's hedge wizards they would have been right.

They were muppets, but they would not have been out of place in a line-up of PC magi I have known. In the end they served the needs of the drama. It wasn't written as an exactingly realist work.

That the scenerio conflicts with your vision of the Order is no surprise.

Regards

- David W

OK, I pencil this into my TL then. So Insatella at least could run a farm. ;-)

Yes, inheritance of leadership is the lazy way of ensuring stability, and callow heirs - think Humphrey IV de Toron, Guy de Lusignan or Dom Sebastiao - were indeed responsible for some blatant leadership catastrophes. I shudder at the idea of House Mercere deploying under the glorious leader Sebastianus all the Redcaps at Oculus Septentrionalis and then marching against the Order of Odin - never to be seen again.

When it comes to inheritance of an important business, though ... an incompetent heir is often revealed before the all out catastrophe, and might still be induced to transfer reponsibility in time to save most of the business. Especially if there are experienced underlings around like the senior Redcaps.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Well I am having trouble seeing how this kindergarten leadership can really work. The Order is not a monarchy...it is an Oligarchy.

If the leader of a faction/house/club/group starts getting heavy handed he will loose his power. So if a leader routinely says things like "Your progress in this house is dependant on kissing my butt." Which is what we are talking about here in essence then the people he told this too will get together and remove him, replacing him with someone who has more congienial views. It might take them a few years to get the plan done but it is certain they will do so. For every house/etc there has to be a few vultures circling that leader waiting for the first sign of failure.

Internal tensions yes, even significant ones, a degree of conflict which is expected but certainly not every mages decision suddenly being confounded by several different pulls.

Frankly I would find that tiresome, I am certain my mage would find it tiresome and I am certain that I would not be the only one who did so, so finding friends to help me simplify the situation is likely to be easy.

One key aspect to leadership is not to make people follow your orders, but to make people want to follow your orders. The first is a tyrant, the second is a leader. The first will be forgotten, the other will be remembered with statues.

"Look at it this way. You have a small bunch of academics looking out for whatever it is that floats their boat...

Clever does not equal wise. University departments are run by the cleverest of people. Do you alreally believe they are the best run organisations, with the best leaders?

Clever people are often the biggest fools."

Really? I think you have never seen a well run department then. I have a great deal of experience with academic institutions and a great many of the administrators who head up major labs, and other facilities are very good at their job. If they are not they tend to get replaced. Not all are of course but then not all members of the board of govenors of Ford Motors are either. But in general department heads are at least able administrators. This does not mean they can lead worth a damn but they can keep the paper moving.

Leadership as defined by the Canadian Armed Forces is: "The art of influencing human behavior to acomplish a mission in the manner desired by the leader." Note is an art not a science. Note it is about influencing people not bullying them. Note it is about accomplishing something.

Management is the science of using men and materials effectively. It is a science and has nothing to do with leadership.

Regardless one would expect the higher levels of the hermetic order to be at least able managers and administrators or to have helping them those that are.

And for the most part if they hold the position for any length of time you expect that they will be at least competent leaders.

Projects lead by poor leaders, and suffering from bad or non-existant management tend to fail...and fail spectacularily.

"Experienced? 25% are simply old enough to be considerable for high office in Hermetic culture. Of this 25%, a faction will be wise, a proportion will be ambious for power; the overlap of these two sub-sets will be smaller than the available positions.

The ability to win office doesn't alway translate to being good at the job."

In general in the Order there will be 10-15% of the population who are good leaders. And by that I mean natural leaders, then you have the fact that leadership is a skill that can be learned so in principle if you wish to learn how to then you can. Natural talent plus training gives supreb leadership. Now they may lead you into a disaster of course.

1600 mages, 400 old enough, 100 want to have power, 100 are wise...12% are wise and want power...which is 50. Are there really more than 50 leadership positions in the Order of Hermes?

Lets try with 1200 mages...300 old enough, 75 want power, 75 are wise, 36 are wise and want power...ok maybe now there is a problem and a few not so wise sneak in but most of those that both want power and can wield it effectively are in possitions of power.

"I did write the Guernicus chapter. Iirc the last time they picked a relatively unknown outsider. The current Guernicus Prima had no leadership experience at all."

So why in the name of all that is holy did he get elected?

To clarify what my position is:

Imo ArM authors should not feel compelled to write all senior magi as good political operators, good leaders and good tacticians. Often it serves a story to have unwise or unsuitable individuals in the positions they hold.

Some people might be tired of this plot device. Some might claim such stories break their suspension of disbelief. These are valid personal opinions and people are free to hold and express them. However, I believe such stories are not intrinsically invalid and are not blight on the ArM corpus; as others appear to be maintaining.

>>> I think you have never seen a well run department then. I have a great deal of experience with academic institutions and a great many of the administrators who head up major labs, and other facilities are very good at their job. <<<

No doubt. Administration is really off-point; I shouldn't have been drawn down that rabbit hole. I was thinking of their leadership and political skills. My dominate memory of department heads was that they were often not regarded highly by their peers.

>>> Regardless one would expect the higher levels of the hermetic order to be at least able managers and administrators or to have helping them those that are. <<<

This depends on the House and your vision of the general level of OoH organization/cohesion. How big is government in the Order? How much governing does a House or tribunal actually need or get?

Do you imagine Primi and Praecos spending 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, issuing directives to magi? Do you imagine them with a staff of close advisors and department heads, with staff beneath them, all busily working towards the leader's goal?

I don't imagine anything near that; with the possible exception of Mercere and Tremere and then not to a faction of that intensity. Quite how many requests and demands does the average magus see from his betters? Perhaps one or two every tribunal period if he's unlucky imo.

Imo Primi, Mystery Cult leaders, et al very rarely have any call/need/desire to truly exercise their authority in any significant or controversial way over members.

>>>And for the most part if they hold the position for any length of time you expect that they will be at least competent leaders.<<<

The #### only hits the fan when the leader finds himself with a controversial issue he really, really wants to push. We then have a crisis story event. Only then is his authority actually tested. Only then do his leadership skills or lack of same become apparent.

During these crisis's the membership wakes up and sees the quality of their leader.

I imagine that the majority of Primi are reasonably competent. But what I am objecting to is the claim that senior magi cannot have feet of clay. Even reasonably competent polticians can take gambles which blow up in their faces.

>>>1600 mages, 400 old enough, 100 want to have power, 100 are wise...12% are wise and want power...which is 50.<<<

Very generous, imo. More like 12% of those who want power are wise…

>>>Are there really more than 50 leadership positions in the Order of Hermes?<<<

You are assuming only the wise get into those positions. You're assuming all such positions are given out in way rationally designed to select wise leaders (i.e. some sort of consensual or even democratic process).

This is not a good assumption for a mystical medieval setting. Many may achieve leadership positions simply by dint of being the eldest in their group (Preacos, perhaps some Mystery Cults). Others may simply inherit the role. Others may have mystical selection procedures. Others may have contests (archmagi). Others will have a coterie of corrupt toadies which keep themselves at the trough.

Imo only a faction will be selected on the basis of how good they will be at the job (in a way we would regard as rational).

However, I am not suggesting that most leaders in the Order are fools; it just should remain an option to make some fools. That is what I am arguing for.

Regards

- David W

//They were muppets, ... It wasn't written as an exactingly realist work.//
Add to that also the muppets from http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.10, and my purpose is served.

//I did write the Guernicus chapter. Iirc the last time they picked a relatively unknown outsider. The current Guernicus Prima had no leadership experience at all.//
You did a good job with Bilera. You designed an original, interesting personality, and explained well why she could be chosen as a Prima.
(I also guess she will do reasonably well, leadership experience or not: she appears to be immune to delusions of grandeur, has stood by her pleasant personality for many decades, can handle loneliness, and spots insincere advisors without them noticing. Perhaps she is not happy in her new job - but that usually goes with it.)
Yes, you *can* design good characters, and spare us IQ90 kindergarten bully muppets in the future.

You write in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.29: //Imo ArM authors should not feel compelled to write all senior magi as good political operators, good leaders and good tacticians.//
I agree with you there. Old magi messing something up for good is far too useful a plot device. But you need not give it up: just have them fail in a way appropriate to a few decades of experience and above average intelligence. There's many ways to do this.

Kind regards,

Berengar

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mühsal der Besten

"Was arbeiten Sie gerade?"
wurde Herr K. einmal gefragt.
"Oh, ich habe viel Mühe",
antwortete Herr K.,
"ich bereite gerade meinen
nächsten Irrtum vor."

B. B.

>>>Add to that also the muppets from http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.10, and my purpose is served. <<<

As the issue in question was left open there is no basis to claim all the leaders in question must be muppets.

And as I wrote previously, I dispute your assessment of the degree of muppetary on display in tIW. Hermetic magi had no reason to fear Hedge Wizards in ArM4. Imo it was plausible for ArM4 archmagi not consider the possibility of effective resistance.

Regards

- David W

"No doubt. Administration is really off-point; I shouldn't have been drawn down that rabbit hole. I was thinking of their leadership and political skills. My dominate memory of department heads was that they were often not regarded highly by their peers."

That is all understandable. Administration, management and leadership are all three distinct skill sets. Few department heads would excell in all three. The "They are not highly regarded..." bit is dependant on a lot of things but since in recent times the primary job of department head has been to say "No" to funding requests I would imagine they are not terribly popular.

"Do you imagine Primi and Praecos spending 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, issuing directives to magi? Do you imagine them with a staff of close advisors and department heads, with staff beneath them, all busily working towards the leader's goal?"

Not really but they probably do a lot more administration then lab work. If they don't then the concept of "house" sort of falls appart, at least for me.

Also in a normal group dynamic leaders fill leadership vacuums so its more likely than not that someone will be there doing that sort of thing even if the current Primus is mostly asleep. Look at the Catholic church...Ratzinger&co were doing the popes job for the last few years since the pope has been ill.

The degree of competence will vary. But if the houses have a stable structure then they have some form of administative overhead. Otherwise you don't have a house you just have a collection of people. It may be axiomatic but I don't see how you can have an organisation without well organisation. And organisation requires administration and management and leadership...and the next thing you know you have a staff :)

"I imagine that the majority of Primi are reasonably competent. But what I am objecting to is the claim that senior magi cannot have feet of clay. Even reasonably competent polticians can take gambles which blow up in their faces."

Given the numbers I was suggesting you should have a spectrum of people in the order in power...from wise to powerhungery meglomaniacs. That is reasonable...but the vast majority should be competent and the impression given by the contrary sayers was that it should be common for the leaders to be in the habit of behaving idiotically.

There is a difference between taking a gamble, which is part of being a leader after all...no one claims all decisions are good ones from even the best of leaders...and forcing people to make a choice by coercives force on their loyaty to you on multiple occasions. The key issue here is multiple occasions.

I think you would agree that anyone in the habit of doing so will not make friends and positively influence his/her sodales...which would tend to limit his or her time in office.

You can have multiple loyalties...hence the existence of the differing groups in the Order...but you cannot have multiple loyalties if everyother day there is a significant conflict between them. So if this conflict does not arrise then it must be at least in part due to the leadership being wise/competent/savvy/lazy/etc enough to not do things which provokes these conflicts of interest.

I would never imagine all the leaders of the Order are wonderful leaders, but by the same token I would assume that those that aren't have a reason for being where they are.

>>> A magus of house Jerebiton, belongs to a mystery cult that seeks perfection through alchemy, he is a member of a multi-house rhein covenant not detailed in GoTF, he belongs to the oak guild, he has earned a reputation as a hoplite.

If you remove the oak guild (not that I remember what the oak guild's issues are) I don't see any conflict between our theretical magi's other affiliations. <<<

Ok, that's a challenge (not really).

The Primus of Jerbiton demands members support a particular Grand Tribunal proposal.

The leader of his Mystery Cult opposes this proposal and makes clear that progress towards inner mysteries is dependent on voting against it.

The covenant council decide on a position and make it a membership dependent vote.

The Oak Gild does the same.

Various powerful members of these organisations threaten 'consequencies' if members betray the leadership.

Regards

- David W

Ok David, what is this proposition that is so critical to the mystery cult that it will alienate its mebers and simultainiously is so critical to a covenant that its willing to kick out a member and also so critical to House Jerebiton that it will demand that its members refrain from using their own judgement in favor of the "party line".

Merely assuming that such a proposition exisits is begging the question.

>>>Not really but they probably do a lot more administration then lab work. If they don't then the concept of "house" sort of falls appart, at least for me.<<<

Ok, can you elaborate on quite what 'administration' fills a Primus's day?

The fact is that no House (at least as they were in HoH) levee taxes on members. They, in general, have little or no programme of work. Iirc even redcaps perform their duties in a highly autonomous self-employed manner; the bulk of any organization is conducted at tribunal level, not House level. This is management in any case, not administration. With no budget, where is the House level administration that requires the bulk of the Primus's time?

>>> Look at the Catholic church...Ratzinger&co were doing the popes job for the last few years since the pope has been ill.<<<

The average House has 100 members. How many members of the Catholic Church? How many people does the average House retain in paid employment? How many are employed by the Catholic Church?

Imo using examples like the Catholic Church as analogies to House organization is indicative of where our basic vision of the Order differs.

>>> It may be axiomatic but I don't see how you can have an organisation without well organisation. And organisation requires administration and management and leadership...and the next thing you know you have a staff :) <<<

We are talking about a hundred people on average. For most Houses the membership spends little if any time serving the House. The members are spread over Europe and beyond; we can expect <8 members per Tribunal who might only meet once or twice every seven years. How many staff does the average school chess club chairman have?

>>>That is reasonable...but the vast majority should be competent <<<

In the face of a real crisis? Imo it may or may not be unreasonable to assume that the *vast* majority will behave (in hindsight) in a cool, well-considered fashion; this is saga dependent. As I explained previously, these people are not selected from professional politicians like modern western leaders. They may or may not have a group of reasonably competent advisors. They are rarely if ever face highly contentious issues. If one does pop up they may well act in an ill-judged way.

>>>>the impression given by the contrary sayers was that it should be common for the leaders to be in the habit of behaving idiotically<<<

This is the strawman of that position.

It would be more accurate to say that, in the face of a crisis, it is not unreasonable (in particular sagas) for a number of leaders to expend all their capital on the issue at hand.

>>> I think you would agree that anyone in the habit of doing so will not make friends and positively influence his/her sodales...which would tend to limit his or her time in office. <<<

Or the existence of the organization.

