The Peripheral Code

Ars Magica Primer
Game Setting
Mythic Europe
The Order of Hermes
The Order of Hermes The Code of Hermes The Peripheral Code Hermetic Book Cycle

Back to The Order of Hermes

The following section relates to a generally agreed interpretation of the Code. These basic interpretations were formed from the First Tribunal rulings. Traditionalists accept that they can be further clarified and expanded by later Tribunal rulings, but wish to main­tain this core.

A Transitionalist sees these interpretations as subject to fundamental revision by collective agreement, both generally and on a case-by-case basis. More radical Transitionalists believe the Oath itself should be subject to revision and an entirely new Code written.

The Peripheral Code is the body of case law of the Order of Hermes. It consists of the totality of the Tribunal decisions and resolutions. Regional Tribunals are bound by the decisions of the Grand Tribunal and record their own past decisions, so the Peripheral Code consists of Grand Tribunal decisions as well as the idiosyncratic case law of each Tribunal.

The Peripheral Code is discussed on pages 13-14 of ArM5 and in considerably more detail in True Lineages pages 46-56.

Origins

When Guernicus decided what legal system the Order should adopt, most thought of Roman law. However, Guernicus dismissed the suggestion. Magi had been lawless barbarians for three hundred years; a barbar­ian law was the best that could be hope for. Thus Guernicus took the Germanic and Nordic tribal laws and re-cast them to suit the Order.

Authority of the Peripheral Code

The Peripheral Code cannot contradict the Code of Hermes, and a regional Tribunal cannot pass a ruling in contradiction to the Code or to relevant Grand Tribunal decisions (it can, however, reverse its own Peripheral Code). The Presiding Quaesitor should counsel the magi against any decisions that contradict the Code or Grand Tribunal, and if necessary veto any such resolution.

Forfeit Immunity

The key form of defence from Hermetic charges is to claim the victim had forfeited their immunity. Normally a magus is under the protected of the law. In other words he is immune to attack. However, in cer­tain circumstances he might step outside the protection of Hermetic Law, either partially or totally.

Wizard War is one example of this. A combatant in a Wizard War is not legally protected against attacks from the other combatant (or combatants). This lack of legal protection is called forfeit immunity. A magus is also under forfeit immunity while committing, preparing to commit, or shortly after committing a crime. By his crim­inal act his legal protection is forfeit. While forfeit, other magi may act against him, but the response should be pro­portional. As with most aspects of Hermetic Law, forfeit immunity is a matter of degree. In some cases a response may be seen as justified and in others it will not.

Thus a magus may claim his attack on another magus was legal, as the victim's immunity was forfeit at the time. The Tribunal will weigh up any claim of forfeit immunity in the light of the actions of both parties.

Peripheral Code Rulings by Topic

The Hermetic Oath

The following sections give a commentary on the Hermetic Oath, explaining the Traditionalist interpreta­tion. Although derived from the First Tribunal rulings, for the sake of readability and clarity the rulings themselves are not given; rather, a condensed synthesis of them is presented.

In most cases, rulings will not be in the form of carefully worded statutes. Rather, rulings are raw accounts of the whole case and so they require more or less judgement to apply to a new one. There may be any number of books that record these rulings, but none are authoritative books of law. The Presiding Quaesitor is the authority on the Code, judging First and Grand Tribunal rulings against the case at hand. However, most of these rulings are fairly plain and the consensus on them is extremely tight, particular those of the First Tribunal.

As a general guide, it is the spirit of the Code that is important and this is presented below.

The following sections list known references to the Peripheral Code that occur in ArM5 canon. There are many such references so it's very likely that some have been overlooked.

Magical Resources

• Rulings on vigilante action by Redcaps collecting debts by force, HoHTL 90.
• Extending privacy rights to Sanctum Texts, HoHTL 71.

Slaying Magi, Depriving of the Gift

• Forfeit immunity, HoHTL pages 45-46.

Deprivation Of Magical Power

"I will not deprive nor attempt to deprive a member of their magical power."

