Below is an account of some discussion on the topic of a covenant charter. The proposed charter can be found here.
[Note from Aaron: I've reconsidered Ethylred's position slightly. He now believes in slavery, or Thraldom, both Saxons and Danes practiced it. Usually thralls were; taken in raids, relieved of their freedom as punishment, or in exchange for debts.] [Adigius] This section states why the Covenant has been organised, usually with some exhortations to all members to keep to it. In our case, as Magi attempting to find our place in the Order, we can fall back on the traditional (and perhaps overused) purpose of "the pursuit and exchange of knowledge and the advancement of the Hermetic arts". A possible secondary purpose could be "the fostering of unity amongst the Magi of the Order of Hermes". Are there any other suggestions? [Agnes] I don't have any problem with the idea of fostering unity amongst the Magi of the Order, but are we actually planning to do anything about it? If not, then we shouldn't really stick it in the charter. [Adigius] Well, we are planning on living together as a Covenant, which is one of the most fundamental forms of unity within the Order. [William] I think that "fostering unity amongst the Magi of the Order of Hermes", means something more than that, if it means anything at all. Living together is a Covenant thing, what you're proposing extends to all Magi in the Order. [Adigius] It is perhaps something to work towards at Tribunal. If you have a better suggestion, then by all means make it. Perhaps you'd prefer "providing a home to outcasts and misfits"? [Ethylred] Unity amongst Magi, you sure that arrow didn't strike your head there Adigius? [Adigius] The purposes of our Covenant should not just be things we were going to do anyway, but ideals to aspire to and work towards over the course of our time here. I think that Unity amongst the Order is a laudable goal to work towards - if perhaps one that may be difficult (or impossible) to achieve. [Ethylred] The first is pretty good, and I'd accept it, but I feel that we should be more aggressive in our pursuit. Perhaps "the pursuit and exchange of knowledge, the advancement of the Hermetic Arts, and excelling in the execution of magic". We should also be looking at not only knowing things, but in the use and application (pulling the Tytalus line on personal improvement). [William] (assume my comments are made when I return): I would prefer that the primary purpose is: "the pursuit of knowledge and the advancement of the Hermetic Arts." [Adigius] I'm sure you would. but a Covenant founded on secrecy makes few allies - and more importantly, will have trouble building a library. There's nothing in here forcing you to disclose any secrets you may learn - just that the Covenant as a whole should adopt a position in favour of exchanging knowledge rather than hoarding it. [Ethylred] I agree, in part with both Adigius and William. It is important to balance what we have learned and what part of that we divulge. It is criminal to keep what we learn from the Order, but in turn we have the right to maintain a completive edge against our opponents within the Order. Another side is that we have no right to disseminate untruths, or incomplete knowledge, though it is in the interest of the Order that we pass anything we cannot understand to someone who may be better suited to solving the problem. Essentially, we leave in the 'exchange of knowledge' part in the charter, with the right to release such knowledge being reserved for the Covenant Council. [Adigius] I agree with Ethylred. Also note that "Exchange" does not mean "give away for free". The Council can set whatever price it deems fair on our knowledge. [Adigius] Any member may relinquish their membership in the Covenant at any time simply by informing the Council. If the Council decides that they owe no outstanding debts or services to the Covenant, then they shall be relieved of their Oath and membership, and all attendant privileges and duties thereof. Additionally, if they have been a member for a period of seven years or more, they shall be entitled to an equal portion of half the Covenant's stock of vis. Commentary: Do we want people to be able to "cash out" in this fashion? [William] Yes. [Agnes] I've no problem with this either. [Adigius] Well that seems fairly convincing. Jock? Ethelryd? [Ethylred] Yes, though there should be some guidelines preventing someone cashing out from taking necessities. [Adigius] This can probably be worked out in Council rather than in the Charter. [William] (proposed charter text) Each member of the Covenant renounces any memberships that they currently hold in other Covenants and may not become a member of another Covenant while retaining membership in this Covenant. [Adigius] There are better ways of phrasing it, but such a requirement is common - though it is sometimes made in the Oath rather than the charter. How does everyone else feel about it? [Adigius] In the event that a member commits crimes against the Covenant or the Order of Hermes, they may be cast out and relieved of their Oath and membership, and all attendant privileges and duties thereof. Such a decision shall require a two-thirds majority of the Council. [Agnes] If someone commits a crime against the order they're meant to be relieved of a good deal more than their library privileges! However, are we going to require that the magus be found guilty by a tribunal first? [Ethylred] That would depend on if the oath breaker