>>> You can have multiple loyalties...hence the existence of the differing groups in the Order...but you cannot have multiple loyalties if every other day there is a significant conflict between them. <<<

I don't believe everyone was suggesting a conflict every other day; just that conflict were possible and the possibility increased with the number of organizations an individual owed loyalty to.

>>> So if this conflict does not arrise then it must be at least in part due to the leadership being wise/competent/savvy/lazy/etc enough to not do things which provokes these conflicts of interest.<<<

For your conflicts three-times-a-week scenario, you do need insane leaders *and* you need a vastly more pervasive/intrusive role of these organizations in magi's lives then is suggested by canon. The Order isn't a modern nation governing millions of people. The Order is not a State.

As far I am concerned I imagine such a major crisis once or twice in a saga, or whatever was reasonable for the saga.

However, there is another angle that has not been explored; namely, issues only affecting specific individuals. A leader might be excellent in the broad, but he might get a bee in his bonnet over an individual. For example, if two leaders have a serious spat, a PC may end up as the proxy whipping boy of their conflict.

Now, if they did this all the time, the membership at large would do something. However, if it’s an isolated event and no one else is affected, are they going to stick their necks out for the PC? Perhaps, but that would be the story to tell.

In any case, the more loyalties a magus has, the more opportunity a SG has to plausibly engineer such a story.

Regards

- David W

Once again, I would like to thank everyone for joining in this disucssion. While I have nothing particular to add to the topic at the moment, all of you have given me much to think about, which was the primary reason I posted my original question.

Again, my thanks for your varied responsed. :-)

//>>>>the impression given by the contrary sayers was that it should be common for the leaders to be in the habit of behaving idiotically<<<

This is the strawman of that position.//

No.

Does the following sound vaguely familiar:

(http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.10)
//>>> A magus of house Jerebiton, belongs to a mystery cult that seeks perfection through alchemy, he is a member of a multi-house rhein covenant not detailed in GoTF, he belongs to the oak guild, he has earned a reputation as a hoplite.

If you remove the oak guild (not that I remember what the oak guild's issues are) I don't see any conflict between our theretical magi's other affiliations. <<<

Ok, that's a challenge (not really).

The Primus of Jerbiton demands members support a particular Grand Tribunal proposal.

The leader of his Mystery Cult opposes this proposal and makes clear that progress towards inner mysteries is dependent on voting against it.

The covenant council decide on a position and make it a membership dependent vote.

The Oak Gild does the same.

Various powerful members of these organisations threaten 'consequencies' if members betray the leadership.//

When it was pointed out to the author of above post that the Primus of Jerbiton, the Mystery cult leader, the Oak Gild leader and the covenant council behaved erratically here, he answered:

(http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.16)
//We see such people in the real world too... Old, young, inbetween, roleplayer or senior politician. Silliness, naiveté, incompetence, bloody-mindedness, and self-defeating behavior surrounds us.//

Which fully entitles PaulM152 to sum that author's position up as (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.33): //that it should be common for the leaders to be in the habit of behaving idiotically//.

Kind regards,

Berengar

>>>When it was pointed out to the author of above post that the Primus of Jerbiton, the Mystery cult leader, the Oak Gild leader and the covenant council behaved erratically here<<<

No. The true context was your assertion at all Hermetic leaders should be competent; by which you appeared to mean, always make good decisions.

They may be, they may not. The possibility that four will not react optimally in a crisis exists. This was the point I was making it this instance. It was not the sum of my position however.

All four could be behaving rationally.

Regards

- David W

>>> Ok David, what is this proposition that is so critical to the mystery cult that it will alienate its mebers and simultainiously is so critical to a covenant that its willing to kick out a member and also so critical to House Jerebiton that it will demand that its members refrain from using their own judgement in favor of the "party line". <<<

Ok...

The primus of Jerbiton has made it his life's work to gain the Order the acceptance of the Church. A charismatic and persuasive man, he has gained the enthusiastic support of virtually all senior Jerbiton and the House as a whole.

Secret negotiations proceed over decades. In addition, members of House Jerbiton make special efforts to present the Order in a positive light to their local Church. Many are personally invested in this project.

Finally the Church makes an offer, but there is a price. The Order must ban all pagan worship by members. There is also a sting; the anti-Order faction in the Church insist that the Order pass this measure. If the Order does not Order/Church relations may turn actively hostile.

The Jerbiton primus's legacy will be hero or zero...

Pagan worship is a minority activity, but a significant one. Some fear that a ban would start another schism. However, the ban in itself would not personally affect the majority, who are Christian and thus tend to approve of stamping out paganism. Many magi are very happy to support the proposal.

Charges are brought against the Jerbiton Primus for endangering the Order. Due to the level of crisis House Guernicus steps in and negotiates with the principles for the case to be taken to the Grand Tribunal. The Jerbiton Primus submits a proposal to ban pagan worship on the grounds of endangerment.

The Order pro/anti camps are evenly split, with many undecided. First the carrot is used to secure votes, but as the GT approaches leaders are ultimately prepared to use the biggest stick they possess.

Regards

- David W

//No. The true context was your assertion at all Hermetic leaders should be competent; by which you appeared to mean, always make good decisions.//

I stated precisely (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.12):
//In general, leaders everywhere carefully consider requests to followers with conflicting loyalties. While possible, they avoid causing an all out conflict of allegiances, alienating followers and thus eroding the base of their leadership.//
This does not allow your pretended misunderstanding.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Which was restating the same claim you had made earlier. As you know but choose to distort.

Regards

- David W

So lets look at Erik Tyrrell's request here:

//A magus of house Jerebiton, belongs to a mystery cult that seeks perfection through alchemy, he is a member of a multi-house rhein covenant not detailed in GoTF, he belongs to the oak guild, he has earned a reputation as a hoplite.

If you remove the oak guild (not that I remember what the oak guild's issues are) I don't see any conflict between our theretical magi's other affiliations. If true conflict between his affiliations does develop he could change any one of these affiliations (even house) without leaving the order.//

//The primus of Jerbiton has made it his life's work to gain the Order the acceptance of the Church. ... Finally the Church makes an offer, but there is a price.//
Did the Jerbiton Primus get the authorization by the Grand Tribunal to negotiate for the Order? Did the other Primi, or the Grand Tribunal, limit his authority to make suggestions to 'the Church', or accept proposals? Or did he negotiate without that authorization?
Just who or what is 'the Church' here? With whom did the Primus negotiate, for how long, and who knew of it?

It appears we have a typical 'loose gun' scenario thrust upon us here: uncoordinated and uncontrolled negotiations from out of the middle of one organization with another, in an obviously vital and controversial issue.
Allowing such to happen clearly is - for every organization, now or in the middle ages, Hermetic or mundane, political or economical - a sign of extreme weakness, and of completely inefficient leadership.
If an organization's leaders do not immediately stop 'loose gun' negotiations while still in control, they lose their authority and virtually assure that the organization is split up in very short time.

I reckon that only very stupid, weak or inexperienced 'leaders' fall into this trap when knowing of the 'loose gun'. Most of the remaining 11 Primi and their advisors are none of it.

So basically, you assume here that either the Grand Tribunal and the Primi could not control the negotiations of the Jerbiton Primus - so were already exauthorized and no longer leaders of the Order -, or that most of them were outmaneuvred and fooled by the Jerbiton Primus negotiating in secret with 'the Church' and parts of the Order.
In any case the Jerbiton Primus will now split the Order, take control of the 'Christian' part, and leave the rest to rot.
Since he controlled the action in the last few decades, he and 'the Church' likely also have already prepared resources and strategy for the Hermetic civil war they caused, while their unwitting opponents have not.

So the Grand Tribunal vote of our Jerbiton is completely unimportant, a rear guard battle of an already inconsequential organization: the old Order of Hermes.

Our example Jerbiton will now evaluate his loyalties anew: sticking with his House and his Alchemy cabal, which both will fit nicely into the new Christian Order, is the most plausible decision, even if it means leaving his pagan covenant (probably soon beset by crusaders) and the Oak Gild (which has lost its purpose and authority anyway).

Yes, there are clearly many ways to blow up the Order, change any social fixtures and cause any two defined loyalties to conflict. And assuming that the Jerbiton Primus is a driven and reckless political genius, the scenario above is quite plausible.

I reckon, though, that Erik Tyrrell assumed a working, functioning Order in his request.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//Which was restating the same claim you had made earlier.//

When? Which claim? Quote, please.

Kind regards,

Berengar

>>> When? Which claim? Quote, please. <<<

If you insist. I briefly summary of our discussion.

You wrote:

>>> I cannot imagine how an Order where the elder magi behave that way could have lasted even 20 years. <<<

I responded:

>>> Then you have a problem with many sagas... But we already knew that.<<<

You replied:

>>> Yep ... those where elder magi behave like kindergarten kids. I know very well that such campaigns exist, even as .pdf supplements.<<<

By which you were referring to one particular Hoplite and one particular Quaesitor (Julius and Lavinia) in a suppliment I wrote.

I responded:

>>>We see such people in the real world too... Old, young, inbetween, roleplayer or senior politician. Silliness, naiveté, incompetence, bloody-mindedness, and self-defeating behavior surrounds us.<<<

In proper context, it is clear I was only defending the use of characters like Julius and Lavinia; whose confidence it their ability to handle Hedge wizards was fully justified. Not considering the possbility of effective opposition and thus engage in extensive intellegence gathering was in hindsight an error, but not the unrealistic error you seem to think.

In any case let us examine you claims.

In post 37 you wrote:

>>> When it was pointed out to the author of above post that the Primus of Jerbiton, the Mystery cult leader, the Oak Gild leader and the covenant council behaved erratically here, he answered:

//We see such people in the real world too... Old, young, inbetween, roleplayer or senior politician. Silliness, naiveté, incompetence, bloody-mindedness, and self-defeating behavior surrounds us.// <<<

Which is untrue. Previously I was generous enough to simply recall the general context of our exchange; which was your assertion at all Hermetic leaders should be written as reasonably* competent.

* Your definition of reasonably...

However, in actuality, I was not responding to a comment on the realistic quality range of Hermetic leadership or even, as you claim, about the Primus of Jerbiton, a Mystery Cult leader, the Oak Gild leader and a covenant leader, I was responding to your criticism of Julius and Lavinia in 'The Icelandic Wars'...

So was your false context a deliberate deception?

Regards

- David W

//>>> Yep ... those where elder magi behave like kindergarten kids. I know very well that such campaigns exist, even as .pdf supplements.<<<

By which you were referring to one particular Hoplite and one particular Quaesitor (Julius and Lavinia) in a suppliment I wrote.

I responded:

>>>We see such people in the real world too... Old, young, inbetween, roleplayer or senior politician. Silliness, naiveté, incompetence, bloody-mindedness, and self-defeating behavior surrounds us.<<<

In proper context, it is clear I was only defending the use of characters like Julius and Lavinia; whose confidence it their ability to handle Hedge wizards was fully justified. Not considering the possbility of effective opposition and thus engage in extensive intellegence gathering was in hindsight an error, but not the unrealistic error you seem to think.//

Ahm ... the discussion was then about the four worthies pushing loyalty of their followers (those from post http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.10).

Nobody even now can understand your answer (from http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.16) the way you currently claim you meant it. Clearly you did not reference Lavinia and Julius, or my sidequip, at all then.

//Previously I was generous enough to simply recall the general context of our exchange; which was your assertion at all Hermetic leaders should be written as reasonably* competent.

* Your definition of reasonably...//

... was made very clear latest in (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.20): //I know its a change for some, but: what if we assumed that a proven Hermetic politician's judgement is at least sufficient to run a farm or a small castle?//

By repeating a strawman it doesn't get any better.

Kind regards,

Berengar

>>> Nobody even now can understand your answer the way you currently claim you meant it. Clearly you did not reference Lavinia and Julius, or my sidequip, at all then. <<<

I was responding directly to that 'sidequip' (post 14). My reply (post 16) was less than 1hr30min later! The context you placed the quote in was false and you know it. You have been caught redfaced, lamely trying to squirm out of it only causes you more embarrassment.

My position has been consistant; only your understanding of it seems to have changed.

Your stated claim is:

>>>I know its a change for some, but: what if we assumed that a proven Hermetic politician's judgement is at least sufficient to run a farm or a small castle?<<<

By using the qualification 'proven' this statement might be read as axiomatic...

In addition, running a castle in peacetime or a farm in similarly stressless conditions is no test at all. You should have specified in a crisis. You don't even say if the castle or farm is run well crisis or not....

As you state it, your 'claim' is meaningless.

How about:

All Primi, Mystery Cult leaders and covenant leaders must have enough leadership ability to competently guide a small castle in a crisis...

Imo this is not a necessary requirement in all sagas. I would object to it being in the ArM style guide; if I still cared.

Regards

- David W

Dear David,

for the very last time about your post (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.16): //We see such people in the real world too... Old, young, inbetween, roleplayer or senior politician. Silliness, naiveté, incompetence, bloody-mindedness, and self-defeating behavior surrounds us.//

You have of course noticed that this is a public mailing list; so everybody - including me - expects that if you wish to argue about a quip not yet spelled out and made understandable to everybody, you spell it out before. Just a simple question of etiquette, and of leaving nobody in the dark over what you are talking about.
You did not. So even those understanding the quip - like me - of course assume, that you do not refer to it in your argument.

For myself I spelled that out already in (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.20): //Now to bring that back to the thread's topic: did anybody here claim that the life of magus, a covenant, a tribunal or even the Order could not be ruined in a week by utter "silliness, naiveté, incompetence, bloody-mindedness, and self-defeating behavior" of a chosen four elder magi? Or that a kingdom could not be ruined in a month by "silliness, naiveté, incompetence, bloody-mindedness, and self-defeating behavior" of its king and his advisors? Certainly not me.
But the Order so far is not ruined.

So why bother with an example of four kindergarten bully elder magi in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.10? It is of no concern about the topic, how loyalty conflicts in the Order are resolved.//

You did not care to correct me *then* by telling me that - as you claim now - all you were applying this "silliness, naiveté ..." to were the magi from your supplement, and not the four worthies from your post (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.10).

I think I have made myself clear and can leave it at that, because this is a public mailing list: people are not much interested in you reinterpreting yourself, or me contesting it.

Kind regards,

Berengar

You continue to dig...

>>>You have of course noticed that this is a public mailing list; so everybody - including me - expects that if you wish to argue about a quip not yet spelled out and made understandable to everybody, you spell it out before. Just a simple question of etiquette, and of leaving nobody in the dark over what you are talking about.
You did not. So even those understanding the quip - like me - of course assume, that you do not refer to it in your argument.<<<

If another poster had mistaken the context of the quote, your point might have an iota of validity. But you knew exactly what backhanded insult I was responding to.