Any act that detrimentally affects a magus's ability to use, practice or study magic is illegal. The most serious violation would involve the destruction or maiming of another's Gift. Any physical injury that restricts the ability to speak, gesture or general mobility is serious. A magus's magical property is also considered part of his magical power. Vis, Vis sources, magical sites, invested devices, Familiars, apprentices, books and lab equipment; all are protected under this provision. Beyond this, a covenant's mundane resources, includ­ing personnel, are also protected to a degree as these are required for study. However, attacks on mundane assets are normally brought as low crimes (see below).

Slaying

"I will not slay, nor attempt to slay a member of the Order, except in a properly declared Wizard War."

Although a very clear provision, there are situations that give magi a valid defence. If the other magus was engaged or preparing to, engage in an act that seriously threatened another's life, magus or covenant, forfeit immunity can be claimed. The defendant will need to convince the Tribunal of this. If there was some justification, but not sufficient for an acquittal, the Presiding Quaesitor normally make up the difference with the punishment. A magus who slays another (outside a Wizard's March or War) must always come before the Tribunal for judgement. In some cases, this is a formality, but it ensures the entire Tribunal is fully informed and involved in the process.

By an early First Tribunal ruling, being within anoth­er's sanctum automatically confers forfeit immunity with respect to the owner of the sanctum. In this circumstance the sanctum owner can make lethal attacks legally, but any aggressive response by the intruder is usually illegal.

Petty spells or petty physical attacks are insufficient to justify a lethal response. However, casting humiliating magics on other magi or physically assaulting them is clearly provocative and goes to mitigation.

In the case of an exchange that becomes lethal, the Tribunal will judge according to the details.

A.A 1022 (A.D. 884), Rome Tribunal

Gravis of House Flambeau was charged with slaying Talus of House Merinita. Gravis claimed forfeit immunity as Talus had cast a spell on him. Renowned for his practi­cal jokes, Talus had cast a spell that made Gravis's voice sound like a little girl's, to the great mirth of all others pre­sent. Gravis responded with a Ball of Abyssal Flame, which slew Talus. As Talus's spell was clearly not a threat to Gravis's life or magic the Tribunal found him guilty, but due to the clear provocation refrained from calling a Wizard's March. Gravis was punished by the death of his familiar.

A.A. 1029 (A.D. 891), Rome Tribunal

Dominicus of House Jerbiton was charged with the slaying of Gravis of House Flambeau. Dominicus claimed forfeit immunity applied. Gravis had thrown a Ball of Abyssal Flame at him after a council discussion had become 'heated'. Witnesses testified that Gravis had made the first attack, with only verbal provocation. Although his Parma was penetrated, Dominicus was barely injured and replied with Clenching Hand of the Crushed Heart, instantly slaying Gravis. A member of Dominicus's covenant claimed that Dominicus, an amicus of Talus, had taken a powerful potion that morning. This potion made his flesh impervi­ous to fire; he then orchestrated the confrontation. Dominicus did not dispute this, but maintained that Gravis had attempted to kill him, forfeiting his immunity. The Presiding Quaesitor pronounced that Dominicus's intention did not excuse Gravis's action and he was acquitted. However, Dominicus was later convicted of breaching his covenant charter and was exiled from the Tribunal.

Wizard War

• Strict requirements for making a declaration of Wizard War, HoHTL page 47
• Excessive use of Wizard War ruled a High Crime in one case, HoHTL page 48
• Using Wizard War to avenge someone killed in a previous Wizard War ruled legal in one case, HoHTL page 48
• What happens if a magus is to receive a declaration of war but is absent or ignores the message, HoHS page 23

"I understand that a Wizard War is an open conflict between two magi, who may slay each other with­out breaking this oath, and that should I be slain in a Wizard War no retribution shall fall on the magus who slays me."

For a fee, a Redcap can ensure the declaration of war is delivered within the appropriate time. He then reports back the successful delivery to the sender. This Redcap also acts as a legal witness to the declaration. This means that hostile magi do not meet each other beforehand and ensures there is no dispute over the legality of the decla­ration. This procedure is not considered a core interpreta­tion of the Code and so some Tribunals may have more elaborate procedures.