offended the covenant and the Order. It may be in our interest to defend him, but if the case was indefensible it may be in the interest of the Covenant to pre-empt Marching. [Adigius] ...lest we be Marched along with the offender. [Adigius] While Renunciation is the ultimate sanction provided for under the Code, it exists primarily to encourage Magi to agree to lesser punishments. I see casting out in much the same light. At the same time, Magi who are cast out of their Covenants tend to have a difficult time finding a new home, so its not a minor punishment. I had intended this section to be both a way of punishing (and dissociating ourselves) from rogues without having to wait for a Tribunal, and also a way of showing our disapproval of those who commit crimes carrying a lesser penalty than renunciation. Remember, anyone Renounced from the Order is automatically cast out, under the first clause of the membership section. [Ethylred] This is a sensible interpretation. If the Council's punishment, or failure to discipline someone, is questionable then it can be brought to a Quasitor or Tribunal. Though normally expulsion is the ultimate punishment, I'd expect to see the usual 'do this or be cast out' arrangement. [Adigius] The following privileges are subject solely to the restriction that resources may be denied by the Council (or its Officers) should they be in short supply. - full use of the library. Each magus is entitled to keep a book or work for no more than one season before they must allow others to make use of it. Disputes over library resources may be resolved by Certamen, by the Regent, or by a majority vote of the Council should other means prove unsatisfactory. [Agnes] Are there times when a book would be needed for more than one season? I don't mind people holding onto books for a bit longer if they're using them. [Adigius] Certainly - Summae for example tend to take more than one season. I expect that there will inevitably be disputes over books, and therefore we need a method of resolving them. [Adigius] - any mundane supplies or services required for their studies, - a working laboratory Commentary: This is the core of the Charter - a Covenant is a community of Magi working together as sodales. As such, there is a certain commonality of property, and a certain amount of expense which must be shared by the Covenant as a whole. The restriction of supply provides a way for us to regulate any demands we see as excessive. It has been suggested that "a working laboratory" is excessive, and that the Charter should instead provide for "the space for a laboratory and sancta" - in which case it should be in the first section of non restrictable rights. [William] I too think this is excessive. For example, it makes the Covenant responsible for repairing laboratories that have been destroyed through use. [Agnes] Might as well make it a working laboratory. It is subject to "availability of covenant resources" and it seems bloody stupid to give people non-working laboratories if you ask me! [Adigius] Sharing resources in this manner is one of the fundamental reasons for establishing a Covenant. If William is not interested, then why does he want to join? [William] Because different Magi have different requirements for a laboratory, while I don't mind assisting others in gathering the resources for a laboratory I do not want to be compelled to do so if I consider those resources excessive. [Agnes] Well, it only says a working laboratory, not a perfect laboratory. We could try putting something in about ensuring that covenant resources are distributed as equitably as possible. [Adigius] William, you're not being compelled to grant excessive demands. The privilege of a lab is subject to the availability of resources, as judged by the Council. If you think that someone is demanding more than their share, you can always raise the matter there. [Ethylred] You can not deprive a mage of his laboratory, his right to access is protected in the peripheral code, but that does not mean that a magi should be given one. It is a work that involves their complete consideration. It is a challenge that a Magus has to face himself. I think the Covenant should only offer the space for a laboratory and sancta, and his right of possession and access is not restrictable, though he must understand that he must give it up if he is cast from the covenant. The covenant may, at the council's or individual Magi's discretion, aid a magus in developing their laboratory, and may ask for something in repayment. Asking for additional seasons service in exchange for goods or services the covenant provides is outside the 'single season' of covenant work. [Adigius] As we're holding mundane resources in common, it makes sense to fund labs out of them. As I've already pointed out to William, the Council has the final say over how such resources should be distributed, so we have some security there. And we are protected from the demands of new members by the Council's right to charge them a fee for joining. In practice, the Covenant _has_ no mundane resources to speak of at this time. So effectively we will all be funding our first labs out of our own pockets. [William] The argument is over the default condition. I, and I think Ethylred, want the Council to have to decide to give a Magi the resources to make a laboratory, not to have to decide *not* to give the resources. [Ethylred] That's pretty much it, the covenant should not be forced to provide that which it does not have, nor