It was *you* who knowing mislead this forum as to the context of the quote. You knew the context and you baldly misrepresentated it; your denials of the obvious are laughable.

>>>I think I have made myself clear and can leave it at that<<<

Yes, clearly dishonest.

Regards

- David W

//>>>I know its a change for some, but: what if we assumed that a proven Hermetic politician's judgement is at least sufficient to run a farm or a small castle?<<<

...

As you state it, your 'claim' is meaningless.

How about:

All Primi, Mystery Cult leaders and covenant leaders must have enough leadership ability to competently guide a small castle in a crisis...//

My suggestion above is not meaningless, as long as some author still considers to have magi, whose lack of judgement would have them ruin their farm or lose their job as a castellan, appointed to critical leadership positions obviously requiring a capable politician.

Had I to formulate an ArM style guide, I would phrase it like this:

"When designing a magus in a leadership position, please consider:
(1) the requirements of the position,
(2) the reputation of this magus with those appointing him,
(3) how he got that reputation,
(4) and why he got appointed.
Please also consider the experience and intelligence of the people involved in the process of appointing the magus."

Kind regards,

Berengar

Berengar writes:
"When designing a magus in a leadership position, please consider:
(1) the requirements of the position,
(2) the reputation of this magus with those appointing him,
(3) how he got that reputation,
(4) and why he got appointed.
Please also consider the experience and intelligence of the people involved in the process of appointing the magus."

Hello all,

I've been following this discussion and find it interesting. I would like to add another factor to consider is lineage. This discussion on who becomes leaders and how successful they are as leaders seems to suggest that the members of a house, gild, or mystery cult are independant magi with no relation to each other.

The leader of a House in addition to either being the senior member or elected through a system is likely the Pater to at least one student. He or she is likely the 'brother' or 'sister' to several of the other senior magi. Specifically in a House, the influence of family can't be dismissed.

Following this idea, in the academic world mentors not only teach students what they know, but they often continue to aid former students through out their careers. Regardless of whether someone is or isn't an effective administrator, a mentor can have a profound influence upon a current or former student.

In many ways its like listening to your parent(s). I may be in my 30's with a mortgage, two cars, and a life that's entirely my own, but when my Mom tells me to wash her car or take her to dinner I find myself doing all sorts of chores I'm not obligated to do. Teachers and employers have the same subtle power asking 'lessors' to get them lunch or run errands that aren't related to a persons job.

Yes the politics of Ars Magica may not focus on such trivial things, but if this is suppose to be a true discussion on how one becomes a leader and how effective that leader is, one needs to consider the influence and importance of linear ties. Sometimes people do things just because an elder tells them to do it.

Ars is the perfect format to detail how an individual copes with the conflicts between family (House), friends (covenants), and employment(guilds).

Something to consider,

Chuck

//I would like to add another factor to consider is lineage.//
Of course.

I also think your idea to compare the effect of lineages on advancement in Hermetic hierarchy to the effect of schools of thought and mentors on academical careers is useful.

//This discussion on who becomes leaders and how successful they are as leaders seems to suggest that the members of a house, gild, or mystery cult are independant magi with no relation to each other.//
I certainly did not intend it that way: but, as you will know, contentious issues lead to discussions of details, and then one lacks the time and space to keep the big picture transparent, too.

//Sometimes people do things just because an elder tells them to do it.//
Certainly. In medieval society you hold loyalty to your mentor, and this applies in the Order of Hermes, too. Not respecting your Parens' 'advice' shows you to be an irreverent and likely undeserving pupil.
But if you fail in an important task, this also leaves a stain on your mentor's or Parens' reputation: so it is reverent and often necessary to not overdo the obedience to a Parens addled by twilights or age, while always maintaining appearances.
This is not different from modern academic life, where the success of a university teacher is measured very much by the academical success and influence reached by his major pupils and protégés.

There are still other such social factors for Hermetic advancement:
E. g. in the Rhine Tribunal Gild membership, and a good understanding with other members of the same Gild, is nearly a must to be considered for leadership positions.

One can say, that a prospective Hermetic leader usually first has to be successful within his social network formed by lineage, covenant, and in the Rhine Tribunal Gild, before he can aspire to positions within his House, or functions in Tribunal or Order. This is not a bad test of mettle - and if he fails in it, he hasn't done too much harm yet.

So one could try - having the time - to write a more encompassing suggestion for a style guide on Hermetic leaders, also considering social environment better than under my point (4).

Kind regards,

Berengar

I am still waiting for you to apologise to this forum and me for your deception. Some character is required to do this of course...

>>> My suggestion above is not meaningless,<<<

It was, as I demostrated.

>>> as long as some author still considers to have magi, whose lack of judgement would have them ruin their farm or lose their job as a castellan, appointed to critical leadership positions obviously requiring a capable politician. <<<

Not necessarily. It is dependent on the Saga. You appear to imagine the Order with far more organisation and cohesion than is ever supported by canon, let alone 'How it *must* be (tm)'

Competence is only really tested in a crisis. If a crisis seldom occurs the competence of a leader may never be tested.

How are leaders selected in the Order?

*Must* a Mystery Cult leader, chosen by knowledge of the mystery be a capable politician? No.

*Must* a Mystery Cult leader, chosen by a mystic rite be a capable politician? No.

*Must* a Primus chosen by a mystical rite be a capable politician? No.

*Must* a Primus chosen by heredity be a capable politician? No.

*Must* a Primus chosen by magical constest be a capable politician? No.

I could go on, but the point is made. Leaders in many perfectly good sagas are more than likely *not* chosen by their peers on the basis of their political skills. Some might, but not all, in all sagas.

On to your proposed style guide entree (with comments):

>>>(1) the requirements of the position, <<<

Which may not tend to select capable politicians in any way.

>>>(2) the reputation of this magus with those appointing him,<<<

You make the howling big assumption that all positions are appointed and appointed based on reputation. In what sense is a hereditary heir selected by "those appointing him"?

>>>(3) how he got that reputation,<<<

See above.

>>>(4) and why he got appointed.<<<

See above.

Your advise is only relevant in the narrow field where your own saga vision is valid; where only capable politicians are leaders...

Essentially you want canon to follow your personal saga preferences. Perhaps when David Chart moves on you'll have your own chance to do this.

Regards

- David W

"I think I have made myself clear and can leave it at that, because this is a public mailing list: people are not much interested in you reinterpreting yourself, or me contesting it.

Kind regards,

Berengar "

Hope you dont mind me using the quote , but even if these discussions veer off topic a bit , i still enjoy reading them.

Graham.

I know it's non-canon, but I do like to set up the idea of Magi being encouraged to tithe to their Houses. Why? Because in return they get the backing of their own Houses. Suppose for a second that a Magi of House Flambeau gets honked off at a Jerbiton Magus who over the years has dedicated a season a year of service to House Jerbiton and may even do a yearly Vis donation on top of that. Is the Primus of House Jerbiton going to let this upstart Flambeau Magus kill one of their own members, denying the House future service and Vis income?

No, the Primus of Jerbiton is going to take steps to cool the jets of the Flambeau Magus, getting them to call off their little Wizard's War or making it clear to the Flambeau Magus they will die in a Wizard's War of their own from a powerful elder Jerbiton Magus and the manner of their death will be talked about for years.

Houses have libraries, they have stocks of Vis, and they have tasks that need to be done. Anyone who wants access to the House libraries had either be senior House Magi or those who have done a service to the House recently, or simply paid for it in Vis (more costly than dealing with a Covenant but more reliable on the whole). And for House members in good standing they can also provide political patronage and the corresponding protection as well.

>>> I know it's non-canon, but I do like to set up the idea of Magi being encouraged to tithe to their Houses. <<<

Only with taxation is the sort of 'Big Government' Order many envision possible. A perfectly valid and interesting saga would result, but quite far from canon imo.

Regards

- David W

//I am still waiting for you to apologise to this forum and me for your deception.//
Get off your tree. Either you were incapable to communicate what you meant, or meant what you communicated. In both cases you have to blame yourself.

To put my further post into context, here once more my complete suggestion for a style guide:
"When designing a magus in a leadership position, please consider:
(1) the requirements of the position,
(2) the reputation of this magus with those appointing him,
(3) how he got that reputation,
(4) and why he got appointed.
Please also consider the experience and intelligence of the people involved in the process of appointing the magus."

This guide shall not overly limit the imagination of authors, but assure that important individual magi are designed to fit into an Order of Hermes which consists already for centuries of individuals of above average intelligence, learning and experience - which may or may not be your vision of the Order.

There are clearly many types of leaders: not only political leaders, but also leaders of research projects, military leaders, spiritual leaders and others. The above suggestion shall apply to all of them - cum grano salis, because it would become too long otherwise.

//You make the howling big assumption that all positions are appointed and appointed based on reputation.//
If leaders of the Order of Hermes are chosen, this choice is based on the impression they have made and make on others: this reputation is a little more than the Reputation (always spelled big in the book) of ArM5, as it includes not just hearsay but also a lot of personal experience others had with the candidate, but is still reflected in the p. 19 Reputation.

//In what sense is a hereditary heir selected by "those appointing him"?//
It appears that Insatella in Erik Dahl's clarification of Mercere practices (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.24) favors her second daughter over her first, and perhaps over elder brothers, too. This is the only example we have so far for hereditary succession in the Order, and it involves choice and does not strictly go by primogeniture.
I indeed recommend to have at least some choice always involved in determining Hermetic leaders who shall accomplish something: intelligent and experienced people - no matter from which background - like to not have their options limited more than necessary, or to run risks with leaders determined by utter lottery.

//*Must* a Mystery Cult leader, chosen by a mystic rite be a capable politician?//
My above suggestion allows still for e. g. mystery cults (or Houses like Criamon) determining a leader by a ritual: this mystically designated leader will obviously hold a reputation among cult members for particular spiritual/magical virtue, and this will be considered the overriding qualification for her office.
I recommend still that not every magus in the cult be allowed to participate in such a ritual, but that only magi with a reputation among the cult for coming already close to a cult's magical/spiritual ideal be hold worthy of it.
I further recommend, that long-lived cults with unworldly ideals appoint not only a spiritual leader, but also another taking care of worldly concerns, and that they appoint the latter according to his qualification as a political leader. This is in keeping with all historical examples of such cults, and allows an author to explain just why his cult has survived for a century or more.

Kind regards,

Berengar

I assume that all Houses will repay services rendered by their members with protection and perspectives for advancement. I also consider this very canonical.

We need not limit this to Vis, though. Contributing to Durenmar library, profitably trading in Vis for the benefit of a Mercer House, representing House Guernicus diligently and successfully as an arbitrator, or politicking for House Tremere are equally valuable to a House, and more in keeping with its particular traditions, than Vis contributions.

Kind regards,

Berengar

>>>Get off your tree. Either you were incapable to communicate what you meant, or meant what you communicated. In both cases you have to blame yourself.<<<

You are responsible for your deceptions.

- David W

What I like about fantasy role playing is the opportunity to use my imagination. The 12 houses, IMHO, have the detrimental effect of stereotyping Wizards.

The players start living up to being a Tytalus or Jurbiton Mage, sometimes painfully.

I just don't think its healthy, and it would be much more fun to create individualistic magi.

Mysteries, was infact my favorate supplement after Grimoire. Allegiance to a society gave political depth to a character, without defining the character (as the houses tended to do).

//The players start living up to being a Tytalus or Jurbiton Mage, sometimes painfully.

I just don't think its healthy, and it would be much more fun to create individualistic magi.//

Why do you think that players cannot create individualistic Tytalus or Jerbiton magi?
I grant that an individualistic Tremere character will have a rather tough time, but I have seen one played over quite some time now - and, no, he did not leave his House.
While individualism is considered a flaw (namely the deadly sin of hybris) by medieval people, learned or not, ArM Hermetic magi and their thought patterns are not really medieval.

A maga, however, does during her 15 years of apprenticeship not only learn Hermetic magic from her Parens, but inevitably also a more or less encompassing set of values, goals, stories, social manners and practices: a culture. She shares this at least with her Parens, and, unless the Parens was extremely individualistic/idosyncratic, also with a House or part of it.
She somehow must relate to this culture: after all it filled out most of her youth.
She can well refute it - and even look for another House to join. She also can try to turn it into something meaningful for her, and/or use her grasp of this culture for her advancement in her House and the Order. And she can also mindlessly follow it - which, as any mindlessness, *is* indeed unhealthy for a maga.

Kind regards,

Berengar

I have to agree with Berengar on this discussion of House and it's influence on magi. I won't presume to know the age or backgrounds of players of Ars, but one should consider that Hermetic Wizards are educated scholars and the Houses reflect the school in which they studied.

In modern times one can pick any field and in that field there are different approaches to the subject at hand. For simplicity let me use psychology. In the field of psychology one can learn and embrace the teachings of Freud, Jung, or perhaps Skinner. These teachings shape and determine the type of psychologist or psychotherapist that one becomes. Yet, within the ranks of Freud, not all students are the same, nor are their practices the same or their views on their 'Pater'. However no Freudian regardless of the differences within this "House" will use the techniques of Skinner or come to the conclusion of a "Skinnerite".

While the Houses may reflect the nature of schooling, they are still open enough to allow for unique characters and individualization. Our campaign sports a Bjornear Librarian, a Flambeau Healer, and Jerbition Necromancer. Despite these individual pursuits, each character still fits cleanly inside the parameters of their House.

Chuck

Edited 5/28/2005 3:47 pm ET by Tuura

Mutant for Hire discussed tithing withing the Order of Hermes and D Woods replied, "Only with taxation is the sort of 'Big Government' Order many envision possible. A perfectly valid and interesting saga would result, but quite far from canon imo."

I initially agreed and didn't give it much thought. Since then I have reconsidered my position.

In modern times it's quite acceptable for Universities to ask alumi for contributions, for political parties to expect dues from it's members, and for adults to send money to needy children or ailing parents. Canon Ars includes an Order that lacks centralization or the ability to collect or enforce taxation. However it could be possible for minor groups to collect a 'tax', or dues, or tithes from it's members. All the modern examples I listed easily fit into the structure of Ars without creating "Big Government".

Simply material to consider and discuss,

Chuck

//In modern times it's quite acceptable for Universities to ask alumi for contributions, for political parties to expect dues from it's members, and for adults to send money to needy children or ailing parents. Canon Ars includes an Order that lacks centralization or the ability to collect or enforce taxation.//

I see most magi contribute to their Houses, Gilds and Mystery Cults, in many forms. And Vis is indeed the generic currency of the Order.