The core interpretation is that the recipient of the declaration has a lunar mouth to prepare and then the war lasts for a lunar month. During a Wizard War both parties can attack each other's life and property without fear of prosecution. However, they still may be held to account for any collateral damage. A magus cannot legally attack property in which his opponent has shared ownership, such as covenant buildings, Vis sites and covenant books. If a combatant endangers the property or lives of other magi, they forfeit their immunity with respect to those magi. Many covenant sodales are extremely quick to exploit such an opportunity. A combatant is free to enter his opponent's sanctum and destroy its contents. Any shared property stored there during a Wizard War is considered forfeit. However, destroying the whole building would give good grounds to claim forfeit immunity.

The prohibition against retribution is interpreted as complete legal immunity from charges for the slaying. It also forbids other magi from persecuting the victor for the slaying. However, this immunity is granted in all Wizard Wars. In general, a magus cannot be prosecuted for declaring Wizard War. However, in one extreme case this has been challenged. The Rhine Tribunal charged the magus Hernis with endangering the Order by excessive and unjustified use of Wizard War. By calculated use of Wizard War he sought to achieve political domination of the Tribunal through terror. The Presiding Quaesitor pronounced that, if Hernis's actions had endangered the Order, this would not be covered by the Wizard War immunity. The Tribunal found Hernis guilty of endangering the Order. Hernis refused to co-operate with the Tribunal and so they had only one course available. A group of powerful magi hunted Hernis down; two were slain in the process. This case is still seen as exceptional.

A.A. 1036 (A.D. 898), Normandy Tribunal

Dominicus of House Jerbiton was charged with seeking retribution after an amicus of his was slain in a Wizard War, by declaring Wizard War on the victor. Dominicus claimed the charge was invalid, as it sought retribution for his own Wizard War and the Code protected him from such charges. The Presiding Quaesitor pointed out that founder Flambeau proposed this provision of the Code for the express purpose of seeking vengeance; therefore the defence was sound. On this advice, the Tribunal acquitted him.

Abiding by Decision of the Tribunal

• Rulings on vigilante action by Redcaps collecting debts by force, HoHTL 90.

"I will abide by the decisions made by fair vote at Tribunal."

Magi are obliged to abide by the rulings of Tribunals. The rulings of a regional Tribunal only apply to residents or visitors to the Tribunal. If a non-resident is eligible to be brought before a Tribunal, its rulings can be applied. First and Grand Tribunal rulings can be applied in any Tribunal. A regional Tribunal cannot rule in contradiction to First and Grand Tribunal rulings.

Traditionalists maintain that even Grand Tribunal rulings should not conflict directly with the Hermetic Oath or the First Tribunal rulings. For instance, the Grand Tribunal should not forbid Wizard Wars, restrict or extend voting rights, demand vis or require services that impact on magical study (unless part of a punishment).

However, regional or Grand Tribunals can create other provisions, like restricting the magical production of silver or how many official sanctums a magus may have. For the most part the Grand Tribunal does not try to define every detail of Hermetic life. Local Tribunals are left with great control over important details like proper­ty and inheritance law. They also have a good deal of scope in interpreting Grand Tribunal rulings. A Presiding Quaesitor will only step in with a veto (see below) if the Tribunal is clearly and unambiguously conflicting with any reasonable interpretation of the Oath, First or Grand Tribunal ruling. By these local rulings, a great deal of vari­ation exists between Tribunals.

Regional Tribunals can revise or reverse their own rulings at they please. However, most are inherently con­servative and require compelling arguments to clearly ' contradict earlier decisions. A Tribunal that regularly makes contradictory rulings opens itself to the derision of neighbouring Tribunals and admonishment by their Presiding Quaesitor. However, occasional changes to local provisions are expected.

All rulings should is some way relate back to a provi­sion of the Oath. In essence all rulings should simply clar­ify, expand or embellish the Oath. By these Tribunal rul­ings, the Peripheral Code is formed.