be forced to seek the resources to fill the needs of a single member for only that members gain. [Adigius] And as I've already pointed out, the Covenant is not forced to do anything of the sort. The right to a working laboratory is subject to the restriction that resources may be denied by the Council (or its Officers) should they be in short supply. If we don't have the necessary resources, or feel that granting them would endanger other projects, the Council can always deny them. A laboratory is a fundamental resource, required for any serious study of Magic. William's proposal that the Council must explicitly authorise any resources for lab construction turns our right to practice our art into a political plaything. It means that each of us risks having our most basic right as a member of the Order voted down in Council. It also means that the Council may be dragged before a Tribunal for denying that which is needed to practice the arts. Is that really what you want? The sharing of resources - magical and mundane - is fundamentally what a Covenant is all about. Unfortunately, it seems that some people's vision of a Covenant is one where they tap the resources of others, while hiding their own behind mundane pawns. [Ethylred] Our work for the Covenant must benefit all its members, not just a single member. With that in mind it is in the Covenant's interest to ensure that all its members have their needs met. There will be times when the Covenant as a whole sees that it will be in its own interest to fulfil the whim of a single member simply because it helps us all. [Adigius] Yes - but a working laboratory is not a whim, it is a _necessity_ for each and every one of us. [Ethylred] Agnes is an excellent example of this, her skills as a herbalist and healer are of significant value to the covenant, it is in our interest to assist her in equipping her laboratory. Considering our situation (Looking at Adigius's wounds), her laboratory will be of highest priority, though I think we should insist that it include some form of public hospital or clinic. In principle, the Council might agree that it would pay to have her laboratory equipped in exchange for her services as Covenant Chiurgeon. She shall not unreasonably dinigh these services to the Covenant Members or Covenfolk, nor shall she charge too high a payment (GM: Agnes's poor flaw fits in here, whatever happens, she will never earn enough to make these services profitably, but too little for her to make a case at council to raise her fees), and nor shall it count toward her season of covenant work. As a compromise I suggest that the Charter imbue the right to a 'Sancta with a basic working laboratory at a site approved by the Council'. This gives means that we must agree, in majority, on the site of any members proposed sancta. It also prevents members from declaring sancta inappropriately. [Mechanics: effectively the Covenant will provide space for a sancta, usually the Magus' room & laboratory, to the -3 level. The second season's work in a laboratory is mage specific and has to be wholly under their own control. It's good enough to read books in, the -3 might not be entirely applicable to certain activites] [Adigius] NEW I was expecting the Council to arbitrate on the sites of Sancta anyway, simply because I expect there will eventually be disputes - and where the disputes are anything more than two members wanting to claim the same site, the Council is the natural mechanism for their resolution. So we can already prevent members declaring Sancta inappropriately and claiming entire buildings that at this stage will be required for the whole Covenant. As for the working laboratory, I was thinking of it more in terms of granting the resources (whether they be services or monetary) if we had them, rather than Magi labouring on behalf of another - though such could conceivably be ordered by the Council, or agreed to amongst the Magi concerned. [William] What privileges, if any, extend to the Magi's companions, dependents, apprentices and employees? [Adigius] Mundanes have whatever privileges the Council decides to grant them. This Charter is for us, not them. Apprentices are covered under the Code and Peripheral Code. They are the property of their Master until Gauntleted. [William] While the Charter is indeed for us not them, that does not mean that it cannot moderate how we interact with them. For example the Code is for Magi not Mundanes, but it contains information on how we interact with them. And before you ask, No, the information in the Code is not sufficient, just as the information in the Code is not sufficient to describe how Magi in a Covenant interact with each other. [Ethylred] Modified. I think that this does warrant further discussion, remember that a freeman belongs to no-one. The Grogs are more our servants, not our thralls. They are due some respect but there must be some natural social order. The covenfolk are the servants of the Covenant as a whole, which means that we too will be servants of the Covenant. It's a matter of who is placed where in the order of things. My men are currently loyal to me, but with the formation of the covenant they will be sworn to a higher purpose when through me they pass their oath to the Covenant. [Adigius] That is what I expect for my servants also. Remember, the Charter is not a mundane legal document, and it does not exist in isolation. I am assuming a background of common and feudal law here. We cannot impose serfdom on Free Men, and