But perhaps the magi of the Order conform more with earlier medieval practice and usually provide their contributions not in generic currency, but in the form in which they are most useful, and most in keeping with the endeavours of House, Gild or Cult?

If we look at the Vis exchange rates of the Redcaps in TL, we see that by changing a tithing of Vis to one of a different type one loses half of its value. So generic Vis payments, which do not consider the specific undertaking supported, could often be not only less culturally appropriate, but actually less valuable than other contributions.

Kind regards,

Berengar

When i wrote my modern examples of dues, it was simply to demonstrate that dues could be collected without the presence of 'big government'. My example carries with it, the modern importance of money.

I totally agree that medieval practices are less dependant on 'hard cash' and regularly sending vis to a group one is affiliated with may not help advance the interests of this group, be it House, Mystery, or Dad.

This is interesting because here's where this discussion can return from 'theory' to 'story'. Perhaps your Pater is ailing, suffering from an incurable warping effect, but an particular root allevies the pain. A caring student, even if say 50 years out of gauntlet, may take up the task of regularly sending her Pater this root. Numerous stories could be written around the collection, the shipping, or receiving of this root. This is completely character driven material that has nothing to do with saving the world or uncovering conspiracies, yet if handled correctly could be as dramatic as world shaking adventures.

There are numerous ways organizations could benifit from donations other than vis and this can be turned into character driven story telling material that is as interesting as "world threating premises".

On the subject of 'dues/taxation' has anyone every played with material that resembles mafiaesque tactics? The older my campaign gets, the more we take on elements of the mafia, but perhaps it just us.

Still, even on a simple level, I can imagine one wizard oweing another vis or books or service for losing a wager. The winner has the right to collect, but will the loser pay? Will his peers support him or leave him to suffer? Or are the PC's the winner? Will they go after the mage that owes them (fill in the blank)?

Simply material to consider and discuss,

Chuck

>>>However it could be possible for minor groups to collect a 'tax', or dues, or tithes from it's members.<<<

The possibility exists, no question.

>>> All the modern examples I listed easily fit into the structure of Ars without creating "Big Government".<<<

Quite. It isn't the "Big Government" model. These groups wouldn't have magi leaders who were engaged in near full-time admistration of those funds, services ect. Their leadership role would be something they fitted into their 'spare' time, between lab/study projects. It is not their day-job.

with the exception of Mercere and Quaesitors, in general, the services/dues asked of a magus by an affiliated group would be modest imo. What percentage of a seasons/resources would you imagine a typical magus spending on collective projects?

When I wrote up the Guernicus chapter I took 1 season per year as a maximum; including iirc a caveat that covenants often relieve them of covenant duties in respect for their service to the Tribunal. If a covenant asked for 1 season per year as well, the poor quaesitor would only have 2 per year for himself (this might be normal in some sagas of course).

Imo (in a typical saga) the vast majority magi first and foremost employ themselves in persuit of their personal magical interests. Mostly this persuit in a solo activity. Now magi often need to look outside themselve for resources, but the main source is the covenant. It therefore figures that in general most time spent outside lab/study is spent maintaining and advancing the covenant's ability to support lab/study. If the magi is a member of a Mystery Cult, this may compete with time for their covenant.

Anything that impacts on lab/study time, that does not directly support future lab/study time, would (in general) be an intrusion for most magi imo. A magus who spent signficant time in addition serving his Gild and House. Isn't going to have a lot of time for study...

Imo (in a typical saga), for most magi, their House seldom asks anything of them; particularly anything that might impact their studies or resources.

Magi time is measured in seasons. Local Tribunals meet once every *seven* years. Grand Tribunals meet every *thirty-three*. Imo this should be considered when the general tone and intensity of Order politics and governance is considered.

We are not talking about a society that requires individuals to surrender 50% of their income/time to their leaders, who fund public works with those funds, and decide who recieves the services demanded or paid for with public money (vis). No, the Order is very, very small government.

This leads back it by original point that Order leaders, in many viable sagas, would seldom make any significant decisions. They would seldom demand anything controversial from their members. In common medieval thinking their authority is largely derived from the respect people have for the position; not personal valuations of the leader's ability/political skills. Leaders may seldom get to exercise any leadership/political skills.

However, such is the general medieval respect for authority, that when the Primus (for instance) occassionally does exercise authority, it is not casually defied.

Even if a leader was at one time a capable politician, this does not immune him from huris and massive departures from common-sense. This is an increasing risk the longer a person holds high office. We do not need to look far for real world examples.

Imo Hilter is a fairly strong example. His got to be leader of Germany. For a time he did quite well (in an amoralistic assessment). However, he brought Germany to ruin in the end.

It is not outside rational possibility for a Hermetic leader to start making contraversial and potentially ruinous decisions.

Regards

- David W

>> Why do you think that players cannot create individualistic Tytalus or Jerbiton magi?

I think it is perfectly possible for a player to create an idnividualist Tytalus mage, but they would be forced to create an individualist mage if the house of Tytalus was not there as such strong guidance in the first place.

//I think it is perfectly possible for a player to create an idnividualist Tytalus mage, but they would be forced to create an individualist mage if the house of Tytalus was not there as such strong guidance in the first place.//

Wouldn't you agree that even if there were no Houses to start with 15 years of apprenticeship with a single magus still would constitute a very strong guidance for the magus in question?
Houses are the consequence of these long apprenticeships: magi basically cannot avoid to pass on the culture they learned from their Parens to their Filius together with Hermetic magic.

And finally: why *force* your players to create individualist magi in the first place? Don't forget that a character who is both magus and individualist in the middle ages is twice a freak.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//Even if a leader was at one time a capable politician, this does not immune him from huris and massive departures from common-sense. This is an increasing risk the longer a person holds high office. We do not need to look far for real world examples.

Imo Hilter is a fairly strong example. His got to be leader of Germany. For a time he did quite well (in an amoralistic assessment). However, he brought Germany to ruin in the end.//

Do you think that you have the least idea of what you are talking about? Take advice: leave Hitler out of your spiel in the future.

For now you have just shown utter carelessness in treating history. By insisting you would display willful ignorance instead.

Kind regards,

Berengar

The following link might come in handy now, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Kind regards,

Berengar

>>> Do you think that you have the least idea of what you are talking about?<<<

Yes.

>>>Take advice: leave Hitler out of your spiel in the future.<<<

Please explain? Did Hilter not rise from a failed artist to the leader of Germany (that's doing quite well most peoples assessment I think)? Was Hilter not responsible for Germany's ruin?

In discussing what might be possible/plausible in a fictional society *all* real world examples are germane.

Regards

- David W

One of my friends has been working for some years now on a TORG supplement based on the premise that Hitler and Germany won WWII (a standard for the Alternate History Genre after all).

Using the example relating to Ars Magica was really just a variation of this (imho).

In all of these discussions so far , why has no-one mentioned the possibility that the CEO-Magus type person might actually have a secretary (or Clerk).

Afaik a Bishop did and didnt have to waste all his time in Admin.

As you insist, here again your claim:

//Even if a leader was at one time a capable politician, this does not immune him from huris and massive departures from common-sense. This is an increasing risk the longer a person holds high office. We do not need to look far for real world examples.

Imo Hilter is a fairly strong example. His got to be leader of Germany. For a time he did quite well (in an amoralistic assessment). However, he brought Germany to ruin in the end.//

Hitler clearly and openly showed hubris and a voluntaristic, irrational, destructive understanding of history and politics from his earliest beginnings as a beer-hall demagogue. He put most of it to writing in 1924 already.
Hitler was at no time a capable politician. He was clever, an effective propagandist from the beginning, learned powermongering on his way up, and found willing helpers and ready money. But he was never able to adapt to the way world politics worked and basically only relied on threats and aggression to pursue his deeply flawed, presumptuous goals.
His hubris and political misconceptions did not relevantly grow over his time as 'Fuehrer': they just had far more room to develop into the catastrophes of the Holocaust and the 2nd World War.

OK?

Kind regards,

Berengar

>>>Hitler was at no time a capable politician. He was clever, an effective propagandist from the beginning, learned powermongering on his way up, and found willing helpers and ready money. But he was never able to adapt to the way world politics worked and basically only relied on threats and aggression to pursue his deeply flawed, presumptuous goals. <<<

So you demostrate again how a horde of hidden premises lie behind your statements.

So your 'capable politician' is cast in your own rigid model of how politics *should* be.

Imo a person who managed to attain and retain high office, through his own efforts*, would qualify as a capable politician.

* Rather than inherited the position or had a scimitar thrown at him.

In a medieval context, a "clever", "effective propagandist", who "learned powermongering on his way up, and found willing helpers and ready money.", and achieved and retained a high office he was not born to, would qualify as a very capable politician.

But this isn't the measure of a 'capable politician' iyo. It appears you cannot make a claim without hidden premises that make it axiomatic...

Regards

- David W

Once again your own statement:

//Even if a leader was at one time a capable politician, this does not immune him from huris and massive departures from common-sense. This is an increasing risk the longer a person holds high office. We do not need to look far for real world examples.

Imo Hilter is a fairly strong example. His got to be leader of Germany. For a time he did quite well (in an amoralistic assessment). However, he brought Germany to ruin in the end.//

So, *you* claim here that:
* Hitler was a one time capable politician, whose hubris and massive departures from common sense later in his office brought ruin to Germany.

Fact is:
* Hitler's hubris predates his ascent to power by more than a decade, and remained at a very high, and rather constant, level throughout.
* Hitler's conception of history prevented him from devising any long term plans and strategies with a chance of success - even by his own measures. While he was governing Germany, not only its ruin, but also the catastrophes of the Holocaust and the 2nd World War were assured.

To call Hitler for intermediate successes or subservient qualifications a 'capable politician' is the same as calling a train robber who evades the law for 13 years a 'capable businessman'. Both had the failure of all their endeavours already assured at their beginning.

I guess your inconsiderate analogy is due for 'godwinization' now.

Kind regards,

Berengar

To have something to do on this thread, here a far better analogy for politics in the Order - in the form of an easy riddle.

Which organization do I describe here?

* It was founded in the 8th century AD by a group of underdogs with specific abilities, when the Roman Empire which had protected them before let them down.
* It beat a - hmmm - barbarian army already at the beginning of the 9th century, and became a partner for treaties latest in 840.
* While influenced by late Roman tradition initially, its constitution soon developed into a collegial system of nobles.
* This collegium consisted of several hundred members, all of which were considered basically equal and each held one vote when ratifying the laws of the organization, or appointing its officials.
* The collegium likely never exceeded 1000 members before the very late 13th century.
* While still in the 10th century the organization was shaken by repeated attempts by one noble House to take complete, hereditary control of it, its constitution was subsequently more and more refined to supervise executive officials even in minute acts, and avoid any uncontrolled actions of single officials. This was basically achieved in the second half of the 12th century.
* Complex voting mechanisms for the assignment of offices prevented the establishment of parties.
* A special gremium was established to verify the correct administration of offices after their holders had left them. If irregularities were found, the office holder was held responsible for them.
* Most members of the collegium were worldwise, literate and very busy with their own and their families' affairs - still it was considered a shame to turn down an office.
* Members of the collegium were forbidden to wear weapons in public, just as their subjects were.
* Members of the collegium soon became renowned for their political and administrative acumen, and very sought after for positions as e. g. Podestá.
* In the beginning of the 13th century the organization replaced its former - and now long obsolete - protectors with lords more malleable to its interests.

It is quite clear that this organization developed under conditions very similar to those of the Order of Hermes.
The main differences are, that the Order does not control a geographically homogenous territory, and that its members' activities are more introvert.
Still we have in the organization a very good example, how many capable leaders a medieval collegium of just a few hundred open minded and educated people taking care of their own business could provide each generation.

Kind regards,

Berengar

I said:

>>> Hitler was a one time capable politician,<<<

He achieved and maintained his office. So he was a capable politician by a normal definition.

>>> whose hubris and massive departures from common sense later in his office brought ruin to Germany. <<<

Also true.

No, he wasn't a saint to begin with. However, his massive flaws were often seen a virtues by his supporters. Whether they grew during office or merely had freer expression is a matter of debate.

Hilter is a classic example of someone who managed to attain and retain office, who was ruinous in the job.

This is relivent to ArM and this debate, as you demand that all Hermetic leaders are 'capable' by your definition. The example gives the lie to this demand.

Regards

- David W

//Well truth to tell, a Houseleader(or Mystery-Leader ) must not be a competent Politican,but to achieve his Level of Power (?),he needs to be some sort of Politican.(He needed to be at the last, be able to convince enough People to Vote or whatever for him ).//

Quite right, Chris.

Without some basic acumen and common sense a Hermetic political, juridical, military or research leader should not attain his office. I suggested earlier to measure the lowest level of the common sense required as him being able to run a farm or castle over the years without mishap.
This of course does not yet make him a capable politician - one able to cultivate and extend useful relations over time, devise working political strategies and achieve his clearly defined goals.
But it still excludes idiot 'muppets' like tIW's Lavinia or Julius, or people challenging without motivation the loyalty of followers, from positions of responsibility.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Once again your own statement:
//Even if a leader was at one time a capable politician, this does not immune him from huris and massive departures from common-sense. This is an increasing risk the longer a person holds high office. We do not need to look far for real world examples.

Imo Hilter is a fairly strong example. His got to be leader of Germany. For a time he did quite well (in an amoralistic assessment). However, he brought Germany to ruin in the end.//

Now you weaken that to:
//Hilter is a classic example of someone who managed to attain and retain office, who was ruinous in the job.//.
If we remove now the 'classic', which is still very inconsiderate and highly offensive to Hitler's victims, the rest is at least harmless.
Given that you also admitted that his hubris was present from the beginning, you have shown that your initial wording was just utter carelessness - as I am used to now from you.

//This is relivent to ArM and this debate, as you demand that all Hermetic leaders are 'capable' by your definition. The example gives the lie to this demand.//
And all this maneuvering close to the - ahem - nostalgics you did to pursue your silly strawman? Yep, thats a clear case of Godwin's law nevertheless.

Kind regards,

Berengar

I wrote:

"Even if a leader was at one time a capable politician, this does not immune him from huris and massive departures from common-sense. This is an increasing risk the longer a person holds high office. We do not need to look far for real world examples."

I stand by this.

I also wrote:

"Imo Hilter is a fairly strong example. His got to be leader of Germany. For a time he did quite well (in an amoralistic assessment). However, he brought Germany to ruin in the end."