A.A. 1329 (A.D. 1194) Provence Tribunal; A.A. 1331 (A.D. 1195), Grand Tribunal

In 1194, the magi of Bellaquin were accused of using force and guile to prevent a Redcap from taking news of the Tribunal to the new covenant of Lariander. Despite copious evidence of Bellaquin’s guilt, the Provence Tribunal refused to condemn or punish the Covenant. Thus, the case was brought up once more at Grand Tribunal, and here Bellaquin was ordered to pay 70 pawns of vis to House Mercere.

A.A. 1330 (A.D. 1195), Grand Tribunal

Avarret, revered Primus of House Bonisagus, proposed that Tribunals be prevented from conducting their meetings in local mundane languages, but be forced to speak only in Latin. The Grand Tribunal criticized the Loch Leglean Tribunal for often conducting its business in the Gaelic tongue, but refused to coerce Tribunals into only using Latin. (However, it is known that House Guernicus has instructed its member to only use the Latin tongue in all official matters.)

Voting

• Residency requirements to vote in a Tribunal, HoHTL page 49
• Magi allowed to vote at Tribunal by proxy, HoHTL page 48
• Vagrancy, HoHTL page 49

"I will have one vote at Tribunal and I will use it prudently. I will respect as equal the votes of all others at Tribunal."

Originally, there was only one Tribunal in the Order; now known as the First Tribunal. As the Order expanded the need for regional Tribunals grew apparent. In 773 AD the Order reorganised itself into a number of regional Tribunals, with a Grand Tribunal to ensure the overall unity of the Order. The term Tribunal, as used in the Oath, is now interpreted to apply to the Grand Tribunal and each magus's residential Tribunal. Each regional Tribunal needs to be officially recognized by the Grand Tribunal before it is valid.

Each magus must have a single Tribunal of residence. A magus's first residential Tribunal is the one in which his ceremony of initiation took place. Magi can change their residency by presenting themselves to the region's Presiding Quaesitor at the next Tribunal meeting. The Presiding Quaesitor must be convinced that the magus is a genuine resident.

Most Tribunals impose some formal residency requirements, sometimes in an attempt to restrict the Hermetic population. These are often linked to member­ship of a covenant recognized by the Tribunal. For most Tribunals, the key requirement is the ability to be con­tacted by the region's Mercere. If a case against a magus needs to be published (see below), the Mercere should be able to deliver the notification in good time for the Tribunal meeting. This is the one of the primary reasons for an official residency.

Magi who wander between Tribunals still need an official residence. It is their responsibility to maintain enough contact with the Mercere to ensure they are informed about cases against them. Tribunal borders are often vague. For instance, magi of a covenant near the border between England and Scotland might declare for either Stonehenge or Loch Leglean. Most Quaesitors supports this freedom and oppose moves for strict border definitions.

If a Tribunal has residency requirements, a magus can fall delinquent of them; this is for the Presiding Quaesitor to judge and declare. Such a magus has seven years to meet the requirements or join another Tribunal. If he does not he can be charged with vagrancy (see below).

This section guarantees all magi the right cast their single vote, according to their will, on all issues brought before their residential Tribunal and the Grand Tribunal. Implicit in this is the right to attend, although the Praeco can exclude magi who misbehave. Theoretically, every magus has the right to attend the Grand Tribunal, but vir­tually all choose to free proxy their vote to representatives. The journey to Durenmar is often long and few magi care to attend simply as voting observers. Magi can pay a Redcap to be a directed proxy, but this is expensive. Although the Tribunal chamber at Durenmar only seats a hundred and twenty, in practice this has always been sufficient.

The provision also demands that magi use their vote prudently. Traditionalists interpret this as a duty to vote strictly according to an honest legal judgement. Voting to convict or acquit against a magus's better legal judgement is a high crime. Anyone exposed as having accepted a bribe or other deal for his vote may be charged. The rigor with which this provision is enforced varies greatly.

Even in strict Tribunals, corruption can still happen. Allies tend to vote for allies and enemies tend to vote against enemies. The strength of the prosecution or defence is normally a factor. If a magus cannot manage a remotely reasonable defence, even their closest ally might not feel able to vote to acquit. On the other hand, if there is some arguable merit in the defence a vote to acquit can be given without worry.

A magus can always choose to abstain if he wishes and magi are free to trade votes as they please outside of criminal cases.