we cannot treat any who are bound to the land in a manner incompatible with Natural Justice and the Law of God. But those are matters for nobles and churchmen, not our Charter. [William] Exactly, I just want the Covenant charter to explicitly recognise this. [Adigius] Perhaps you'd like it to recognise the existence of the sun and moon and the stars above as well? Because such is equally pointless and redundant. [Ethylred] I concede, Adigius is correct. It is unnecessary to reiterate the natural order of things in the charter. We need only know that our fellow Sodales are reasonable men who know in their hearts the nature of truth and our proper place in the world. Leaving out such a declaration does not remove their rights, nor does it relieve us of our duty to respect our fellows. [Adigius] NEW Precisely. [Adigius] - the Council may require each member to perform up to one season a year of such work as they may direct for the good of the Covenant. [William] This is adequate. If the Covenant desires more Vis or money or an item it can direct Magi to retrieve them as their season's work. [Adigius] Precisely. [William] So you agree we don't need any further duties? [Ethylred] Additional work would need to be bargained for, in good faith, by the council. This single season of work is in payment for membership, privileges, and services that the Covenant provides. Anything a magus seeks on top of that will need to be paid for. [Adigius] Or bargained for in Council. [William] (suggested Charter text] - a requirement that each magus pay a tithe of Vis every year (say, one pawn of Vim for the Aegis) [Agnes] I don't think so. I don't want to spend the whole bloomin' year hunting for vim vis just to pay the covenant tax. Better to try and find a decent vim vis source for the covenant. [Adigius] I agree with Agnes. Where will we find such vis? If it is found on Covenant lands or extracted from the aura, it belongs to the Covenant. I would rather focus on my research than wander the countryside hunting for vis. The Council can always direct someone to extract vis from the aura for a season. [William] It was your suggestion in the first place. I'm content for it to not be there. [Adigus] I had suggested a fixed tithe as a possible additional duty for discussion. It is not something I favour, and it seems other alternatives are more popular. [Ethylred] Perhaps we should say that the members are obliged to offer personal vis to the covenant if it is required for the necessities, such as the Aegis, and that the Covenant is obliged to return fair payment. (This is far less communist, and more medieval...) [Adigius] (possible Charter text) >- a requirement that each Magus surrender half of any Vis or >money collected on expeditions [Agnes] Sounds like a good idea to me. [Adigius] I have no objections. [Ethylred] I agree. [William] I do. A minute ago you agreed with me that it was sufficient that the Covenant can call upon a Seasons work. If the covenant requires more Vis or money it can call upon a Magi to collect it as their seasons work. [Agnes] But this isn't compelling you to go searching for vis. It merely states that if you happen to come across a vis supply then you should donate some of it to be used for the good of the covenant. [Ethylred] It's just like taxes William, we'll have to pay those too. You will have the right to access a portion of that tithe as a member of the covenant. It is in all our interests that the Covenant as a whole is well supplied with Vis and Revenue. It's either a tithe or each of us will have to pay for the what would otherwise be given by the Covenant. Such is unfair as most of us would have to spend too much time earning money, or vis, or providing service to the Covenant, instead of spending our time exploring the Arts. [Adigius] Precisely. Better to tax those going on expeditions than impose a fixed fee on everyone which will waste all our time. If those taxed feel they are bearing more than their share, then they can always raise the matter in Council. [Ethylred] Though this does bring up the questions of your Wife's income, I don't think that we could fairly tithe her, primarily as it would reduce her ability to earn more revenues. I think she should contribute to the covenant, but a half tithe would be inappropriate. I think other methods of generating revenue would be more appropriate, such as discounted payment for goods, services and rents. [Adigius] The "50% of that gained on expeditions" clause applies to members. Callista is not a member of the Covenant, merely an appendage to one. [Adigius] - a requirement that each magus grant the Covenant a "first right of purchase" on any item found on an expedition [Agnes] Don't really care one way or 'tother. [William] First right of purchase, OK. But not compulsion to sell. [Adigius] "First right of purchase" simply means that if you're going to sell it, then you have to offer it to the Covenant and your Sodales first. If you are not going to sell it, then the point is moot. [Ethylred] Agreed. First offered to the covenant, who shall pay a fair price as agreed by the council, then offered to the other members, Regent first, then to the eldest to the youngest member, then it may be offered outside the covenant. I agree with William, no compulsion to sell, though that should not stop the Covenant, or Magi, making offers. [Adigius] That seems to be the best way to handle things. [William] Can that procedure be explicitly written in. Also, does eldest mean "the longest a member