You dispute that Hilter's huris and departures from common-sense increased while in office. A highly debatable claim. What is clear is that the negative effect of his huris and poor decision making became more and more evident while in office. This still serves my case, which was that bad leaders can and do attain power; precisely the heart of this 'discussion'.

>>>you have shown that your initial wording was just utter carelessness <<<

No, it just didn't accord with your historical view.

>>> - as I am used to now from you.<<<

I am used to outright deception from you...

Your absurdly overworked appeal to political correctness is as baseless as the rest of your argument.

Regards

- David W

>>>Without some basic acumen and common sense a Hermetic political, juridical, military or research leader should not attain his office. <<<

Because you say so...

You assume most if not all leaders are voted/selected in on a careful assessment of them as 'capable politicians' and can be removed if required; a very particular vision. Imo it lacks plausibility for a society of medieval mystics, but I wouldn't take issue with it if you did not demand writers tow your line.

As I wrote eariler, in many sagas there is not the dynamic political enviroment you seem to think *must* exist. I don't think dynamic political scene is canonical. The general level of Order-level political interaction is very low in canon.

If a leader is seldom called on to make any important decisions, if he is never in a crisis, his abilities or lack are never tested. Even if his poor ability becomes apparent, an assassination might be required to remove him.

>>>But it still excludes idiot 'muppets' like tIW's Lavinia or Julius,<<<

Again another knowing deception.

Julius was a Hoplite, which is not an office. His role as co-leader of the Icelandic Expedition was self-appointed.

Lavinia was a Presiding Quaesitor, but her role as co-leader of the Icelandic Expedition was self-appointed. She was perfectly capable as a PQ.

Both were archmagi, which is not an 'office', only a title gained by some arbitrary test.

You know this. You choose to deceive.

Regards

- David W

There seems to be an on going conflict between how people envision the game and how the game 'really is.' The luxury of Ars is one can tweak it to make it the game they want it to be. It's fair to discuss personal versions of Ars and it's also fair to discuss 'canon' Ars.

My own game seems to emulate Berengar's vision of heavy politics and influencial leaders. However my games does allow for incompetance in it's leaders. One need only look to canon material to see this. While I lack 5th edition supplements, one can see in books like Houses of Hermes, that the Primus of a House is not always an effective leader and certain Houses have little to no influence.

From HoH we learn that:

The Q's caused the Primus of Bjornear to 'retire'. The new Primus is mentioned, but how they were appointed is not. One can speculate as to the influence the Q's had on appointing a leader.

In Bonisagus, the Primus was hand picked by the previous Primus. Given the age and eccentricities of an old mage, this elected Primus could have been a favorite son with no skill for leadership. The description of the Primus details they are more interested in theory than magic, this supports the idea that this Primus may be a weak political leader who may not even want the job.

I didn't see any clear material concerning Criamon, but I seem to recall a story detailing that the magi gather and when once becomes convinced they ought to be leader, then it is so. This example should clearly demonstrate that a leader of House may not have any suitable skills to actually hold the position.

Ex Misc doesn't detail how one becomes Primus and the description essentially details the House and Domus Magus as powerless. In my campaign, who ever wears the Robes of Dusty Dawn is the Primus and currently there is a fight to get the Robes. You where the Robe, your the Primus. That's it. Another example of not needing any skill to become a leader.

Flambeau is interesting because is details savy politics. First, Tertius takes the position of Primus from a living mage. Second it details that even if Tertius dies, Doissetep plans to remain the Domus Magus. This clearly establishes that both Domus Magus and Primus are positions that can be moved or taken under special circumstances. It is the clearest examply that politics could win the positions and circumvent tradition. Yet the Flambeau are known for fighting, and it's possible that while Doissetep is politically savy, the House as a whole just wants a good fighter in office. If this is the case, once again a House could be led by someone that knows how to destroy a small farm, but has no idea how to run a small farm.

Jerbiton doesn't detail how one becomes Primus, but shows the Primus to have some influence.

Mercere isn't detailed well (in HoH) but is likely very structured.

Merintia seems organized but inwardly.

The Q's have little info on their Primus save that their may be internal conflict in the House.

Tremere Primus-ship isn't detailed. One could assume that politics is key to becomeing leader, but it's equally fair to argue that perhaps the position is won via Certamin. Perhaps the new books resolve this, but at least from the old books it's possible that one of the most influetial houses could be run by someone that's good at Certamin and nothing else. If this is the case, then once again an influencial House could be led by an incompetant and unsuitable leader.

Tytalus doesn't provide any details about how one becomes Primus, but it does detail that Fudarus is a 'weak' covenant. Clearly Buliste is portrayed as a weak Primus (in our game he's sort of like the Godfather after he was shot).

Verdi clearly states that their Primus isn't interested in politics. This establishes that even if one earns a position of leadership, they may not use it to become a 'player'. The Primus of Verdi doesn't seem very interested in his position.

I listed all of these, which are in the books for anyone to read to support D Woods statement that canon Ars is riddled with arbitrary leaders with varying amounts of influence. It does not suggest that all leaders are incompetant. It does it suggest that all leaders are competant. It does detail that the Order is made up of a broad number of groups, each of these groups has a varying degree of influence. The leadership of these groups also varyies from great to terrible.

Furthermore, D Woods is correct in detailing that Tribunals meet every 7 years, Grand Tribunals every 33. In canon Ars, 'politics' moves at a snails pace.

Early in my campaign, a mage killed another mage under debateable circumstances. My covenant suceeded in keeping magi from gathering for an emergency tribunal. It was decided that the issue would be resolved at a normal Tribunal. It took 5 years for that Tribunal to come about and make a decision. For five years a mage walked free! Politics in canon Ars is SLOW and the effectiveness and quality of leadership varies. Having said this, I still find this discussion incredibly insightful and it will likely influence and contribute to my non-canon campaign riddled with heavy politics and quick 'justice'.

More material to consider and discuss,
Chuck

//You assume most if not all leaders are voted/selected in on a careful assessment of them as 'capable politicians' ...//
No, and you know that very well and even quoted it: //Without some basic acumen and common sense a Hermetic political, juridical, military or research leader should not attain his office.//. So I just assume that intelligent people - like most magi - can spot crass incompetents, and avoid appointing them where they can do harm.

Lets have a good look at Lavinia and Julius.

Your own words from LT p.64: "After the closing of each Tribunal meeting, the local Quaesitors meet to decide who will be the Presiding Quaesitor for the following period; the decision is made by vote. ... Prospective Presiding Quaesitors must be persuaded by their peers to stand or seek to retain the post. ... At least two candidates need to stand, ..."
So Lavinia is an elected juridical leader, and voted for by the Quaesitors (by your own estimate on average 11 to 12 per Tribunal).

Furthermore from tIW p.2: "the primus of House Flambeau demands vengeance for his fallen comrades, and members of House Guernicus, who have long lobbied for action, press their case. Two archmagi rise to prominence, Julius of House Flambeau and Lavinia of House Guernicus. Together they begin preparations for a Hermetic invasion of Iceland."
"In 1230 the archmaga Lavinia calls a special Tribunal at Durenmar to debate and organize the proposed Hermetic Crusade. All interested parties are invited to attend."
So it is from your own words - and contrary to your above claim - clear that Julius and Lavinia are accepted as military leaders of an invasion of Iceland by their respective Houses, and tolerated at least by Durenmar and House Bonisagus.

Both of their positions require, that Julius and Lavinia possess //basic acumen and common sense//, as I put it before.

Now lets look at the show of both worthies in your supplement.

(tIW p.1): "This lack of success only heightened the paranoia among many Hermetics. It seems as if this Order of Odin possessed potent powers of disguise and concealment, perhaps even infernally granted."
Further (tIW p.2): "Hadrianus gives an incoherent account of the battle, but makes it clear that he was slain by forces summoned by the Order of Odin. Having delivered this message his spirit rests. An attempt to summon up his spirit for further information leads to his final Twilight. News of the dragon’s attack spreads quickly though the Order".
So our two war leaders at least suspect that the Flambeau warrior archmage Hadrianus and his lineage (2 filii) were wiped out at the coast of an unknown country by a Dragon summoned by the Order of Odin.

What conclusions do they come to, however? Left to their own devices, they lead an all out punitive expedition into the unknown and against unknown foes, without even attempting to gather needed information by mundane and long range magical means before, or by scouting ahead.
(tIW p.6):"Unless informed by player characters, none of the crusaders is aware of the nature of the Icelandic guardians or their attendant host."
So the two war leaders behave as patent idiots, clearly and obviously lacking any //basic acumen and common sense//. With that blatant lack of elementary problem solving skills they could never have convinced intelligent sodales to entrust a minimal office to them - far less their lives.

You responded above:
//>>>But it still excludes idiot 'muppets' like tIW's Lavinia or Julius,<<<

Again another knowing deception.//

Yep, you knowingly attempted and failed in a deception - unless you did not even bother to check what you wrote before and just blathered. In any case you show clear contempt of the intelligence of the readers of this list.

Kind regards,

Berengar

You, insisting: //Imo Hilter is a fairly strong example. His got to be leader of Germany. For a time he did quite well (in an amoralistic assessment). However, he brought Germany to ruin in the end.//

Me: ///you have shown that your initial wording was just utter carelessness///

You: //No, it just didn't accord with your historical view.//

That's for sure. You apparently insist on a view of history centered on people 'doing well' by attaining and maintaining power, without purpose or goal beyond. This view is essentially inhumane, not even shared by most of the people seeking power, and hence also ahistorical.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//My own game seems to emulate Berengar's vision of heavy politics and influencial leaders. However my games does allow for incompetance in it's leaders.//
So does mine. I try to have them fail on a certain level, though.
One of my non-player characters, old Bubo, was very protective of the players' covenant, and spent a lot of time safeguarding it from near and remote dangers. But for that he always appeared busy, impatient and demanding, and when 'recommending' actions of player characters never found time to listen to status reports, so also could not advise and mostly had to leave them - much to the benefit of the campaign - to their own judgement.
Once he 'recommended' the assassination of a troublesome preacher, and hassled careful and conscientious younger magi by incessant questions: "Isn't he dead yet?". They hated him for it, of course, depended even more on their own judgement - and the campaign benefited from that as well.
Bubo was shrewd and determined, but - despite trying hard - due to his personality was also an ineffective leader.

My point is, that all Hermetic leaders - not pure figureheads - need some basic competence, which I called //basic acumen and common sense//, so they can raise to their office and are not dismissed by their followers as idiots.
Beyond that, Hermetic leaders clearly come in all colours, from ineffective to highly capable politician.

Kind regards,

Berengar

>>>So Lavinia is an elected juridical leader, and voted for by the Quaesitors (by your own estimate on average 11 to 12 per Tribunal).<<<

For the position of PQ, not leader of a military expedition; as I had pointed out. Your failure to recognise this simple fact shows your intellectual bankrupty.

>>>Both of their positions require, that Julius and Lavinia possess //basic acumen and common sense//, as I put it before.<<<

Rubbish. Both were self-appointed. There was no official or semi-official appointment, because the Order of the story doesn't operate the way you insist all sagas should.

This is *my* story, I am the authority on it.

>>> Left to their own devices, they lead an all out punitive expedition into the unknown and against unknown foes, without even attempting to gather needed information by mundane and long range magical means before, or by scouting ahead.<<<

Did Julius and Lavinia seriously believe there was an Order of Odin? Did they truly believe Icelandic wizards were a threat to Hermetic magi? Rather, did they simple wish to win glory, territory and vis sources from a group of easy targets? Iirc I left the text open, but I know what motivation I thought primary.

So again all your points are bogus.

Anyway we have been over this before. You are obviously not engaged in any form of honest debate. I will save the forum bandwidth by making this my last post to you on this topic.

You may have the last word.

Regards

- David W

//>>>So Lavinia is an elected juridical leader, and voted for by the Quaesitors (by your own estimate on average 11 to 12 per Tribunal).<<<

For the position of PQ, not leader of a military expedition; as I had pointed out.//
Especially a juridical leader needs some wits and common sense to be elected. Lavinia shows none - so could not have been elected to that post.
//Your failure to recognise this simple fact shows your intellectual bankrupty.// Sent back to whom it applies.

//Rubbish. Both were self-appointed. There was no official or semi-official appointment, because the Order of the story doesn't operate the way you insist all sagas should.

This is *my* story, I am the authority on it.//
*Your* story from tIW p.2: "the primus of House Flambeau demands vengeance for his fallen comrades, and members of House Guernicus, who have long lobbied for action, press their case. Two archmagi rise to prominence, Julius of House Flambeau and Lavinia of House Guernicus. Together they begin preparations for a Hermetic invasion of Iceland."
"In 1230 the archmaga Lavinia calls a special Tribunal at Durenmar to debate and organize the proposed Hermetic Crusade. All interested parties are invited to attend."
iIW p.7: "Apart from Julius and Lavinia, the makeup of the Hermetic force depends on the events at the War Tribunal.
If support is still strong, the force consists of twelve powerful hoplites and twenty moderately powerful magi, mostly from House Flambeau. A third archmagus also joins the expedition, a Theban spirit master called Albinus of House Ex Miscellanea. ... They also have any player characters that join up and 100 wellequipped grogs for each ship (in addition to crew)."
So, no matter whether 'appointed' or not, //Julius and Lavinia are accepted as military leaders of an invasion of Iceland by their respective Houses, and tolerated at least by Durenmar and House Bonisagus.// (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.83) This again requires them to have some wits and common sense at least.

//Did Julius and Lavinia seriously believe there was an Order of Odin? Did they truly believe Icelandic wizards were a threat to Hermetic magi?//
They had to suspect so at the very least from your
(tIW p.1): "This lack of success only heightened the paranoia among many Hermetics. It seems as if this Order of Odin possessed potent powers of disguise and concealment, perhaps even infernally granted."
and (tIW p.2): "Hadrianus gives an incoherent account of the battle, but makes it clear that he was slain by forces summoned by the Order of Odin. Having delivered this message his spirit rests. An attempt to summon up his spirit for further information leads to his final Twilight. News of the dragon’s attack spreads quickly though the Order".
If they did not consider this, they were utter lackwits.

//So again all your points are bogus.// Again sent back to whom it applies.

Kind regards,

Berengar

>> Wouldn't you agree that even if there were no Houses to start with 15 years of apprenticeship with a single magus still would constitute a very strong guidance for the magus in question?

Yes. But by adding a Mystical society, you can add another dimension. WHich is why 'Mysteries' is my favourate supplement after the absolutely necessary 'Grimoire'.

>> Houses are the consequence of these long apprenticeships: magi basically cannot avoid to pass on the culture they learned from their Parens to their Filius together with Hermetic magic.

