# The Great Injunction



## Cheiromancer (Jul 10, 2002)

Quoted from the Heretic of Wyre thread:



> The Great Injunction is a time-honoured convention which is defied by mages at their peril. Excepting acts of self-defense, a Wizard may not use his power for political or temporal ends, particularly on the battlefield during war. This prevents the escalation of magical warfare, and the casual employment of wizards to fling ‘fireballs’ around upon the battlefield. The Great Injunction is a magical détente which transcends all considerations of race, gender, power and alignment. It is inviolable. "Grey Areas" – for example, if Mostin were to scry on behalf of the Duchess – certainly exist, but Mages must be cautious lest they push the limits too far.
> 
> The "Council" which Mostin refers to, is nothing more (or less) than the sum total of all of the Wizards in Wyre and its dependencies. In fact, no formal body of mages exists.
> 
> The Great Injunction is based upon "Murgen’s Edict" – a similar idea appearing in certain novels by Jack Vance.




I honestly can't see how such a thing would work.

Suppose the most powerful wizard in Wyre slew a king's bodyguard and retinue, and seized power.  While he is bogged down with ending opposition to his reign, killing off heirs, etc., _sendings_ criss-cross Wyre and dozens of mages _teleport_ or ride broomstick to tell everyone that The Great Injunction Has Been Broken.

How would the wizards discuss strategy?  They don't have any leaders who can summon them to one spot.  If they did, differences in race, alignment and ideology would prevent them from deciding upon a coherent strategy of dealing with the Wizard-King.  And it would be stupid for them to retaliate as individuals; the Wizard-King would defeat them piece-meal.

But back to the first point- why would the wizards of Wyre gather in the first place.  If I were a stereotypically self-involved and cowardly mage, would I drop my current research and experimentation in order to go off to a bedlam of mages?  (If I were lawful neutral or good, perhaps.  If I were neutral or chaotic, probably not.)  My thinking would be that either the Council could solve the problem without me, in which case my presence is unnecessary, or it could only do it with my help, which means that the forces are so easily matched that my chances of survival are almost nil.  I'd keep my head low.

If low-level mages (especially in far off points of Wyre) don't get involved in the battle against the Wizard-King, who is to blame them?  And when does "low-level" become high enough?  When they can cast _Teleport_?  In other words, if the 5th level wizards don't go, why should the 6th level wizards?  And if the 6th level wizards don't go, why should the 7th levels?  And so on.  And who is going to go around and ensure that everyone who can cast _Teleport_ (or whatever) is active in the retaliation against the WK?  Who is going to decide (and administer) the punishment afterwards for failing to join the coalition?  Who decides if a wizard who does show up does all that he can do to defeat the WK, as opposed to casting a few spells and then fleeing for home?

And all this is without considering the fact the WK will have spies and allies on the Council.  Not many, perhaps, but they will exist, and they will greatly impede the Council's ability to decide on a course of action, and then implement it.  They'd sabotage the efforts from the inside, and maybe even turn against the Council at the worst possible moment.

Now, this is for a scenario that has the Injunction absolutely smashed, and where a strong, concerted effort is absolutely necessary.  What about where the breaking of the Injunction is doubtful?  Wizards have very high intelligence scores, and can probably find a loophole in just about anything.  And sorcerers are charismatic and persuasive enough to talk their way out of almost anything else.  They may have persuaded themselves that they have found a loophole- neither wizards nor sorcerers need be very wise, after all, and self-deception is certainly a possibility. 

What I think would happen is that a handful of high level wizards would decide that Something Has to Be Done, and then they would dither around for a while deciding exactly what, and who would do it, and when.  By then it would be too late.

The Great Injunction is a paper tiger.

Anyone disagree?

-Cheiromancer


----------



## Cheiromancer (Jul 10, 2002)

Drat!  I meant to post this in house rules.  My apologies to the moderators.


----------



## Darklone (Jul 10, 2002)

Since I had endless discussions about wizards in war... I disagree. Will write more later.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Jul 10, 2002)

(Sigh).

Okay, one point that needs to be made before I begin to justify this position.


