Mages and confessions

[chronodbu]

But it doesn't help when order leadership tend to have differing interpretations. So let's say you are a priest during one GI, and they held a certain interpretation, however in comes the next GI who interprets it differently. Creates a bit of a problem.

I'm not sure that's different than any change in GL positions though. You can be a Merchant or a Thief or a Physician or a Reeve and go through the whims and fancies of your overlords. Changes that might cost your job, or worse. That's the pitfall and joy of having PC leadership in positions, things change.

This is rather true, but if a player is playing an Order GL, they're expected to have a good grasp on the theme of the Holy Order as well. There are certain things that should be fairly specific to any Order leader regardless of their personal opinion such as the helpfile above.

[Geras]

I strongly disagree with the Order being unable to act on a mage's confession. In my view these things should be treated like doctor-patient confidentiality - sacrosanct, except when there is a likelihood of putting oneself or others in danger. So a mage confessing that they will keep on doing magic or a murder confessing they will keep on murdering would not qualify for protection. A reformed mage (I will refrain from magic and turn myself in to the pyre eventually) or reformed murderer (no more stabby stab for me) would qualify for protection. Thoughts?

[DeadHandsome]

In truth. Even a mage who never does magic in the Davite view is eventually going to go nuts/turn evil/etc. But that seal of confession needs to apply to even capitol crimes magery and the like.

[Solipsis]

There are IC protocols and methods to opening sealed Confessions. A priest that wrestles with the need to adhere to Confession and the need to alert the Inquisition has certainly been given an interesting problem to deal with! Inquisitors have less hangups in this department, in this very narrow instance. Such is the benefit one gets for being the biggest drag on parties on Urth.

[Helena]

The difficulty is the OOC right to an OOC opinion about Lore does not give your character ICly the "right" to that differing opinion IC against Order PC leadership. Opinions differing from the standard set by the Order leadership is heresy.

I agree with that sentence, but in subtles way, I believe that when it's clear that the player behind inquisitor considers that the opinion it defends is the one of his character and not the lore, that makes a lot of difference, and opens the RP to a lot of possibilities.

Because my feeling is still the same: what I remark myself is not the lack of power of the inquisition, but the lack of priests. And my opinion is that there's not enough room for a priestly interpretation of the lore for the priesthood to flourish.

[Starstarfish]

How arguably is a Priest or Inquisitor knowing some one is a mage and "letting them get away with it" long term not some form of collusion or consortion?

Because it's been argued any form of knowing repeat communication with a mage as an Orderite is problematic if not heresy or worse.

But what ultimately is the desired outcome here? Normalizing mages and magery? Making it so mages can feel good about being good Davites?

[Rothgar]

Reading over this, and seeing that we're quite literally heading in exactly the same direction at the exact same speed in the exact same thread as the last time, I'll take a moment to say this one more time so that people can be irritated and lambast me for it one more time :

At an IC level, especially with Rothgar, I would be more than happy to sacrifice my piety and/or my life to protect those around me and those I love from someone I viewed as a dangerous Mage. I would, without hesitation, turn in a Mage who confessed to killing and being a Mage, even if that meant my excommunication and pyring. I would not feel guilty about this even once.
On a purely OOC level, I'm left scratching my head as to whom we're talking about, as since this rule was established and talked about last time, we've had exactly zero active priests. I dont begrudge people talking about it, of course, I'd just prefer that people make Priests rather than condone those who have tried to be Orderites for thier attempt(s).

[Calabora]

But it doesn't help when order leadership tend to have differing interpretations. So let's say you are a priest during one GI, and they held a certain interpretation, however in comes the next GI who interprets it differently. Creates a bit of a problem.

Such is the nature of things. One Grand Inquisitor might be more lenient to the discussion of heretical, or border-line heretical, beliefs than another. Learning to manage those relationships are a crucial part of playing an Orderite; the same problems about what is and is not dogmatically allowed exist in IRL religions that have had thousands of years and billions of minds applied to them, so to expect transitional periods of our little invented religion is a bit unrealistic.

I completely agree with this. Having "by-the-book" rules or a standard that can be referred back to in cases of certain leaders having differing interpretations - especially in religion - is a very contemporary luxury. Let the order have its shifting seasons. Let the Cardinals (or other leadership) have their off-the-cuff interpretations. That's part of what makes the setting so compelling. Maybe GI 1 thinks wearing white after Labor Day is OK. GI 2 had an auntie who had a weird obsession with not doing that, and for that reason alone, it is now considered witches' code for nefarious purposes, and brings heavy suspicion upon whoever dares. Humorous exaggeration? Sure. But a valid concept, I think. How long has it been since we had an eccentric madman handing down inane rules?

[Geras]

Reading over this, and seeing that we're quite literally heading in exactly the same direction at the exact same speed in the exact same thread as the last time, I'll take a moment to say this one more time so that people can be irritated and lambast me for it one more time :

At an IC level, especially with Rothgar, I would be more than happy to sacrifice my piety and/or my life to protect those around me and those I love from someone I viewed as a dangerous Mage. I would, without hesitation, turn in a Mage who confessed to killing and being a Mage, even if that meant my excommunication and pyring. I would not feel guilty about this even once.
On a purely OOC level, I'm left scratching my head as to whom we're talking about, as since this rule was established and talked about last time, we've had exactly zero active priests. I dont begrudge people talking about it, of course, I'd just prefer that people make Priests rather than condone those who have tried to be Orderites for thier attempt(s).

Maybe we have zero active priests because the rules put priests in untenable positions.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

The decision to remark that a priest is committing a high sin by turning in a mage discovered through confession was a staff decision to enable a layer of thematic protection for priests, not to offer an avenue of no recourse for mages. Since that decision, both ic and ooc files have been worded to support that staff decision, but there is no MUD rule about keeping those mages safe.

A GI who fails to punish a priest who was proven to have broken confession, or who pressures priests to break those confessions, would likely be removed.