OK. But just add a bit more depth to the character. How about a achild abandoned because he is a Werewolf, trained by a Magi, who attends meetings of a Mystical society. Besides, the master is not of a predefined house.

PLease note, I don't think the 12 houses are unimaginative, they are wonderfully imaginative, it's just they are someone elses imagination.

>> And finally: why *force* your players to create individualist magi in the first place?

Actually I rarely get the chance top break away from the Mythic Europe
setting from my fellow players (and a fine setting it is!).

But to answer your question: To make them use their own imagination rather than someone elses.

>Don't forget that a character who is both magus and individualist in the middle ages is twice a freak.

Even in the middle ages, they can only hang you once.

//Yes. But by adding a Mystical society, you can add another dimension.//

I agree: well integrated mystery cults/secret societies can give characters a lot of perspective.

//>> And finally: why *force* your players to create individualist magi in the first place?

Actually I rarely get the chance top break away from the Mythic Europe
setting from my fellow players (and a fine setting it is!).

But to answer your question: To make them use their own imagination rather than someone elses.//

Whatever works with your players, of course. (Though I do not quite see why secret societies from 'Mysteries' are less of someone else's imagination than Hermetic Houses, and how disallowing non-individualist character concepts can enhance the use players make of their imagination.)

Kind regards,

Berengar

Here's the resolution of the riddle from May 29th.

The organization in question is the Serenissima Repubblica di Venezia.

* The underdogs with their specific abilities are refugees to the lagoons of the coastline of the Aquileia patriarchate, and west of it.
* The 'barbarians' beaten in 810 were Pippin's army, which penetrated deep into the lagoon and to the Rialto before being repelled.
* A 'Dux' - with roughly the tasks of a Magister Militum of byzantine frontier administration - was already elected around 700, with a still very open collegium of electors.
* This collegium successfully emancipated itself from Byzantium already latest in 840 (Pactum Lotarii), becoming de facto nobles directly negotiating with the Holy Roman Empire. In the beginning it is rather open to newcomers of wealth and influence, but this changes over the next 150 years.
* We do not know its numbers for every decade of following history, but in the year of the Serrata (1297) we start with roughly 500 noble electors in the Maggior Consiglio, which at the same year is augmented by roughly another 600 rich and influential citizens of Venice.
* The Candiano family tried in the 10th century several times to transform Venice into a hereditary duchy, but failed.
* This and discontent with the power of following Doges lead from 1032 on to a complex system of checks and balances within the nobility and between the many offices of the Repubblica.
* The Avogadori del Comun especially controlled the other officials' conduct after they had left their offices.
* This system of mutual control did by no means paralyze the dynamics of the politics of the Serenissima: Doges like Sebastiano Ziani, Orio Mastropiero, Enrico Dandolo, Pietro Ziani, Giacomo Tiepolo and Raniero Zeno were active, competent, successful and loyal to the Serenissima.

Comparing the organizations and political capabilities of the Serenissima and of the Order of Hermes - both consisting of roughly comparable numbers of mostly worldly, educated individuals - should give some interesting insights.

Kind regards,

Berengar

Yet is the Republic of Venice truly comprable to the Order of Hermes?

Venice has holdings outside of its contiguous lands, yes, but it is still relatively confined, geographically speaking.

The Order of Hermes covers more or less Europe, less Scandinavia.

In Venice you have people together more or less in one place who all know and interact with each other on a very regular basis. It is possible to form personal bonds (and animosities) under such circumstances relatively easily. What of a House with 70-odd members divided between 13 Tribunals? Communications would become important, yet given the state of the medieval postal system (and lack thereof), this would be problematic.

Then again, magi tend to live longer, so perhaps this would help matters. Then again, they would probably hold onto grudges longer, so this might cancel out.

Hmmm, I'm not sure how to work this all out. I will have to think on the topic some more.

There are many obvious differences, of course - here a few I hold important:
* scholarly inclination of Magi vs. business interests of Venetian nobles,
* sedentary, but geographically scattered lives of Magi vs. traveling lives with Venice as a center for many Venetians.

Competition there is likely even more between Venetian nobles than between magi: and economical competition is usually tougher than competition among scholars whose livelihood is assured.
But perhaps magi also *need* less cooperation to survive than Venetian noble merchants? Perhaps they just can *afford* to being a solitary lot, and are powerful enough to let their personalities run wild in ways which would ruin a Venetian noble in no time?

Quick communications for magi are not a 'technical' problem, but rather one of desiring them or not:
Two covenants exchanging arcane connections to hilltops a day's travel on horseback from the covenants proper allows for message delays of only one day (marvelous in the middle ages), without significantly endangering the covenants, costing Vis or such.
Most magi being literate and many scholarly, written communication among allies *could* indeed replace much face-to-face time, and assure undisturbed lab or lib work.
So why aren't they desired in the canonical Order? This appears to be rather a cultural issue.

A few thoughts - I will come back to them later.

Kind regards,

Berengar

I don't know if I've thought about this long enough to articulate my thoughts correctly, so I may get into trouble here.

While the Republic of Venice example is interesting, there are still dramatic differences between the Order of Hermes and the RoV.

In no particular order...

While the OoH is a world spaning organization, it isn't a sovereign power. It lacks boundaries that are acknowledged by other sovereign powers, it lacks political, military, or economic influence in the 'real' world.

One could argue that all of the above points are wrong, because covenants interact with nobles, but the interactions of individual covenants can not be applied to the OoH as a whole.

The OoH isn't a cohesive organization, it lacks centeralization or the capacity to act quickly. Furthermore, it doesn't appear to have individual members that want to centralize power or expedite decisions.

I would argue that the OoH is more simular to Cosanostra, or the mob. Here is an organization that exists within the parameters of a soverign power. The purpose of this organization is to advance it's own cause (let's call it getting rich) and it accomplishes it's goals by subversively exploiting the world in which it lives. The Mob isn't interested in being acknowledged by other soveriegn powers, or by openly pushing it's views or goals on the world at large.

The OoH is a secret society, just like the mob. I think people often forget this point because they are playing members of that society. It's sort of like the Batcave, we all know what the Batcave looks like and where it is, but in the context of Batman's world, the BatCave is a mystery (no pun intended).

The subversive nature of a secret society lends itself to working in cells, or covenants, or 'families' and these cells or covenants may have common interests, but typically they are independant and often unaware of the actions of other cells, covenants, or families. The more they work together, the more chance there is they are discovered and discovery is not in their best interests.

Canon Ars displays a secret society that lacks the organization of the Republic of Venice. Yet such an organization could exist in Ars. However, the stronger this organization became the greater the chance that Order of Hermes would be discovered by the general public. This is something that should be considered as one generates cohesive governments for the Order.

My own campaign has a fledgling centeralized government for the Order of Hermes, we are already known by 'the Church'. My campaign has an air of mobsters trying to go legit. It's not easy, at any minute my fledgling government could collapse or have all it's allies turn against it. It's the source of interesting times and campaign rich in politics.

Chuck

Berengar writes: "So why aren't they desired in the canonical Order? This appears to be rather a cultural issue."

Well I've always thought it was because people didn't consider it. Cultural issues aside, the more you think about a mystic covenant existing in the middle ages the less it makes sense. Over the years the covenant in my campaign has become huge, and it still exists primarily to support the needs of the magi.

That hundreds of covenants could exist scattered across Europe and not be discovered is absurd. Furthermore more, items like an AC on a hill to expedite communication. That's so simple and until you wrote it I never considered it. There are so many examples of how magi could use magic to replicate modern technology and have no need for (fill in the blank). I guess my point is, the more we examine the setting, the more we see how little the setting makes sense.

Yet I love the setting and have been playing Ars since the early 90's. I suppose the second reason this material may not show up in canon, is the more we address the *potential* of Ars, the less we remain in a 'real' world. That is, if canon allowed for every covenant to produce their own gold, have lighted hallways, have an 'antenna' on the hill out back, have access to uber-books, it would no longer be magi living in the middle ages. It would be uber magi living in uber covenants, in a high fantasy game. It may be best, to leave such a choice to individual players rather than print it into canon material.

chuck

//That hundreds of covenants could exist scattered across Europe and not be discovered is absurd.//
Most true. My assumption is, that most magi - at least in 1220 - do not hide from the world, but only hide their nature from it - masquerading as merchants, clerics, nobles, woodsman and so on. Covenants hidden deep in the woods like Dankmar, Durenmar, Crintera, Irencilia and Magvillus are rather the exception than the rule - the others try to fit in with mundane society.

//There are so many examples of how magi could use magic to replicate modern technology and have no need for (fill in the blank). I guess my point is, the more we examine the setting, the more we see how little the setting makes sense.//
It's apparently just me, but I like to try making sense of it. You learn a lot about how the middle ages worked from trying hard to fit in something weird like the Order.

// I suppose the second reason this material may not show up in canon, is the more we address the *potential* of Ars, the less we remain in a 'real' world.//
For me that boils down to designing the culture of magi consistently, without expanding it into the mundane world too far. The old and apparently unchangeable Code of Hermes lends a hand here, as does the scholarly inclination of Hermetic magi.
Still comparison with contemporary mundane organizations can show us which aspects of Hermetic society could need further analysis and elaboration - and which assumptions about it should better be dropped at once.

//That is, if canon allowed for every covenant to produce their own gold, have lighted hallways, have an 'antenna' on the hill out back, have access to uber-books, it would no longer be magi living in the middle ages.//
Fortunately the issue of creating precious metal, blatantly open in ArM4, then quite ingeniously closed for the Stonehenge Tribunal in 'Heirs to Merlin', is in ArM5 settled reasonably between Peripheral Code and rules for Target Size.
The lighted hallways and the mailbox on the hill beyond the pasture don't bother me much - I consider them when designing covenants.
And AFAICS the uber-books from ArM4 are now also taken care of.

So there appears to be some benefit from digging up such stuff: it can be discussed, and - if necessary - fixed.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//While the OoH is a world spaning organization, it isn't a sovereign power. It lacks boundaries that are acknowledged by other sovereign powers, it lacks political, military, or economic influence in the 'real' world.//
This is all true - but just shows that the Order's *foreign* politics will be different from those of the Serenissima.

//The OoH isn't a cohesive organization, it lacks centeralization or the capacity to act quickly.//
This is the case - but there is no technical necessity for it, as we discussed already. So why does the Order not require or desire quick decision making capacity?
//Furthermore, it doesn't appear to have individual members that want to centralize power or expedite decisions.//
That's half the answer to my above question. But how does the Order maintain over centuries a position which allows it such a lazy, seemingly complacent attitude towards problems?

Kind regards,

Berengar

Berengar writes: "But how does the Order maintain over centuries a position which allows it such a lazy, seemingly complacent attitude towards problems?"

Well here's the million dollar question. I have no idea!

In my campaign, we decieded to run with the vampire mess and it turned into a 'Schism War' II. The war was messy, like a Crusade it engaged in all sorts of crap not related to beating up vampires. The war effort only became successful when powerful covenants (Durenmar, Doissetep, and conviently my covenant) took charge. These three covenant eventually formed a military junta. The magi of the war effort essentially wanted these three covennats to run the war. After the war ended, these three covenants didn't give up their position/power. They kept looking for different things to manage, war clean up, stability issues, maintaining the new peace. The senior covenants, savy to what was going on initiated a coup of sorts and took over this proto-goverment. Our covenant lost it's political power but became the 'capitol' for this would be goverment.

Essentially I decieded that some magi wanted 'more', went after it, and got some of what they were after.

If I had to remain soley with the barriers of canon Ars while trying to answer the above question, I dunno.....

I suppose it could be a cultural thing. I can imagine anxious upstart youngsters wanting to call an emergency tribunal every other week to resolve problems and the old men of a Tribunal just saying no. That's not how things are done, we'll talk about it 5-7 years from now when were suppose to meet. I've got pots to stir, things to measure, I'm not screwing up my projects for your petty problems and neither is anybody else.

Perhaps the culture of personal study and Hermetics being 'hermits' keeps magi from gathering often. Another idea, maybe the gifted are effected by the gift. That is, Magi don't like to be around other magi. That certainly explains why so many wizards are hermits. While the nature of men compels us to make families and societies, maybe wizards are caught in a conflict of needing people and can't standing other people. This could draw them together enough to have an organization, but keep it decentralized enough to make it complacent to the problems that surround them.

I've always thought that as wizards get older, they grow less 'human'. Ancient wizards in theory don't need to move. They could through will, have stuff come to them. If they need to go someplace through illusion or magic they could just appear. Such abilities divorce them from the normal definitions of 'man'. It would follow that the normals needs and ambitions of man could become alien to wizards as well. Maybe Magi just don't care. Even if one magi had the ambition to centeralize the Order, maybe the rest don't have the willingess to participate in anything that exceeds a season's investment. When i think about it, while i consider myself an active news watcher/reader and vote in local elections as well as state and federal, the amount of time I dedicate to politics is small, and it's still more than most of my neighbors. Maybe Magi are simply content to work on projects like so many are content to just watch TV after work.

Tuura: That hundreds of covenants could exist scattered across Europe and not be discovered is absurd.

Berengar: Most true. My assumption is, that most magi - at least in 1220 - do not hide from the world, but only hide their nature from it - masquerading as merchants, clerics, nobles, woodsman and so on. Covenants hidden deep in the woods like Dankmar, Durenmar, Crintera, Irencilia and Magvillus are rather the exception than the rule - the others try to fit in with mundane society.

One of the fundamental concepts I utilize is that the Order of Hermes as an institution is a secret organization, but that the existence of wizards/magi itself is not. I feel the "secret" of the Order is the fact that there is an Order. Many nobles or church officials may very well know there are some cooky wizards in the tower on the hill, but likely have no clue that they are part of a far vaster organization consisting of over a thousand magi. That, to me, is where the Order would be perceived as a threat, and thus, it behooves magi to keep its existence a secret.

I don't consider there to be hundreds of undiscovered covenants scattered across Europe. I think one has to distinguish between the covenant as a physical place and as a "covenant" of wizards. Many covenant facilities are quite well known in the mundane world, even if the "occupation" of its inhabitants is not. I believe that True Lineages indicated Magvillus is a mighty fortress and that its presence bothers the local nobility, but they haven't dared try to do anything about it. Though some magi may choose to disguise themselves in the manners Berengar mentions, others likely take no such precautions and openly display themselves as magi. I don't believe any provision in the Code of Hermes or the Peripheral Code directly requires a magus to keep the nature of his identity a secret.

I agree with Nzld's statements on 'condition.'