Endangering the Order

"I will not endanger the Order through my actions."

This is the most fundamental provision. Any act which risks the peace and security of other magi can be used to justify a charge. This provision is generally held as the most important, thus it can in extreme cases be used to justify contradicting another provision. However, this judgement is normally made only by a Tribunal, with the Presiding Quaesitor vetoing any abuse of the principle.

A defendant might claim the endangerment was triv­ial or only personal. The prosecution needs to show that magi other than the defendant were endangered. Intention on behalf of the defendant is important in mitigation, as is any negligence or recklessness. If con­victed, the penalty will take account of both the culpabil­ity of the defendant and the degree of endangerment.

Interfering with Mundanes

• Magi forbidden from swearing oaths of fealty to mundanes, ArM5 page 57.
• A limitation on the magical production of wealth, instituted in the Stonehenge Tribunal (HoHTL 87) but often respected elsewhere.
• The 1061 ruling forbidding direct sale of magic items to mundanes (ArM5 16). In HoHMC 111, it is revealed that Verditius magi may only sell one item per year in this manner, and that this is modified in some Tribunals; it isn't clear whether this Peripheral Code applies to all magi or just to Verditius.
• Guidelines on interactions that are permitted by the Peripheral Code of most Tribunals, HoHS page 46

"I will not interfere with the affairs of mundanes and thereby bring ruin upon my sodales"

The majority of the Founders wished to avoid entan­glement in mundane conflicts. Therefore magi are forbid­den from significant involvement in mundane politics, whether of the nobility or the Church. In particular magi need to avoid supporting one fac­tion of mundanes against another. Such support is likely to encourage the other side to seek similar aid. If such requests are refused it may result in hostility, forcing magi to defend themselves. Hermetic magic is not the only type of magic in Mythic Europe and so even highly secre­tive assistance may be discovered.

Regardless of the Order's capacity to defend itself , most magi wish to quietly pursue their Arts, not govern kingdoms and fight in endless wars. The Order wishes to maintain strict neutrality in mundane politics and any act that undermines this may be an offence.

Conflict may arise directly between a magus and a particular noble or clergyman. As long as the magus does not form an alliance with his enemy's rivals he will not be in breach of this provision. However, he can still be charged with endangering the Order if his actions bring wrath down on other magi.

Over this provision there is much debate both within the Order and House Guernicus. In some Tribunals, it is virtually ignored, and on this issue much of the Traditionalist -Transitionalist disagreement occurs. The Transitionalists argue that provision is already effectively unenforceable; it should be recast to suit the times. A new provision could be enforced, the abuses punished and the benign activities legalised. In the current situation both are ignored. Traditionalists disagree, of course.

Yet magi are not removed from mundane society. They rely on mundane artisanship and toil to provide them with food and products, they often take an interest in mundane scholarship and art, and many are religious or hold other ties to the mundanes. Ars Magica allows to put great emphasis on Mundane Society, with supplements such as City and Guild and Art and Academe intertwining the two worlds.

A.A. 1343 (A.D. 1208) Stonehenge Tribunal

No covenant may put more than two pounds of magically created silver per magus into circulation each year.

Dealing with Demons

• Is a responsible for danger to redcaps resulting from his feud with a demon, HoHTL page 51

"I will not deal with devils, lest I imperil my soul and the souls of my sodales as well."

This provision is the most strictly enforced of all high crimes. Magi are absolutely forbidden from knowingly making an agreement with an infernal agent. The infernal is seen as the greatest threat to the secu­rity of the Order. Even the most seemingly benign agree­ments will almost certainly result in a Wizard's March. The only possible defence is ignorance that the creature was a demon. Even an agreement to mutually avoid con­tact with a demon has been punished by a Wizard's March. Faced with a known demon a magus should agree to nothing. In general, his only legal choice would be to defend himself or flee.

Seeking out demons in order to slay them is general­ly legal, unless the demon then focuses its attention on the Order. This might result in a charge of endangerment.

Intelligent and subtle demons might attack other magi in order to get their real enemy into trouble. In such a case, the magus who started the conflict may be pun­ished in proportion to the damage suffered by others. Demons that have already attempted to corrupt magi or attack them are already enemies of the Order. If a magus can show this, it is a valid defence against an endangerment charge.