of the Covenant" or "eldest in age". Shall we use this as a general ordering mechanism, if so we should state it somewhere. For example is there an order that votes are cast in. I suggest youngest to eldest, followed by Regent (as they are the tie-breaker?). [Ethylred] That sounds good, Eldest in age is the natural way to do it. [Adigius] It is the best way for sales, but I pefer the usual show of hands for votes. It avoids privileging the eldest or Regent with additional knowledge. [Ethylred] I agree, but I think that a voting order needs to be proposed for cases where the Council is being recalcitrant. [Adigius] NEW I think it would be best left to the Regent (or stand-in) of the meeting concerned, or to any "standing orders" the Council may decree, not placed in the Charter. [Adigius] (possible charter text) - a requirement that each Magus keep only what they can use, and surrender unusable resources or (particularly) items to the Covenant [Agnes] Also agree. [William] Who decides whether a resource is unusable or not? I have a suspicion you're going to say The Covenant. [Agnes] Well, if you're using it then it must be usable. If you're not using it you should say what you intend to use it for in the future. [Ethylred] Agnes's point pretty much sums it up. It also allows us to discuss your intended purpose, as it may be better for another member of the covenant to 'use' the resources in question, though the original owner is entitled to benefit from that work. I object to the term surrender, I feel that it should be more of an obligation to sell or exchange unusable resources. Just because a magi has no use for something does not mean it is of no value to them. [Adigius] So a requirement to offer for sale unused items then? [William] This does not seem consistent with previous statements that there is no obligation to sell found items. [Adigius] Firstly, they are different possible clauses. Secondly, it seems that people strongly favour preventing members from hoarding items that would be better used for the benefit of all. [William] How does this relate to the resources of Grogs or Companions? I ask because Callista, for example, has resources that are subject to other agreements about their use. In fact this is what all my objections to duties and my questions about the rights of Companions revolve around. It is fine for the Covenant to share my Grogs and resources, as it sees fit- but her employees and her resources are subject to prior arrangements. She may (and does wish to) come to a separate agreement with the Covenant about their use, but my being a member of the Covenant is not that agreement. [Ethylred] Yes, I agree, the Covenant will have to come to an agreement with her. [Agnes] While I don't have in particular desire to dip into your pockets, I think Callista's business does count as yours, she's yer wife after all. If she ran up a whole lot of debts in town I'm sure the townsmen would try and extract it from your hide. My recollection of all the legal nonsense is a bit fuzzy, but I'm sure ol' Norman boy here would know. [William] What townsmen might do does not set precedent for what Magi might do. [Adigius] But by engaging in the mundane practice of marriage you have enmeshed yourself in all the mundane precedents surrounding it. If Callista is your wife, then your word is binding on her as surely as it is upon yourself. And conversely, if you wish to claim that your word is not binding upon her, then she is not entitled to the protection or sanctuary of this Covenant. Which is it to be? [William] As you keep repeatedly saying the Covenant is for Magi not mundanes. If we are bound by mundane precedent, then we don't need a Charter, we can just defer all decisions to the Lord of the region. That is the mundane precedent. [Adigius] The Charter _is_ for magi, not mundanes. But you (and only you, out of our number) have decided to enmesh yourself in the mundane practice of marriage. Because of this, you (and only you) are bound by all the mundane laws and customs surrounding it. If you wish to claim special privileges for your wife, then those mundane customs are going to be relevant to our discussion. [William] All that I want is for the Covenant charter to define how a Magi's word/membership is binding on their Companions, servants etc. [Ethylred] I don't understand, are you saying that you becoming a member of a Covenant excuses you from previously sworn oaths? The Charter is an oath between us as Sodales, naturally it can not make you forsake past or future oaths. I will adhere to any oath my Sodales may declare on my behalf, for he is my Brother, and I will treat his word as the word of my Brother. In return William, my word binds you as does the word of your Brother, or your Wife. (NB Social Subtext: Ethylred is quite Saxon/Dane, which is quite a few steps closer to Matriarchy than the Normans. A woman's word binds her husband as much as his binds her. It also means that he does mean what he says, until he is betrayed, then he will declare Wizards War hunt you down and kill you). Likewise any oaths sworn to you by your followers, applies to us as if you were our Brother in blood. Hence we all become Brother-in-Law to your Wife, and Uncles to your children. Your armsmen and servant are still loyal to you first, and to the Covenant second, hence they should obey us unless they believe that it is not in your interest to do so, or you have commanded them otherwise. It is the natural order of these things. Simply put, essentially