I agree the only way that a large number of covenants could exist in Europe is if they are known on a local level possibly in possession of a 'secret identity' or cover story to explain who they are. Yes, the local Baron knows all about our covenants and makes money off it to boot. Yes, the local lord of some other area knows about the covenant next door. It's easy for us to talk about 'the nobility' but they are nearly as disorganized aa the Order. Our Baron doesn't tell his Lordly buddies about his secret source of iron (our covenant) and in turn his buddies don't tell the Baron about thier bargains. In the end, the Nobility has no clue how big or organized the Order really is.

Having said this, it seems common place to read on-line (perhaps that's my mistake) about these crazy covenants riddled with super items and super heroes. Even in a mythic world, I find it hard to believe that the presence of dozens of super forts, even not linked together by an organization like the OoH could go unnoticed for long. Canon Ars has never produce an obvious super covenant, but observation of individual campaigns suggests they do occur. My comments tried to take into account the material that people produce.

Chuck

Berengar: "But how does the Order maintain over centuries a position which allows it such a lazy, seemingly complacent attitude towards problems?"

I think a fundamental question that has to be asked is, what are these monumental threats that are facing the Order which you feel mandates such efficient response? How many such threats do you believe the Order is facing at any given time?

The canonical history of the Order, over the course of several centuries, only lists a few events that I would consider to be of this magnitude of importance, and once the threat was imminent, the Order, in part or in whole, responded. Some responded willingly... some were likely dragged in kicking and screaming.

Future events of this magnitude would likely have such a drastic impact on any given saga that they should be left up to the individual storyguide as to how to implement them and what response should be given. I feel the source books give plenty of information on potential threats that could turn into calamities that threaten the Order as a whole.

Prior to the founding of the Order, the magi lived individual lives pursuing their own agenda. Perhaps this brought them into various conflicts from time to time, but I don't believe that magi, in general, were constantly worried about world-shattering threats. Why, then, would simply coming together under a common cause, and agreeing to a general guideline of behavior, and imposing a few rudimentary levels of structure and hierarchy (which is all the Order essentially does) suddenly force the wizards into a political/social/economic powerhouse that needs competent leadership that can respond to threats at a moments notice with the highest degree of efficiency.

I believe that most magi would not be worried about threats that are not immediately apparent to them, or that would not have a direct impact on their lives, and thus it does take a long time for those who are interested in the threat to build up the political clout necessary to force a stand, and a response.

>>>Berengar writes: "But how does the Order maintain over centuries a position which allows it such a lazy, seemingly complacent attitude towards problems?"

Well here's the million dollar question. I have no idea!<<<

Problems are the responsibility of those affected. If a crime has been commited against an individual, it is the responsibility of the individual or , if dead, his heirs/family/friends or any interested party to persue justice. There is no Statehood to the OoH, the OoH has no executive arm.

The OoH only has judicial and legislative functions. Within Houses there may be more, but these power are extra-legal; contractual or simply voluntary, ultimately to be a member of the club you need to follow the code of conduct.

The OoH has no police (in an enforcement sense) or army. It has no body that might have authority over them. It have no taxation that might pay for them. Put another way, the OoH has no executive authority or agents of such. Any enforcement of law is carried out by as private individuals i.e. hunting outlaws.

The OoH does not exist in a form commensurate with the concerns and expectations you and other express for it.

The idea of a lawful society without an executive authority is alien to the modern reader, but there is a perfect medieval model of such a society. If I have time, I will outline this in another topic heading.

Regards

- David W

Well these are excellent points. From time to time, my campaign has taken breaks from the development of our covenant to play 'special episodes'. During these adventures we play senior characters, Arch Magi, Primi, Praceo's, the people of importance. Typically we detail a Tribunal, discuss important issues, and make big decisions. In reality it's a way for us in character to determine the course of future story arcs.

A reoccuring theme in these one-shots is apathy. One of our players wanted to make the Mongol Horde the next big thing our campaign to deals with. He had a character address the Tribunal and the Tribunal simply dismissed him. They didn't see the issue as important. In reality, we as a group didn't want to pursue this story line, but it still fair to say the magi didn't care.

I think there is some truth to the idea that most magi aren't worried about big threats until those threats cut off access to vis, books, or spell components.

Chuck

These are excellent points.

My campaign has been around for far to long, in the early days of the campaign I played true to canon Ars and discovered politics moved at a snails pace. We chose to create a centeralized gov to allow us to include the poltical and 'world' influence we wanted to our campaign to have. In doing this we accept that we are now far from canon Ars.

It's not my intent to force my expectations of the Order on to others, I simply enjoy the process of discussing interpretations or the ramifications of views on how things work. Still, this is an important point to make, because it can be quite natural for a person to assume that because something works 'this way' in my campaign it *must* work this way in other campaigns. People constantly fail to grasp is just how expansive thier presumptions may be and this failure can lead to people forcing thier views of 'how things work' onto others without realizing they are doing it.

It would be interesting and insightful to read any material you chose to contribute concerning a lawful society without an executive authority. Such material could clarify and perhaps solve some of the problems that seem to be reoccuring through this thread.

Looking forward to more material to discuss and consider,

Chuck

//I agree the only way that a large number of covenants could exist in Europe is if they are known on a local level possibly in possession of a 'secret identity' or cover story to explain who they are. Yes, the local Baron knows all about our covenants and makes money off it to boot. Yes, the local lord of some other area knows about the covenant next door. It's easy for us to talk about 'the nobility' but they are nearly as disorganized aa the Order. Our Baron doesn't tell his Lordly buddies about his secret source of iron (our covenant) and in turn his buddies don't tell the Baron about thier bargains. In the end, the Nobility has no clue how big or organized the Order really is.//

This seems to be a common idea that if a covenant is "known" to the local nobility, they would have to make some arrangements of mutual benefit in order to survive. While, undoubtedly, this will hold true in some situations, I think that it can hold equally true that no such arrangements exist. Maybe the baron approached the wizards once and they told him to buzz off and he hasn't worked up the nerve to risk antagonizing them. Maybe the baron is pious and doesn't wish to taint himself with dealings with wizards, but tolerates them just as he does the Jews in his city.

Those are excellent points. I'm a profiteer at heart and I naturally assume that people in power would find some way to make a buck in the process. It's completely reasonable that fear, religion, racism, could keep mundanes from interacting with magi. All of these reasons don't even take into account the gift.

Chuck

//I suppose it could be a cultural thing. I can imagine anxious upstart youngsters wanting to call an emergency tribunal every other week to resolve problems and the old men of a Tribunal just saying no. That's not how things are done, we'll talk about it 5-7 years from now when were suppose to meet. I've got pots to stir, things to measure, I'm not screwing up my projects for your petty problems and neither is anybody else.//
The young upstarts won't get their special tribunals just for whining, of course - but there are indeed enough canon examples of special Tribunals: Tribunals to initiate new magi, Tribunals to resolve urgent matters, and so on. The problem with them is assuring that attendants represent the interests involved in the subject of the Tribunal, and there the occupations of the more (self-)important magi tend to get in the way.

//Perhaps the culture of personal study and Hermetics being 'hermits' keeps magi from gathering often. Another idea, maybe the gifted are effected by the gift. That is, Magi don't like to be around other magi.//
These look like very good reasons: I reckon there is always some awkwardness among magi at dusk and dawn, when the Parmae come off. Just that these reasons direct the communication within the Order to letters, and we have seen how easy a quick magical exchange of letters between allied covenants can be done.

//maybe wizards are caught in a conflict of needing people and can't standing other people. ... This could draw them together enough to have an organization, but keep it decentralized enough to make it complacent to the problems that surround them.//
Schopenhauer's porcupines ... yes, this explains the lack of social life in the Order. It is not strong enough to explain 'wait and see' as standard approach to problem solving, though.

So the 'million dollar question' remains for now open.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//I believe that True Lineages indicated Magvillus is a mighty fortress and that its presence bothers the local nobility, but they haven't dared try to do anything about it.//
Yes, Magvillus in LT is indeed not described as hidden in woods, but as ignored by nobility and populace because it ignores them and appears impregnable. Why that would really cause humanity to ignore it - instead of making it a recurring subject of intrusion attempts, research, speculation and wonder - is beyond my understanding, though.

I have to look after other things now, and can read further posts (99 and up) only this evening.

Kind regards,

Berengar

I'm moving more in the realm of the obscure, but I wanted to point out an element of 'color' in my game.

Berengar discussed the exchange of letters between magi, while I'm not contesting this in any way, I wanted to point a possible ramification. My character used the signature of a magus that he recieved through an exchange of letters to attack this mage. My character didn't do this on a whim, but he recieved a sympathetic connection bonus because he had the signature. Such a trick can be repeated by any magus and this could deter letter exchanges between magi. It adds a level of paranoia that people may not want in the game. In my game, my character is not liked and while my character had grounds for attacking the other magus, the way in which he went about attacking this magus has earned him even more enemies.

To counter the signature problem, magi could dictake letters to a scribe and have the scribe sign them, on the case of my magus, a mage could write his own letters, but then tear them in half to break the arcane connection of the letter/signature to the magus.

Simply an element of color to consider.

Chuck

//Yes, Magvillus in LT is indeed not described as hidden in woods, but as ignored by nobility and populace because it ignores them and appears impregnable. Why that would really cause humanity to ignore it - instead of making it a recurring subject of intrusion attempts, research, speculation and wonder - is beyond my understanding, though.//

Just because the nobility/mundanes "ignore" the covenant doesn't mean any of those things don't happen. I'm sure that over a few centuries plenty of speculation and wonder has occurred. As far as infiltration and research, not everyone has the resources at their disposal to make such concentrated efforts, and for those that do, how many spys have to fail to return before they get the point?

Another consideration, is that the fortress has been there far longer than any of the local nobility (I'd have to check its founding date, but doesn't it precede the Holy Roman Empire, at least?), so most of the nobles in the area would know it to be "that fortress that was there during my father's time, and his father before him"... so it is a fact of every day life to them, not just some petty annoyance they can invade at a whim.

A particular tyrant may very well have desires to invade the fortress and discover what secrets lie within, but as you yourself argue about competence and effective leadership, what local noble is going to recklessly risk such actions without having much more understanding of the target? Beyond that, which nobles would actually have the available military might to launch a campaign against it? And of those, which ones would have any logical reason to do so?

In your saga, you may have different opinions about how the nobility would approach things, but it such behavior - as described in the books - really beyond your understanding?

//Berengar discussed the exchange of letters between magi, while I'm not contesting this in any way, I wanted to point a possible ramification. My character used the signature of a magus that he recieved through an exchange of letters to attack this mage. My character didn't do this on a whim, but he recieved a sympathetic connection bonus because he had the signature. Such a trick can be repeated by any magus and this could deter letter exchanges between magi. It adds a level of paranoia that people may not want in the game. In my game, my character is not liked and while my character had grounds for attacking the other magus, the way in which he went about attacking this magus has earned him even more enemies.//

Interesting points.

Also, I believe that somewhere it described that medieval letter writing was typically more involved than modern letter writing. People didn't tend to simply write a short note to one another, but rather wrote pages upon pages of dialogue and pleasantries, employing various literary devices to extrapolate their points, rather than simply getting to the point.

It is quite conceivable that some magi simply dislike writing letters. Not every magi is itching to write summae or tractati, and tough a letter may not take a season to pen, they may find it just as irksome and time wasting. Other may find the expense of writing (in parchment and ink) to not be something to be undertaken for trivial conversation. Perhaps it is more suitable to them to save their resources and talk in person in a couple years.

In my early saga, with all the time the magi spent in their labs, the 7-year tribunals were occurring all to often, so the magi didn't have any problems having such "infrequent" opportunities for communication.

In your post http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/display.asp?webtag=atlasgames&msg=635.100&js=y you ask a few questions which I indeed should answer more in depth.

Having some time now, allow me before to sum up where I see that we are at this moment.

We know, that the raw capability of the Order and its members for political action, self-organization and administration far exceeds the organization level realized in the canonic Order:
* We can see this from comparing the Order with the Serenissima and its less numerous and at least as busy nobles.
* And we found that fast and safe exchange of letters via magic would allow it to beat any lordship or kingdom in Europe in speed of information exchange and informed decision making - a critical asset in any conflict.

So, once again: "But how does the Order maintain over centuries a position which allows it such a lazy, seemingly complacent attitude towards problems?"

//... what are these monumental threats that are facing the Order which you feel mandates such efficient response?//
As a strong example, the magi of Provence and Languedoc will certainly hold that the Albigensian Crusade mandates such an effort.
In canon the crusaders take out one covenant after the other without even a concerted effort of counterintelligence and hiding from the side of the Order. How can that be explained given the Orders latent capabilities, and the risks it runs if just one covenant library falls into the hands of the crusaders intact?

Here is a short and rough sketch of an attempt for an explanation, which takes up many of Nzld's and Tuura's suggestions and is open for further elaboration.

The Order of Hermes as a Gerontocracy

(1) The Order is not run by and does not represent the interests of *all* its members. Rather it is subtly guided mostly by the oldest 10 to 20 percent of its magi. These are those with the most powerful magic, the best connections in the Order and the most experience in politics and leadership.
(2) They keep the younger magi in line by offering them advancement in the Order - especially in the Houses - over time. Thus they basically assure that younger magi playing by their rules will not challenge them during their lifespan, that those contesting them will not go far anyway, and that magi having aged 'successfully' in the Order will assume without too much of a bad conscience that they deserve their finally achieved status, and follow in the footsteps of their elders.
(3) The interests of the oldest 10 to 20 percent of the magi are, however, also the most nearsighted. After all, in 20 to 40 years they will be gone: either dead or in final twilight. In the meantime many of their projects will be egotistical and solitary, so few at that age can benefit from an articulated organization of the Order: for most it suffices that the Order and the Houses keep the peace among magi and make sure no magus rocks the boat too much. 'Wait and see' gets a new meaning if one can add 'whether this issue will affect me at all before I am in final twilight'.
(4) For the most cynical elder magi the canon organization of the Order is hence nearly made to measure: the younger sodales are kept quiet and nothing troublesome can be decided.
(5) If there is a local military or political emergency like the Albigensian Crusade which requires quick action, active elder magi are those most capable to save themselves even without the Order, and also those who might consider it most onerous and unnecessary to save other sodales.
(6) Only a deep structural crisis, like one caused by patent, encompassing encroachment of the Dominion onto Vis sources, and a consequential loss of faith into the Order's ability to respond and loss of authority of its leaders are likely to push younger magi to realize the political potential of the Order.

