Who would counter sign for that? Everyone who wants humanity to be easy pickings. In other words - the Red Court, the White Court, the nickelhead, the Fomor - that's four when you only need three and all of them would love to see wizards fighting other groups of wizards.
...the Fomor...
Are they accorded? If so wouldn't Marcone be within his rights to ask for compensation or declare war, etc?
1) Be something that isn't all ready a signatory to the Accords
When all is said and done, you could... ::looks around nervously:: ummm, you could simply say they are already a Signatory, or that enough legal tomfoolery had occurred in the last few centuries to establish this as a sketchy but legal Accords maneuver. Something the White Council was hoping to quietly squash, but failed to stop.
Having three others vouch for them is interesting, and my initial thought is that the sorcerer would try to trick the other three to vouch for them.
Are they accorded? If so wouldn't Marcone be within his rights to ask for compensation or declare war, etc?
"Even Hand" is not in Side Jobs - it was in a separate collection called "Dark and Stormy Knights."
Which is why I use spoiler tags while talking about it. And if anyone see the man who known as Marcone as a hero, it's a good story to read to disillusion yourself of that idea.But if anyone sees the man who known as Marcone as an anti-hero, it's a good story to read to see it as well.
Richard
As Richard_Chilton noted, though, it's likely your warlock group would not need any real trickery (other than establishing the possibility of applying) to encourage three signatories to back their application: many Signatories would easily benefit from the political fallout of division among the mortal spellcasters.
the proof being that no one has done it.
And no one's gone to the moon, either.
I see it as a two part process:
1) Be something that isn't all ready a signatory to the Accords, and
2) Get three existing signatories to approve you as a Freehold Lord.
Point one stops most groups. Some would say that it isn't supported by the books, but if different groups of Warlocks could walk around with impunity from the White Council then I could see there being countless "we are humans with magic" factions. Who would counter sign for that? Everyone who wants humanity to be easy pickings. In other words - the Red Court, the White Court, the nickelhead, the Fomor - that's four when you only need three and all of them would love to see wizards fighting other groups of wizards.
I do quite agree that it is highly unlikely for any rebel group to be able to form a new faction under the Accords, but simply saying 'we haven't seen it in the books, so it isn't possible' is ridiculous trash.
In the setting as written it's more or less impossible to do -
Take a look into the process of become a Member state of the U.N. It's not easy. It doesn't happen often. but it does happen. one of the biggest hurdles to it is, "international recognition as a sovereign state". The same could be applied here... The warlocks need to demonstrate to the other signatories that they are independent of the White Council. That'll be tough to do, until the warlocks wage a successful "rebellion" against the White Council and get the White Council to let them govern themselves.
But let's look at this from another angle - what would any other group of mortal spell casters gain from signing the Accords? They are already "protected" from supernatural predators by the White Council being members so what would be the benefit?
And don't say "protection from the White Council". The Accords regulate the peaceful interactions between the nations and help define how wars are fought - the new group wouldn't be protected from the White Council any more than the Red Court Vampires were protected from the White Council declaring war on them.
Then there's the duel nature of the Laws of Magic. Break the laws and you get the Lawbreaker feat. Keep it up and you are looking at changing your aspects until you are a monster. That still happens even if the last Warden is dead and the White Council scattered - so there's no real advantage to starting a lawless group.
And unlike how South Sudan came to be, the White Council can't afford discord. It can't. What it can afford to do is send the Blackstaff to where the new group is meeting and have him collapse the building on them. Situations like that one - a group exploiting or hiding behind the laws of magic - is why the White Council has a wetwork man.
I really can't see the Seelie Court and Unseelie Court as being part of the same 'nation' especially when one also has to factor in other Fae-based courts like that of the Erlking, Santa Claus (whatever he really is...) and that group of Welsh Fae.
Again, you presume that the measure of possibility is history; that if it would ever be possible, then it has already come to pass.
And if it is possible, but has yet to be realized (due to nigh-incomprehensible convolutions in the Unseelie Accords, successful diplomacy averting the necessity, simple preemptive overwhelming force, or any other cause), then your entire argument falls to pieces.
I suspect that you fail to realize that this is, in fact, a comparatively potent argument against your declared stance on the matter.
And you saying that doesn't make it so.
No, seriously, explain why you feel that looking at something from multiple sides is wrong. Go through those points I ended my post with and explain which of them are incorrect. Meanwhile, I'll stop posting on this thread long enough to write one about serial killer Harry.
Richard
Point 2 is a fallacy.
Point 3 is an argument against attempting, not against being able to succeed.
Point 4 seems to be a restatement of point 1, the universality of which is precisely the question being debated, here
Point 5 is an argument against being able to survive your own success, not against being able to achieve that success in the first place.
1) Any group of empowered mortals trying to get a seat at the Accords table is viewed an internal matter for the White Council to handle.Thus conceding the point. Why debate the other reasoning involved when you've accepted the thrust of the argument?