we have agreed to this by declaring ourselves Sodales. [Adigius] And that does about sum it up. Our oaths to the Covenant transmit an obligation to obey the Council to those who have sworn to obey us - but it doesn't grant them membership (or indeed, any privileges at all). There's no reason to put this in the Charter because the only person who doesn't understand what an oath means seems to be William. [Adigius] NEW For those who have not yet seen my proposed Oath of Covenant, I have included a clause explicitly transferring the allegiance of subjects to the Covenant. It is in the Oath rather than the Charter because such is the only way allegiance can be transferred - it cannot simply be claimed by a third-party to the relationship. [William] Do you think that the Covenant should be responsible for her debts? If I am a member of the Covenant and her debts are mine, then the Covenant is responsible for them, too. Clearly separating her affairs from those of the Covenant works both ways. Besides, they would try to collect from her guild not me. [Ethylred] And then the Guild would come after you, oh the thrill of the chase William. More seriously, if your Wife chooses to maintain complete separation of her business from the covenant, then the covenant has no obligation to protect her. There will have to be some mutually beneficial compromise. I think it would be fair to say that the covenant should respect the rights of its covenfolk to run their own business as they see fit, though they should respect the covenant's rights too. [Adigius] We could simply put her status before the first meeting of the Council, and argue it there. I see no reason why we should clutter our charter with the matter. [William] Because it applies in a wider sense, not just to her. Do you want your companion Master Jean, treated by the Covenant in the same way as the stable hands? If you leave the Covenant can Master Jean be compelled to stay? Are his works the property of the Covenant or not? Can he borrow books from the library? [Adigius] Master Jean is a friend who owes me no obligation, not someone bound to me by oath. I hope to invite him to visit here - first as a guest, and then I hope as a permanant resident. As someone dwelling on Covenant lands he would naturally be under the authority of the Council. What privileges he has to access Covenant resources would be at the discretion of that Council. Likewise, should the Council wish to demand services of him in exchange for those resources, that is their right. Unlike you, I am not attempting to gain special privileges for my allies. Likewise, I am not trying to hide my assets by creating a legal fiction of seperation between husband and wife. Next you'll be claiming not to speak for your children either. [William] I agree that the specific details of any agreements between mundanes like Master Jean and Callista should not be a part of the Charter. I do however want the Charter to explicitly recognise that such agreements will exist and are binding on the Covenant. The Charter should also specify any general limits we wish to place on these agreements. I propose the following statement: "The Covenant claims authority over all Agents, Servants, Dependents and other men over whom the member Magi claim authority. The Covenant's authority in this matter may be delegated and may only be exercised in concordance with the Laws of God, the Laws of Fealty and the Hermetic Code. The Covenant also recognises that individual Agents, Servants, Dependents and other men may make special agreements with the Covenant concerning their relationship to the Covenant. Any such special agreements are binding upon the Covenant and supersede the Covenant's normal authority in this matter." [Ethylred] Naturally I would expect this to be so. If you feel that it must be stated in words then I don't object. I agree to this addition. [Adigius] I think it is better to simply claim authority over all living on Covenant lands, and leave it at that. The rest is simply redundant clutter. [Ethylred] Perhaps a less wordy version would be more appropriate: "The Covenant claims authority to all who reside within it's boundary be they Magus or Mundane, and to all those bound to them by oath or blood. The Covenant may only exercise this authority in accordance to the Hermetic Code, the Law of God, and the Laws of Fealty." The rest of Williams suggestion is redundant, it can be assumed as it is the normal order of things. [Adigius] NEW As is your second clause. Authority - meaning the just exercise of power - can only be said to exist if exercised in accordance with the Natural Order. "Render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's, and render unto God that which is God's" applies to duties also, remember. It is precisely by this that the Barons were so recently relieved by the Pope of their obligation to obey King John. The Council already claims authority over all those living on Covenant lands or otherwise subject to the Covenant in the governance clause, and the Oath makes those subject to us subject to the Covenant. Anything further is simply redundant. [Adigius] This section will deal with he administrative details of how the Covenant will be governed. The Council shall consist of all living members of the Covenant. It shall meet at least twice a year, at sunset on the summer and winter solstices, and at other times as required. Any member of the Covenant may call for a meeting of the Council for any reason, at any time, and at