Many magi are of the opinion that all demons are a danger to the Order, reasoning that demons are the ene­mies of mankind and that magi are part of this group. However, others feel that if the Order were to declare all demons their enemy, Hell would be provoked into a more directed effort against them. In some Tribunals demon hunters are seen as brave heroes who defend the land. In other Tribunals, they are seen as foolish adventurers, stir­ring up trouble.

A.A. 1198 (A.D. 1063), Grand Tribunal

The then Primus of House Jeribton placed a motion that all demons and their servants be declared enemies of the Order in perpetuity. However, it was decided that this resolution might start a war between the Order and the demons, and so an amended proclamation was passed instead. The key passage decrees that “The Servants of Satan, who so often make themselves enemies of the Order of Hermes, may never be friends of the Order.”

A.A. 1289 (A.D. 1154), Rhine Tribunal

Rudophus of Durenmar, through his actions, had attracted the attention of a major demon. Although he attempted for over a decade to kill this demon, he was unsuccessful. The demon began systematic attacks against the Redcaps of the Tribunal. The senior Mercere brought a case against Rudophus for endangering the Order. The Tribunal convicted Rudophus and he was commanded to provide House Mercere with some magical means of pro­tecting themselves from the depredations of demons.

Molesting Faeries

"I will not molest the Fay, lest their vengeance catch my sodales as well."

The prosecution will have to show that a magus or covenant has endangered other magi. An attack on a third party is evidence for this. Without such an attack, the pros­ecution will have to show that such an attack is likely.

The term 'molest' suggests that the conflict would have to be provoked by the defendant in a culpable fash­ion. If the magus involved acted reasonably in defence of their lives and property, it is a valid defence.

A.A. 1310 (A.D. 1172), Normandy Tribunal

Guardinia of Merinita accused Berenguer of Tytalus molesting the Fay. Berenguer claimed in his defence that the faeries had stolen his apprentice, and therefore he had every right to take steps to return the child to his care. The Tribunal upheld Berenguer's defence, but the Praeco admonished him for being heavy-handed in his rescue.

Scrying

• Use of forceless casting to avoid accidentally scrying on magi, HoHTL 52

"I will not use magic to scry upon members of the Order of Hermes, nor shall I use it to peer into their affairs."

Verditius insisted on this provision to protect his tradition's magical secrets. Thus attempts to discover magi­cal secrets via magic are considered the most serious. However, any use of magic (not just Intellego spells) to spy or aid spying into a magus's legal affairs is considered an offence. As always the penalty will depend on the harm done or intended.

The key point is 'legal affairs'. Many covenants have spells and items specifically designed to reveal scrying attempts. These magics are acknowledged as legal. Theoretically, such magics might reveal a legal act. For instance, a visitor might use a scrying spell to innocently communicate with his covenant. However, using such magics in another's covenant and then complaining if these are detected, is seen as petty, an abuse of hospitali­ty, and is unlikely to receive any support.

Magi are unlikely to bring a successful case for being spotted while invisible or shape-shifted within another's covenant. In general, within their covenant's grounds, magi are free to protect themselves in any reasonable manner. Spells like Invisible Eye Revealed, Sight of True Form and effects to detect the invisible, are all seen as reason­able. However, the primary purpose of these magics must be to reveal magical spying. Visitors to the covenant still retain their right to privacy and no effect should compro­mise this in any significant or deliberate way. These prin­ciples can be applied outside covenant grounds, but with less certainty of Hermetic legality.

When using scrying spells in mundane society cau­tious magi usually cast without Penetration (see Forceless Casting). In this way even if a magus is accidental­ly caught within a target, his privacy is usually protected. However, this is not absolutely safe. Redcaps have no magic resistance and they enjoy the full protection of the Code. In fact, the privacy of Redcaps is particularly sensi­tive as they often know a great many secrets of other magi. If a Redcap is caught by a scrying spell, the Tribunal will presume intent and the caster would need to convince them otherwise. If there was no intent, but secrets were revealed, damages will be awarded. If there was no intent or secrets revealed the case is trivial.