//Future events of this magnitude would likely have such a drastic impact on any given saga that they should be left up to the individual storyguide as to how to implement them and what response should be given. I feel the source books give plenty of information on potential threats that could turn into calamities that threaten the Order as a whole.//
That's the way this is done in ArM since its beginning - says Berengar the gerontocrat. ;-)

Kind regards,

Berengar

//Maybe the baron approached the wizards once and they told him to buzz off and he hasn't worked up the nerve to risk antagonizing them.//
Even in such cases, the magi would wish to make sure that the baron does not escalate the issue to his liege, won't they?
//Maybe the baron is pious and doesn't wish to taint himself with dealings with wizards, but tolerates them just as he does the Jews in his city.//
Indeed, some level of tolerance will have to be worked out and agreed upon: everybody will wish to know just what the other might or might not do.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//Another consideration, is that the fortress has been there far longer than any of the local nobility (I'd have to check its founding date, but doesn't it precede the Holy Roman Empire, at least?), so most of the nobles in the area would know it to be "that fortress that was there during my father's time, and his father before him"... so it is a fact of every day life to them, not just some petty annoyance they can invade at a whim.//

Well, Magvillus exists already in 817, but certainly not before 770. During all the 8th century the Basilicata is dominated by the Langobards, and the Langobard nobility remains the local ruling class even under the Holy Roman Empire until the coming of the Normans in the middle of the 11th century.
The natural place for Magvillus would have been on the Aspromonte in Calabria - a place of shepherds and bandits where even in the 1950s the Italian government was represented only by mounted military patrols in platoon strength.

Kind regards,

Berengar

It may be best to continue this discussion under 'Society Model for the OoH".

Chuck

///Nzld: Maybe the baron approached the wizards once and they told him to buzz off and he hasn't worked up the nerve to risk antagonizing them.

Berenger: Even in such cases, the magi would wish to make sure that the baron does not escalate the issue to his liege, won't they?///

It seems that you are expecting all answers to be absolutes. My examples are trying to illustrate the vast possibilities that are plausible to show that things can exist as they have been illustrated in canon. To your question, sure, its plausible that a particular baron, after a particular meeting with particular magi, might need to be watched and "thwarted" if he were to try to intice his liege in an act of aggression against the magi... but I don't think we should have to assume that every baron that approaches any wizard and is refused subservience should be expected to run to his liege, nor that the wizards in question should necessarily be concerned with it one way or the other. There are too many factors involved that would mitigate the circumstances on a case by case basis.

///Nzld: What are these monumental threats that are facing the Order which you feel mandates such efficient response?

Berengar: As a strong example, the magi of Provence and Languedoc will certainly hold that the Albigensian Crusade mandates such an effort. In canon the crusaders take out one covenant after the other without even a concerted effort of counterintelligence and hiding from the side of the Order. How can that be explained given the Orders latent capabilities, and the risks it runs if just one covenant library falls into the hands of the crusaders intact?///

This is mostly covered in the Mistridge supplement, correct? To be fair, I can't speak with any extensive knowledge on it, but as I recall, the differing covenants took several stances on this issue. Some wanted to openly oppose the Crusade, while others wanted to wait in seclusion and "weather the storm". Ultimately, didn't it come to a vote and the decision was made by the Tribunal?

At the Tribunal level, this WAS a serious issue. But at the "global" level, why would other magi and the Order at large HAVE to be so concerned with it to warrant action? I consider it quite plausible that they would dismiss it and tell them to bring it up at the Grand Tribunal.

Refresh my memory on it, but how many covenants does canon indicate the Crusaders destroyed? Of these, how many had true political clout within the Tribunal or presented a true loss to the Order at large?

What specific risks are involved in a Hermetic library falling into the hands of the Crusaders?

//but I don't think we should have to assume that every baron that approaches any wizard and is refused subservience should be expected to run to his liege, nor that the wizards in question should necessarily be concerned with it one way or the other.//
That holds true as long as the wizard approached by the baron does not live on land claimed by that baron or his liege, or immediately bordering on such.

Otherwise the subject of the wizard neighbours will - barring very exeptional circumstances - come up naturally between liege and baron, latest in a year or two: and magi can - again barring weird and exceptional circumstances - not just assume that then the baron will leave his liege in the dark on purpose, violating his oath of fealty.
Note that we talk about long-time coexistence here: at least decades. A scared baron and his heirs left to their own devices are scary neighbours for that long a time.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//This is mostly covered in the Mistridge supplement, correct?// Yes. Mainly p. 48f and 117.
From p. 49: "... but many Magi die fighting the Crusaders. ... In any case, several Covenants are destroyed by the Crusaders, the power of the Provencal Tribunal is severely reduced, and the entire Order of Hermes is brought dangerously close to wholesale conflict with mundane powers."

//At the Tribunal level, this WAS a serious issue. But at the "global" level, why would other magi and the Order at large HAVE to be so concerned with it to warrant action? I consider it quite plausible that they would dismiss it and tell them to bring it up at the Grand Tribunal.//
With the 'gerontocracy model' this is indeed plausible - though I then would rather assume an emergency tribunal, to keep the younger magi quiet and discourage 'unilateral' actions.
A more vigorous - and non-canon - Order living up to its potential would in a situation as described in Mistridge p.49 have made at least a coordinated effort at hiding or - where necessary - evacuation of the covenants in question.

//What specific risks are involved in a Hermetic library falling into the hands of the Crusaders?//
A significant, crusading part of the Church knowing of at least the basic organisation and extent of the Order, and of the working and limits of Hermetic Magic?

Kind regards,

Berengar

//A more vigorous - and non-canon - Order living up to its potential would in a situation as described in Mistridge p.49 have made at least a coordinated effort at hiding or - where necessary - evacuation of the covenants in question.//

I agree with the above statement. However, what I recall from the Mistridge Supplement is a different take on the Crusade. I recall that the senior covenants, the ones most capable of fighting crusaders didn't because they were also the most isolated and least effected by the Crusade. So even within the borders of the Tribunal, the magi that could have beat back the crusaders didn't do anything. They didn't do anything for two reasons. First, they weren't immediately effected by the Crusade. Second, the removal of minor covenants frees up resources claimed by these covenants. That is, after the Crusaders thin the ranks of the Provencal tribunal, covenants like Doissetep will reap the benefits of a smaller Tribunal. While it's easy to say that after the Crusade, the Provencial Tribunal is 'weaker', but in the eyes of Doissetep after the Crusade Doissetep is 'stronger'.

I guess what I'm proposing is that with or with out a 'gerontocracy model' there could be legitimate reasons for covenants to not rally together. Common sense suggests that covenants would want to work together to fight a common threat, but it need not be that simple. What threatens one, could advance another.

//What specific risks are involved in a Hermetic library falling into the hands of the Crusaders?//
A significant, crusading part of the Church knowing of at least the basic organisation and extent of the Order, and of the working and limits of Hermetic Magic?//

One could argue that this information could alleviate the Church's fears as much as it increases them. What if the Church gained access to the private writing of a magus and discovered he was devote Christian. That the Hermetics are incapable of raising the dead, or can not effect the divine and are opposed to demons and diabolicism. The Church gaining access to Hermetic books could be a good thing for the Order of Hermes.

More material to consider and discuss,

Chuck

//Otherwise the subject of the wizard neighbours will - barring very exeptional circumstances - come up naturally between liege and baron, latest in a year or two: and magi can - again barring weird and exceptional circumstances - not just assume that then the baron will leave his liege in the dark on purpose, violating his oath of fealty.
Note that we talk about long-time coexistence here: at least decades. A scared baron and his heirs left to their own devices are scary neighbours for that long a time. //

Well, I'm not going to press the point. We'll just have to disagree on our premises and vision of the game and the setting. Frankly, I don't think there is anything implicit in an oath of fealty that would be violated if a baron didn't tell his liege about neighboring wizards, whether he was having problems with them or not, nor do I feel it would require "very exceptional circumstances" for it not to come up.

We are talking about Mythic Europe, afterall, not historical Europe. In historical Europe, people *believed* wizards existed, and tangible proof of their existence might warrant such a response. But in Mythic Europe people *know* wizards exist. In historical Europe, people *believed* faeries existed and were apart of every day life, and if a baron actually ran across one he might freak out about it, but in Mythic Europe faeires *do* exist. Do you think the baron tells his liege about every faerie he hears about in his lands? Does he report every ghost sighting?

There are legends of dragons in various areas of the land (and in Mythic Europe these dragons do exist), but do we see the nobility organizing a concentrated effort to wipe out these menaces? No, because in Mythic Europe, these things are par for the course.

//A more vigorous - and non-canon - Order living up to its potential would in a situation as described in Mistridge p.49 have made at least a coordinated effort at hiding or - where necessary - evacuation of the covenants in question.//

Well, I don't know what a "coordinated effort at hiding" implies. As for a coordinated evacuation, to me, that borders on the ridiculous. If a covenant feels it is in danger of being overrun by Crusaders and its magi do not choose to leave on their own accord, then they suffer the fate their decision brings. Why would the Order need to orchestrate their evacuation for them?

Let's say Magus A, of the Covenant of Lesser Intelligentus, beseeches Magus B of Doissitep for advice:

Magus A: "Oh mighty magus of Doissitep, the Crusaders are nearing approaching our very doorstep... what should we do?"
Magus B <looking at Magus A with annoyance>: "Um, leave."
Magus A <shocked by such brazen logic>: "But, shouldn't we convene a Tribunal to decide if we should evacuate?"
Magus B <covering his face with his hands, mumbling >: "Good riddance."

The flip side of the coin: what if a Tribunal did convene and decide that a covenant MUST evacuate in order to avoid a confrontation with the Crusaders? This would seem to me a pretty far stretch of Tribunal authority, equivalent to an order to dissolve a covenant. Has that ever been done? Is there any precedent in the Peripheral Code for such a order? At best, it would be appealed to the Grand Tribunal, thereby delaying the evacuation for many years, more than likely making the point moot. At worse, it would set a dangerous precedent. Frankly, I don't think the magi of the Tribunal would vote in favor of such an order, and were they to attempt to do so, I think the Quaesitores would rule it a violation of the Code, as it would affect a magus's ability to perform magic, since it effectively deprives him of both his sanctum and his laboratory.

/// Nzld: What specific risks are involved in a Hermetic library falling into the hands of the Crusaders?

Berengar: A significant, crusading part of the Church knowing of at least the basic organisation and extent of the Order, and of the working and limits of Hermetic Magic?///

Is it your assumption, then, that Hermetic texts have never fallen into the hands of the Church? That the Church is clueless on the matters of magic? I don't think that likely.

However, I don't consider this to be as great a threat as you assume it to be. Texts written on the Arts or Hermetic Theory don't typically include a premise on the organization and structure of the Order. Nor do I think there are too many mundane texts that contain such information. The places most likely to have texts of that nature are the places least likely to be at risk of them falling into "enemy" hands.

As for the Hermetic texts, do you postulate that the Church authorizes its members (even a select few) to study the "infernal" texts of the wizards in order to learn the limits of their magic? What priest/bishop/cardinal is going to devote seasons of time to studying texts he perceives would damn his eternal soul?

No, I think it far more likely the texts would either be destroyed - by the Crusaders themselves, or some other zealot to whom they are turned over - or would make it into the hands of a secretly Gifted member of the Church or Nobility that uses them to further his own magic, whether for good or ill.

//I recall that the senior covenants, the ones most capable of fighting crusaders didn't because they were also the most isolated and least effected by the Crusade. So even within the borders of the Tribunal, the magi that could have beat back the crusaders didn't do anything. They didn't do anything for two reasons. First, they weren't immediately effected by the Crusade. Second, the removal of minor covenants frees up resources claimed by these covenants. That is, after the Crusaders thin the ranks of the Provencal tribunal, covenants like Doissetep will reap the benefits of a smaller Tribunal. While it's easy to say that after the Crusade, the Provencial Tribunal is 'weaker', but in the eyes of Doissetep after the Crusade Doissetep is 'stronger'.//
I did also recall more ArM material on the Albigensian Crusade than I could verify with 'Mistridge' - especially on Doissetep. I now think it could have been material from Mythic Perspectives and Hermes Portal, though - in which case I cannot use it to argue canon, of course. With a little more time at hand I will check.
In any case, your recollection does not contradict but extend what I could look up.

//I guess what I'm proposing is that with or with out a 'gerontocracy model' there could be legitimate reasons for covenants to not rally together. Common sense suggests that covenants would want to work together to fight a common threat, but it need not be that simple. What threatens one, could advance another.//
Especially if nearsighted concerns prevail.

//What if the Church gained access to the private writing of a magus and discovered he was devote Christian. That the Hermetics are incapable of raising the dead, or can not effect the divine and are opposed to demons and diabolicism. The Church gaining access to Hermetic books could be a good thing for the Order of Hermes.//
This may be true with certain open-minded churchmen, and may indeed be a way for the Order to come to terms with the Church.
But the Hermetic Library in question would have been found by crusaders who had just conquered a covenant - most probably fighting against magic and taking losses by it. By reading Vaux-de-Cernay one can easily imagine what kind of spin crusading priests would give their reading of these texts, and how they would be used against other covenants mentioned in the conquered books: "But just when we exulted in what we believed to be the final victory, however dearly paid, over the sorcerous heretics of Mistridge, the merciful Lord determined to humble us and show us the full extent of the task before us, and the full extent of our enemies' corruption ..." etc. ad nauseam.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//Frankly, I don't think there is anything implicit in an oath of fealty that would be violated if a baron didn't tell his liege about neighboring wizards, whether he was having problems with them or not, nor do I feel it would require "very exceptional circumstances" for it not to come up.//

The issue is the 'honest counsel', which is a vassal's duty (see e. g. Marc Bloch: La société féodale, Part 2, Book 2, Chapter 6, Section 1), and which implies correct information about the state of his fief or its borders to his liege - latest if asked for it by his liege when attending court. This does include informing his liege about powerful new neighbours - wizards or not - as well as any ways, bridges, towers or castles they have built. Of course such duties could be shirked - at some risk - if an uninformed liege was of sufficient benefit for the vassal, but this does not appear to be the case here.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//... what if a Tribunal did convene and decide that a covenant MUST evacuate in order to avoid a confrontation with the Crusaders? This would seem to me a pretty far stretch of Tribunal authority, equivalent to an order to dissolve a covenant.//

That's the interesting thing about an organized evacuation. Few if any covenants will need help in evacuating, but some might need persuasion. That's what a vigorous, non-canon (http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=635.118) Order could provide - but certainly not the canon Order, as you also point out.

Kind regards

Berengar