any place within the boundary of the Covenant, by notifying those members present within the Covenant. Commentary: do we want to specify a default location and method of notification for meetings? [Agnes] We have nae even built the meeting hall yet, so we cannae really promise to meet there. [Ethylred] Agreed. Location is to be specified when council is called. [Adigius] Fair enough. If we build a meeting hall, then we can amend the Charter to reflect a default location. [William] We do need a specific method of notification, however. Including a time between notification and the holding of the meeting. [Adigius] I think we all understand what "notify" means, and at this stage we want to have some flexability. I have seen Charters which specify for example that the meeting bell be rung, with the number of rings specifying the time, but as yet we have no bell, or even a place to meet. When we work out a customary way of calling a meeting, we can amend the Charter to suit. [Adigius] The Council shall have an absolute, undelagatable authority over: - matters of vis, including the trading, collection and distribution thereof, - the trading of magical books, and the granting of rights to copy - the appointment of Officers to manage Covenant resources - the election of the Regent - matters of membership, including the acceptance of new members and the casting out of those who have committed crimes against the Covenant or the Order, - the power of justice, high or low, over members of the Order of Hermes [Agnes] I think the Stonehenge tribunal might take issue with this. [Adigius] This is primarily intended to apply to members. At the same time, we should claim the right to punish visiting Magi who commit crimes against us. If the Tribunal disagrees, it can always overrule us. [Adigius] - the disposition of any magical items owned by the Covenant, - allocations of seasons of service - the granting of resources or privileges to visiting Magi [Agnes] No problem with the rest. [William] No problems here. [Adigius] - the governance of those mundane subject to the Covenant, including the powers of justice, high or low. [Ethylred] We do not have the right of high or low justice over the mundane. It is the role of the local Lord and his Vassals to pass justice over common criminals. Our responsibility in those areas is to bring the culprit to justice, so that the local authority can punish them appropriately. [Adigius] This is intended more for the future, to enable us to exercise such powers if we can come to a suitable arrangement with the local lord. [Adigius] VI THE REGENT This section lays out the powers and duties of the Regent. I envisage the Regent as being chiefly responsible for the day-to-day running of the Covenant, and as a chair of the Council. Ideally, the Regent should insulate the other magi from the constant interruptions of Covenant governance, thus allowing them to get on with their researches. The Regent is empowered to make any day-to-day decisions necessary for the running of the Covenant and not specifically reserved to the Council. Additionally, they shall be granted authority over those Officers appointed by the Council. Any decisions made shall carry the same weight as if they were made by the Council, and can only be reversed by that body. [Agnes] What happens if no-one wants to be Regent? [Adigius] Every decision will have to be made by the Council, and you won't be able to get on with your researches. [William] Does the regent need to be a member of the Covenant? [Adigius] Yes. "The Regent shall be elected from among the members of the Council". [William] Fair enough, you need to add that statement then. [Adigius] You should pay more attention, William - it's already there, and has been all along. [Agnes] If they're going to have to deal with magic stuff they should be. If they're just going to answer the door and whatnot it wouldn't really matter. [William] A non-Magi could still deal with distribution of Vis type problems. And possibly be more impartial. [Adigius] The Regent has no authority over Vis - the Council's authority over such matters is undelegatable. In addition, your suggestion of non- Magi dealing with such important magical matters is simply laughable. One might as well appoint a serf to give Confession. [William] (Modified) True, but not-a-Covenant member does not necessarily mean not magically capable. For example, can an Apprentice be the Regent? Can a member of another Covenant? [Adigius] Both are explicitly denied by the Charter as written, as neither can be members - Apprentices because they are not members of the Order until they have been Gauntletted, and those from other Covenants because of your exclusive membership clause. [Adigius] VII Vis This section should deal with the distribution of Vis. How do we want to handle it? An annual disbursement, or a limited right to take from the common pool? [William] Common pool. Plus private stocks. I think it should be public what is (roughly) in each Magi's private stock of Vis. [Agnes] Not very private then is it? [William] Private to use, not private information. [Adigius] So you'll be willing to publicise your wife's accounts then? [William] My wife's accounts do not contain Vis, but if that was part of the agreement she held with the Covenant, yes. [Adigius] Just as you wish to keep your wife's finacial status secret, I wish to keep whatever vis I may be able to stockpile secret. [Ethylred] I agree with the Common pool, and private stock concept. I think that