Training Apprentices

• Keeping a Gifted lab assistant without providing him/her training as an apprentice, HoHTL 52

Apprentices

"I will train apprentices who will swear to this Code, and should any of them turn against the Order and my sodales I will be the first to strike them. No apprentice of mine shall be called magus until he or she first swears to uphold this Code."

To officially claim an apprentice a magus must initi­ate them into Hermetic magic. At this moment the child's apprenticeship begins and they are entitled to one season of training per year. In most Tribunals is a low crime to keep a Gifted child merely as a lab assistant. In order to protect the future of the Order, an unclaimed Gifted child can be taken by the first magus who makes a formal and wit­nessed offer to teach them the Hermetic Arts. The new master is legally obliged to take the child to his sanctum with all reasonable haste and begin Hermetic initiation as soon as practicable. A similar method can also be used if a master is delinquent in training; instead of initiation, a season's tuition is given.

Apprentices taken as children spend fifteen or more years as the property of their master before passing a gauntlet and joining the Order in a formal ceremony. This is not the case with wizards who seek to join the Order as adults. A Gifted person who has already developed signif­icant magical power cannot be initiated into Hermetic magic in the normal way. Initiation rituals might be devel­oped to allow such wizards to become Hermetic, but in any case, such wizards are unsuitable for an apprenticeship and should be offered membership directly.

Non-Hermetic wizards do not need to pass a gauntlet to be recognized as magi, they simply swear the Oath (having been invited). They have a year to find a sponsor and gain membership in a House to avoid a possible vagrancy charge (see above). However, some Tribunals simply assume they are members of Ex Miscellanea.

After swearing the Hermetic Oath, the wizard can be legally taught Parma and this is normally done by their sponsor. This sponsor becomes their Hermetic parens with all its associated responsibilities and benefits (inheri­tance rights). As membership of House Ex Miscellanea has no required standard, such magi normally end up there. House Ex Miscellanea will readily accept wizards who cannot learn Hermetic magic.

Duty Of The Parens

". . . should any of them turn against the Order and my sodales I will be the first to strike them."

The Oath demands the parens be the first to attack an outcast magus. If the parens is dead or in Final Twilight, the inheritor acquires this duty. This is often the eldest fil­ius of the parens. If there is no other filius, the duty is passed to the magus with the closest relation. Ultimately the House Primus is responsible if there are no relations.

The exact inheritance chain is actually the province of regional Tribunals. Many allow covenants to inherit the estate. However, it is rare that the inheritor strikes down the outcast. This leaves them liable to prosecution. The slayer can charge the inheritor with failing in their lawful duty and settle the case by acquiring the inheri­tance rights. In 1220 this convention is so established that no one normally bothers with any legal formality. The inheritor also inherits any debts the outcast had. So if the Presiding Quaesitor awarded the outcast's victim dam­ages, the inheritor must pay from the inherited estate.

Special Clauses for House Bonisagus

"I shall further the knowledge of the Order and share with my sodales all that I find in my search for wisdom and power."

Sworn by members of House Bonisagus, this provi­sion requires members of the House to make available all finished discoveries. It can also be applied to all Lab Texts - and books in general. The magus is required to give access to these texts to all that request it. The Lab Texts do not - have to be fully written up and can be in the magus's nor­mal shorthand. Magi who wish to copy these texts are not allowed to take them away and must provide their own materials. A covenant can charge the magus for his board and lodgings while he is scribing.

To avoid these demands a Bonisagus magus can send a copy to the library of Durenmar. Once it is in this library, the Bonisagus can refer any enquiries there.

"I concede the right of Bonisagus to take from me any apprentice he may find helpful in his studies."

This provision is sworn by those not within House Bonisagus. It is extended as a right to all members of House Bonisagus. This allows magi of House Bonisagus to obtain the very best apprentices. Although legal, a Bonisagus magus who abused his right this way would have a very poor reputation. Since Wizard War grants full immunity, outraged former mas­ters may well bring such a magus to task.