* Most importantly, the 'Great Injunction' is a metagame tool which is used to create the atmosphere that I want in my campaign. I don't want wizards involved in wars. I don't want dozens of fireball-flinging war-wizards annihilating legions of soldiers. This is not the feel that I am looking for.*



> Suppose the most powerful wizard in Wyre slew a king's bodyguard and retinue, and seized power




then...



> If I were a stereotypically self-involved and cowardly mage, would I drop my current research and experimentation in order to go off to a bedlam of mages?




These concepts are, to a degree, mutally contradictory. Why would the self-involved wizard seize power in the first place? 

In my campaign, at least, wizards are motivated by concerns other than temporal ones. The Great Injunction can be viewed as an informal law amongst mages. Laws are nothing more than a codification of what society deems to be correct behaviour in order to protect its members. In this case, the 'correct behaviour' is not to grope after fleeting temporal power, but to deepen understanding and magical potency. The 'society' is the 'magical fraternity,' for want of a better term. This brotherhood/sisterhood itself transcends alignment to a certain degree.

Any wizard who seized temporal power would be immediately regarded as an aberration by his peers, irrespective of their personal leanings (and most are, in fact, LN. Wizards tend to be lawful, right?). It brings the art into disrepute. It is vulgar, demeaning. It arouses the opposition of the church. Most importantly, the pursuit of temporal power is considered an act of perversion, madness, dysfunction and manifest danger to the common good - not in terms of strict alignment, but insofar as it can jeopardize what the mage most highly values, i.e. the pursuit of knowledge.




> sendings criss-cross Wyre and dozens of mages teleport or ride broomstick to tell everyone that The Great Injunction Has Been Broken




There are not dozens of broomsticks of flying. Dozens of mages cannot teleport. A dozen, at most, for both contingencies. In fact, knowledge of the violation would disseminate more gradually.



> What I think would happen is that a handful of high level wizards would decide that Something Has to Be Done, and then they would dither around for a while deciding exactly what, and who would do it, and when. By then it would be too late.




There _are_ only a handful of high level wizards (level 15+) in Wyre. They all know each other - by reputation or acquaintance at least, if not personally. They often take tea together.





> sorcerers are charismatic and persuasive enough to talk their way out of almost anything else




Sorcerers are not bound by the Injunction. They are few in number and confined to backward, undeveloped areas.

Broadly, I think you bring too many preconceptions to a campaign world with which you are not intimately acquainted... 




> What about where the breaking of the Injunction is doubtful?




This is more dubious and is currently the problem that preoccupies one of the players in the game. The risk of anathematization by the magical community is a real concern to him.




> The Great Injunction is a paper tiger.




Despite everything that I just wrote, this may very well be true. The player's actions will determine how this unfolds.


----------



## Hammerhead (Jul 10, 2002)

If someone did break the Injunction, he would be stranded. Mages would shun him; no mage would share spells, or trade magical items, or assist him in his tasks. Even his mage allies could abandon him. Essentially, he becomes an island. Even non-magical allies could forsake his company, knowing that maybe, just maybe, a few powerful wizards could teleport in at any moment and blow their friend, and anyone in a 20' radius, straight to hell. If he became a ruler, other countries would likely ostracize him.

As he's stranded, this power-hungry mage becomes a perfect target for his enemies to swoop in and destroy him. Or, maybe the gathering of wizards could hire assassins, or adventurers, or something to teach the power-hungry wizard a lesson. 

Or, maybe nothing happens at all. Still, as a wizard, what can I gain from policital power? To me, it wouldn't be worth the risk.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Jul 10, 2002)

I'm sorry if I came across as obnoxious.

I agree with you 100% about the feel of the campaign;  I don't want wizards involved in wars in my campaign, either.  Or fireball-flinging war-wizards annihilating armies, or taking over kingdoms.

I use a different method in my own campaign world, but yours is more elegant.  I just don't understand the conditions that make it work.

One thing- as you describe it, the Injunction works because wizards basically don't want to engage in warfare.  But it seems to me that Mostin would do it, except he's scared of the Injunction being enforced against him.

Hmmm.  Since they've been introduced, maybe there are a few Inevitables around who enforce the injunction.  They might be looking for Mostin right now!

There's only the three kinds in the MotP, right?  Has anyone made up other kinds of inevitables?

Regards,


----------