The thing is, when a new country comes into being it's with international good will. When South Sudan broke away from Sudan you didn't have the US, Russia, China, and various European powers calling Sudan a wimp for letting it happen. You didn't see them circling like sharks on a blood trail, working out how they could occupy and annex both nations.
But let's look at this from another angle - what would any other group of mortal spell casters gain from signing the Accords? They are already "protected" from supernatural predators by the White Council being members so what would be the benefit?
And don't say "protection from the White Council". The Accords regulate the peaceful interactions between the nations and help define how wars are fought - the new group wouldn't be protected from the White Council any more than the Red Court Vampires were protected from the White Council declaring war on them.
Again, just because you say something doesn't make it true. Calling something a fallacy doesn't make it so.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability
Point 2: I strongly disagree with your statement that the White Court has been unable to seduce a single wizard into attempting to start a second Accord recognized entity and that Fallen Angels are not diabolical enough to attempt it. That with all the centuries since the first Merlin formed the Council those groups have lack the ability to do something that is possible - implying that it isn't possible.
Point 4: While this reiterates that is an internal matter, it expands on that point by pointing out how they would deal with it.
Point 5: No, it explains why they would no survive making the attempt. That the attempt to do it using the White Council's laws (as opposed the Accords themselves) is doomed to fail because the Senior Council can exempt themselves from those law.
If you want to try to refute something else, feel free do attempt to do so with more than throwaway lines - but why bother? You've accepted point one (or at least been unable to argue against it).Thus conceding the point. Why debate the other reasoning involved when you've accepted the thrust of the argument?I have conceded no such thing.
point 1, the universality of which is precisely the question being debated, here
Previously, it sounded like you were simply saying, "They can't do it."
Palestine's current situation regarding the U.N. might be a more apt comparison to this scenario (though, with unintended and unfortunate correlations to the factions within the novels)... Without delving further into politics, look up "Palenstine 194" for more info.
If successful, the new group would now have a recourse for lawful retaliation and recompense from the White Council, when the White Council, for example, sends Wardens to summarily execute a Warlock for breaking one of the Seven Laws (a terribly good reason for the White Council to oppose the proposition).***
***Which brings up a larger issue... Just what is the White Council's jurisdiction with regards to the Seven Laws? They seem to have assumed authority over all mortal magic, at least, but what if someone or some group decides to challenge that authority?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability
I have conceded no such thing.
I may not be following the rules for debate here - but that doesn't mean that position has any validity.
You have cited nothing from a published source that supports your position and ignore what I have cited. Post something that indicate that you are right and I'll look it over.
And if I'm wrong then I'll admit it.
Yes you did. I asked you to point out any issues that you had with what I had posted. You could not come up with any statement referring to point one - so mentioned in passing that you consider it to be under debate.I'm sorry, I assumed that you could recognize a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) short of being beaten over the head with it.
Point 4 seems to be a restatement of point 1, the universality of which is precisely the question being debated, here
It takes more than one person talking to debate something - and you voiced no argument to that point.My stance on the issue is that there is insufficient evidence to declare Accord recognition of a splinter group an impossibility.
So, if you want to refute that the accords give the White Council say over all mortals with power, start with refuting:
"Given their status as members of the magical community, they are, however, within the purview of the White Council's legitimate political concerns, and as such are subject to the stipulations for protection and defense found within the Accords. I am well within my rights to act as their champion."
I am saying they can't - I merely added "look at it from another side - why would they try" for those who don't accept that statement.
Under the Accords (as cite by White Night) they have authority over all humans with power.Despite what Harry said, the White Council has effectively conceded that it does not have jurisdiction over all humans with magical power. Consider the Winter and Summer Knights, who are gifted with Unseelie and Seelie magic respectively, but are also under the authority of Mab and Titania respectively, not the Council. The question would become whether the Council officially sees itself as having jurisdiction over the Knights but doesn't press it, whether it recognises a specific exception in the case of the Faerie Knights, whether it recognises some exceptions in the case of magic sponsored by another entity, or whether it recognises some exceptions in the case of magic sponsored by another signatory.
Under the laws of the White Council, they have authority over all humans with power.
You admit, then, that that argument is a fallacy, and that, as such, it does not support your claim?
I have made no strong claim. You have. You have, in fact, made an incredibly strong claim - that of impossibility. The burden of proof is on you.
Given your reticence even to admit the blatant fallaciousness of your own arguments, I doubt that.
I'm sorry, I assumed that you could recognize a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) short of being beaten over the head with it.
Again, with bolding added:My stance on the issue is that there is insufficient evidence to declare Accord recognition of a splinter group an impossibility.
That statement refers only to a specific group, in a specific instance, where, it would seem, the individuals referenced were not members of a group representing an exception to the general rule of the White Council's authority over mortal practitioners.
Consider the Winter and Summer Knights, who are gifted with Unseelie and Seelie magic respectively, but are also under the authority of Mab and Titania respectively, not the Council.