A.A. 1310 (A.D. 1172), Rome Tribunal

In the seven years since the last Tribunal, Helvennia of Bonisagus had exercised her right to claim another's apprentice no less than eight times. All had died within a year. She claimed that the nature of her work was inher­ently dangerous, and the loss of those apprentices, while unfortunate, was beyond her control. Although the Tribunal was minded to rule in favour of the seven magi who levelled charges against her, the Presiding Quaesitor insisted on the legality of Helvennia's actions and she was acquitted. However, the Praeco wrote to the Primus of House Bonisagus with the Tribunal's petition for Helvennia to be censured, but was refused.

Helvennia claimed another apprentice in the follow­ing year. On the night of the following new moon seven declarations of Wizard War were delivered to her. Despite attempts at arbitration, none of the seven agreed to withdrawn their declaration. Helvennia fled into hiding but was found and slain with the aid of her new appren­tice.

Casting Out

"I request that should I break this Oath, I be cast out of the Order. If I am cast out, I ask my sodales to find me and slay me that my life may not contin­ue in degradation and infamy."

If taken literally, all convictions should lead to a Wizard's March. In practice, the Presiding Quaesitor nor­mally offers the magus a lesser punishment. However, if the magus refuses this offer the magus is cast out.

Enemies And Allies

"The enemies of the Order are my enemies. The friends of the Order are my friends. The allies of the Order are my allies. Let us work as one and grow strong."

Magi who aid or maintain friendly relationships with enemies of the Order may be prosecuted. Similarly, magi who attack the friends and allies of the Order may be prosecuted. However, the Order has few officially declared enemies and many of them are demons or dia­bolists. Only a Tribunal can declare an individual or group as an enemy, but the requirements for friendship are more open.

A prosecution can be made for attacks against the friends and allies of individual covenants, but this is a dif­ficult case to make. Few prosecutions are made under this provision.

Case Rulings

Previous case rulings are often used by the prosecu­tion or defence. If a Tribunal voted to convict a magus in similar circumstances they will be inclined to convict again. The prosecution will try to highlight the similari­ties and the defence the differences. If the defence can find a case of an acquittal the same arguments will run in reverse. Most local Tribunals hold their own rulings as superior to other local Tribunals. In fact it might be a blunder to use a ruling from a rival Tribunal, as parochial magi may be less inclined to vote the same way.

Even if there is no prior ruling or provision of the Code that might apply, a prosecution can be brought. The Tribunal will then hear the evidence and debate whether the action should be ruled illegal or not. If suc­cessful this form of case ruling often encourages prosecu­tions on similar grounds.

As cases often rest on intent and reasonableness, prior case rulings are often of dubious relevance. However, there are cases which have established widely accepted legal principle; many of these are taken to the Grand Tribunal.

Proposal Rulings

A magus can simply propose that the Tribunal pass a new ruling. A traditionalist would insist that all rulings need to be based on some part of the Oath. Tribunals should only clarify, expand and embellish the Code, not create wholly novel provisions.

Proposals need to be published no later than two years prior to the Tribunal. This requires the magus to write letters to all the covenants in the Tribunal and ensure that they are delivered. The Tribunal can then debate whether to adopt it or not.

If a Tribunal rules in favour of a proposal, prosecutions or proposals on the same lines often follow in others. In this way popular local Tribunal rulings tend to be adopt­ed in a number of Tribunals. Such popular rulings are often taken to the Grand Tribunal for endorsement.

The rulings of the First and Grand Tribunal are seen as authoritative in all Tribunals. For example, the First Tribunal made rulings on sancta, apprentices, the power of the Quaesitores and certamen. These rulings and their interpretation are standard throughout the Order.

The Detail

It would be neither practical nor desirable to detail all of the Peripheral Code. However, except where Transitionalists hold sway, such rulings will not rewrite the Oath or seriously undermine any of the Order's core membership rights.

In general, these rulings cover matters favourable to the peace and stability of the Order. For example, physical or magical assaults that do not threaten a magus's life or magic, breaching a contract, perjury at Tribunal, attempting to deceive a Quaesitor conducting an investi­gation, and failure to co-operate with a legally conducted Quaesitorial investigation. Many of these rulings rest on the endangerment provision.