Houses of Hermes: True Lineages Chapter Two: House Guernicus

Tribunal Procedures

Sooner or later player character magi will need to prosecute or defend a case. The basic Hermetic legal process is given below. Although the basics are universal to the Order, there is a great deal of variation between Tribunals over the details. The powers of the Praeco and the Presiding Quaesitor were defined by the rulings of the First Tribunal; thus they are held as unalterable by traditionalists.

Preparing a Case

Determining the Principles

Each case must have a prosecution and defense principle. In cases where there is a living victim, they become the prosecution principle. If the victim has been slain the case may be brought by anyone, although a relation is preferred. If more than one magus volunteers within three months of the Tribunal, the principle is determined by order of precedence. In descending order these are: parens, filius, amicus, covenant sodales and then any other magus. Candidates at the same level of relation take precedence by seniority.

If the case involves a crime against the Order itself, anyone may volunteer to be prosecution principle. There may be competition for this role and seniority or certamen normally decides the matter.

Quaesitors prefer to remain impartial, but if no one volunteers to be prosecution principle for a high crime, a Quaesitor will do so. If no one volunteers to prosecute a low crime, there is no case. It should be noted that if a victim chooses not to pursue a case (high or low), that is their right.

The accused automatically begins as the defense principle.

Determining the Tribunal

A case is normally heard in the Tribunal where the actions that led to the charge took place. If the location is in a border region and the defendant is a resident on one side, the case should be brought there. If the location is in a border region and only the prosecutor is a resident of either, the case should be brought to the prosecutor’s Tribunal. In all other situations, the case should be brought to the defendant’s Tribunal.

A magus is required to declare his name and residential Tribunal to any Hermetic magus who asks. If a magus refuses to give his name and Tribunal, a Quaesitor can be asked to investigate their identity. If a principle and witnesses need to travel to another Tribunal the principle must bear the expense. However, a principle can claim back these costs from his counterpart if they win.

Publishing a case

The prosecuting principle must make reasonable effort to inform the defendant, the Presiding Quaesitor and the Praeco, what charges are to be brought, including a detailed list of the allegations. This should be done no later than three months prior to the Tribunal. Redcaps are normally contracted to deliver these notices. They also witness that they were delivered in time or that reasonable effort was made to deliver them. This is called publishing.

Crimes that occur, or are discovered, within three months of the Tribunal can be published at the Tribunal only if the defendant attends. Such cases are heard last in order to give the defense time to prepare and find an advocate if they wish (see below). If the Tribunal is busy these cases are often set back to the following Tribunal. Great pressure is brought to settle such cases out of court.

If a case is properly published and the defendant fails to attend, a Guernicus advocate will act as his defense principle. Although the advocate will do his best, he is obviously at a disadvantage.

Settlements

Bringing a case to Tribunal is time consuming, often costly and fraught with dangers. In many Tribunals this will be made worse by further elaborate rulings on procedure. A Tribunal’s time is precious; unless the case is very serious magi do not wish to be bothered by it. Parties should seek a private settlement if possible and may face great pressure to settle. Senior magi will often step in to initiate a negotiation. If an Archmagus or senior Quaesitor offers to facilitate a settlement, player characters would be wise to accept.

Lawful Tyranny

A defendant can threaten to declare Wizard War on the prosecuting principle, demanding they drop the case. This is perfectly legal. Depending on the style of saga, this may or may not be a problem. However, there are ways of checking it.

A prosecuting principle can always transfer a case before publishing it. The new principle should be powerful enough to ignore any threats. In addition, the principle becomes his client’s protector. If Wizard War is declared on a client, the principle will threaten the aggressor with Wizard War. If the aggressor cannot be convinced to withdraw the declaration, the client will be offered a hiding place for the war’s duration. If the client is killed despite the concealment, the principle is honor bound to kill the aggressor, however long it takes. If the original aggressor chooses to hide, declarations will be made monthly until one of the parties is dead. In cases where such threats are likely, the cost of transferring can be very high.

If no one else will assist and a client has a strong case, a Guernicus advocate will take it. If a Guernicus advocate is threatened or needs to issue a counter declaration, a number of Hoplites normally step in unbidden to help. In many Tribunals, threatening a Guernicus advocate or his client is effective suicide and does not enter the mind of rational magi.

Transferring a Case

Both the prosecution and defense principle can transfer their case to another, who is then responsible for it. Experienced advocates can make a great deal of difference to the outcome. A successful prosecution can net substantial fines, a third of which go to the prosecution principle. A victim may sweeten this pot with his own resources in order to attract the best candidates. Defense advocates normally set a flat fee for their service, paid in advance.

The most demanding task of a principle is to contact their respective witnesses and gather their testimony. This testimony needs to be checked for accuracy and consistency. If some error of recollection introduces an inconsistency, a case can be left in disarray. Both the principle and the witness are legally responsible for this testimony.