The question would become whether the Council officially sees itself as having jurisdiction over the Knights but doesn't press it, whether it recognises a specific exception in the case of the Faerie Knights, whether it recognises some exceptions in the case of magic sponsored by another entity, or whether it recognises some exceptions in the case of magic sponsored by another signatory.
Note that that's just about them getting recognised as something separate from the White Council. They'll need something else to prevent the Council from going after them anyway - something that makes the Council think that trying to stop them is more trouble and loss than it's worth (bearing in mind that "worth" includes preventing anyone else from trying this, so they'd be well advised to present evidence that they're a very special case, and probably that recognition as signatories would lead them to do less harm to innocent people; such evidence needn't be correct, but it ought to be there).
As much as has been said about other factions possibly liking this because it divides and weakens the human magical population, it also lays potential groundwork for factionalisation within those nations. I doubt Lara Raith would be happy at the idea of other White Court Houses thinking they can secede. (Although it also presents another reason why one of those other Houses might be willing to help the recognition along).
My other thought was that the White Council only lets full wizards through the door. By claiming authority over all human practitioners, they are effectively claiming jurisdiction over those they do not otherwise acknowledge or allow as members. I'm not just thinking of walocks here - also the members of Paranet, and the Asian groups mentioned in Our World. How secure or tenuous is that claim under the Accords?
If you refuse to recognize the fallaciousness of your own arguments, or even that the validity (ie. absence of fallacy) of an argument should matter in this debate, then there is no debate, and we are done, here.
Feel free to step back in if you change your mind.
... but if after that point he can obtain Freeholding Lord Status he's got the protection of the Accords and the Warlock's he's teaching as part of his retinue being 'nobles of his court' also gain that protection.
Gifted with power. They have no power of their own. Their sponsor can stop supporting them. Hence they are not mortals with power but mortals borrowing the powers of others. - Richard_ChiltonThen we agree that the difference of kind is valid, and if the warlocks trying to become Accorded Freeholders were sponsored, they would have a claim to be separate from the White Council?
I expect that we might learn the answer to those questions within the next few books.If nothing else, I suspect that Harry and Elaine will ultimately attempt to have Paranet recognised as a faction.
So we agree that the presented signatories, the peoples and groups who negotiated the Accords, have a vested interest in wording things such that no such subgroup could exist?Those groups who share the potential to factionalise in such a way (eg the White Court) do, but those who don't have that potential (like the Red Court; the nature of Red Court vampires IMO makes an alternative Red King an illogical prospect) may have a vested interest the other way. But I'm not sure either of those things means anything, because Mab pretty much imposed them, so she's pretty much the one who worded them.
If they didn't have a legal claim to that then why was the Duel In The Depths permitted to happen?The situation also involved an internal fight within the White Court, and Lara Raith was never going to let the duel not happen, since Harry and Carlos would be killing two major thorns in her side. Thus it was in her interest to not to dispute that the victims would qualify as White Council members and thus come under its vengeance. (I advanced this as a grey area, not a proven hole in the Council's claims; but it's still the case that they're claiming jurisdiction over people they don't recognise as members in any other context).
To be honest I'm kinda with Richard on this one. If gaining independence under the accords is as easy as getting three signatories on your side and we can admit that signatories would likely be lining up to split up the white council then I see no reason why it would not already have happened given the political and ethical disparity that we have seen within the current white council.
Which only indicates that gaining recognition for a splinter faction would be more difficult than doing so for a new one.
In our game, that is starting next week, one of the factions (ancient warlocks) is going to aim to become a Freeholding Lord as its main goal - what does they have to do to get this status?
Now, bear with me, I've only read up to halfway through Proven Guilty, so far.
If gaining independence under the accords is as easy as getting three signatories on your side and we can admit that signatories would likely be lining up to split up the white council then I see no reason why it would not already have happened given the political and ethical disparity that we have seen within the current white council. - sinkerNo one's saying that its easy, only disputing that it's categorically impossible to the extent that a thread discussing the attempt (note the OP doesn't say anything about them definitely succeeding) deserves to be crapped over.
I'd apologise for all the spoilers I've been posting recently (most of them centred on White Night), but the rules for this board say it's not spoiler information as long it's something in one of the books covered by the RPG. Until you've caught up with the books and short stories that the game covers you might want to be careful about what parts of Our World you read.
How about we all come to an agreement about the following:
1) I've stated my opinions on the matter of splitter fractions being permitted under the Accords in the default setting (the DV).
2) Some people disagree with my opinions.
3) We've gone back and forth several times, but we aren't shifting positions.
4) further discussions on splinter groups in the default setting aren't likely to produce different results.
And call it a day on the default setting.
For starters - if "the accords = protection" are to have any meaning there has to be someone enforcing them. Perhaps Mab sends trolls out when people break them, perhaps all parties contribute to the Accords Police or the Accords Peacekeepers, maybe there's a "we are neutral because you're all below us" faction, but if the accords have no teeth (other than the threat of War when they break down) then they only offer protection against random predation. I.E. no vampire is going to accidentally attack a wizard.
Then there should be a good reason for the White Council to allow this other group to exist.