half the pool should be available to the members of a covenant, that's to all the members not just one. The other half is the property of the covenant, and can only be used at the discretion of the council. Hence at the Summer and Winter Councils we should declare how much is available for use. As long as the Magi who wishes to use the Vis declares his intention to all the members of the covenant he should be able to take from the available pool freely. Competing claims can be resolved in the usual manner (Certemen, the Regent, the Council etc.). The council has the right to reserve Vis if there is a shortage, or a special need (eg. corpus and vim Vis), and that each type of Vis should be dealt with separately. I agree with Adigius about the privacy of your own possessions. Though I would not approve of any magus taking Vis from the common pool simply to pad their personal stocks. The common pool is to be used, not hoarded. Telling the council one thing and then doing another is a serious offence, though it may be excused with appropriate circumstance. It would be a violation of the Code to take from the common pool without a true need, you can not deprive a fellow Mage, especially your Sodales, of something just because you desire to possess it yourself. [Adigius] NEW If people suspect such, they can always dispute it in Council. Would the following clauses be an accurate interpretation of your scheme? "All Vis extracted from sources claimed by the Covenant belongs to the Covenant, and shall be kept in the Covenant stores to be used for the good of all. Vis extracted from other sources or acquired by other means shall remain the property of the individual magus, subject to the requirements above. "Twice a year, at the Council meetings of the summer and winter solstices, the Council shall present a tally of the amount of vis collected since the last accounting and the amount present in the Covenant stores. It shall also declare the amount available for use, which is not to exceed half that in the Covenant stores. Any member who declares their intention openly shall be free to take what vis they desire from the available pool. Disputes may be resolved by Certamen, by the Regent, or by a majority vote of the Council should other means prove unsatisfactory. The Council has the right to reserve vis if there is a shortage or special need, and to deal with each type of vis seperately or the whole collectively if it so desires. "The above notwithstanding, the Council may distribute vis as it sees fit. However, the Council should be mindful to keep a stockpile of Vis for emergencies, and to ensure that there is always enough to provide for such rituals as may be necessary to protect the Covenant." [Adigius] This is basically what I had in mind - people approach the Council, which determines the distribution however it sees fit. That way, if someone is being excessive, the Council can always rein them in. Likewise, the Council can reserve certain types of vis, or even impose conditions (such as "next year for your Covenant work you will write us a book"). [Adigius] (continued) All Vis extracted or found on Covenant lands belongs to the Covenant. Vis from the Covenant stores may be distributed by the Council as it sees fit. However, the Council should be mindful to keep a stockpile of Vis for emergencies, and to ensure that there is always enough to provide for such rituals as may be necessary to protect the Covenant. [Agnes] Again this all seems fair enough. [William] Fine by me. [Ethylred] Absolutely. Though it is best described as 'All vis from sources claimed by the covenant'. [Adigius] That is a better wording - and for a start, the Covenant is claiming the Aura. [Agnes] I think we should have some provision for the grogs though. They should be entitled to food, shelter and protection from attack, have the right to leave if they want to and to be subject to justice from the council (or the council's appointee). [Adigius] The Covenant is an arrangement between Magi, not mundanes. [Ethylred] Both Adigius and Agnes have good points. The covenant is an arrangement between the Magi, though there is no reason that we cannot include some points on how the magi, as a covenant, are going to deal with the mundanes. Just as a Lord has obligations to his vassals, we as a covenant, have obligations to our covenfolk. I think that we have more than enough resources to provide food, shelter, and defence. I think that the details should be dealt in a Covenfolk Council of the covenant officers with the Regent as chairman representing the Covenant Council. I think that it would be appropriate that the Regent has power of Veto in the Covenfolk Council. [Adigius] Such obligations to vassals or covenfolk are covered under common law and any oath of fealty we may extract. Our being limited by the arrangements we make with local authorities cuts both ways - while it stops us from (yet) exercising certain powers, it also means we can lean upon them and their traditions when convenient. Our Charter does not exist in a vacuum, and there's no need to clutter it with material that is already a part of the legal system we exist in. All we need is a clause in the Council section along the lines of "In its governance of and dealings with mundanes, the Council shall be mindful of the Code's requirement to avoid interfering with them in such a manner as to bring ruin upon the Order". [William] See my comments above about this.
Back to the Ars Magica page.
Last updated: 06/07/2002.