Khinasi Wizards and their Oaths

[anacreon]

In a mixed race group, how does one neutralize the Khinasi Wizards Oath to destroy all wizards who do not adhere to their four oaths? Can it be neutralized?

[Don E]

If you feel that the oaths are causing trouble in your group you can as the DM decide to allow some relatively lax criteria for renouncing the oaths. You can even say that the oaths only hold for those whom Rilni holds any power over, i.e. not the elves. Personally I don't think it should be very easy, as it is one of the things I find rather interesting with the Khinasi setting. While never became a real issue, the last time a player asked me this question I said it would at least require a wish spell cast by another magic user.

If one use Djinni and Efreeti in a Khinasi campaign it might be an interesting plot to either capture or free a powerful genie so it could cast a wish to break the oaths. If one want to make it even more difficult one could require one wish for each of the five oaths.

Another interesting question is whether there is some way for other oath bound wizards to know if a wizard has renounced his oaths. Could make for some interesting roleplaying if a character who is freed from his oaths has to constantly try avoid detection by other wizards.

[tcharazazel]

Well, it would make sense for the Khinasi Wizard to attack if he witnesses another non Khinasi mage doing something that would break the oath, like disobaying the ruler, burning books, attacking other Khinasi wizards, or talking with the dead.

Otherwise, Khinasi wizards would never be able to learn new things for those wizards who live outside of their lands. And as they are supposed to preserve and protect all knowledge, and people certainly constitute as sources of knowledge, killing them would violate that idea.

[geeman]

At 08:54 AM 5/30/2004 +0200, anacreon wrote:



> In a mixed race group, how does one neutralize the Khinasi Wizards Oath

> to destroy all wizards who do not adhere to their four oaths? Can it be

> neutralized?



Well, nobody really knows how the Five Oaths are applied in the first

place, so deciding on how they might be neutralized is a bit of a

problem. I`m of the opinion that magic used to enforce the oaths is the

equivalent of a powerful geas placed upon Khinasi wizards by a magic item

at the ToR that is the BR equivalent of an artifact. Thus, breaking the

oaths would require a suitably powerful magic--on the order of a Wish or

similar magic.



It is, however, possible for Khinasi wizards to interpret the Oaths and

situations in which they are broken in a particularly "legalistic" way,

making the particulars of the situation in a "gray area" as far as the

specific nature of the Oaths are concerned. Where possible I think that

kind of thing goes on quite a bit. If spellcasting that violates one of

the Oaths goes on without the wizard witnessing it or being confronted too

directly with evidence of it then he might be able to turn a blind eye to

the situation. An Anuirean wizard, for instance, who chose to speak with

dead might do so out of the sight and hearing of a Khinasi colleague, then

tell everyone the results of that spell, but not mention exactly how the

information was acquired. Since the Khinasi wizard has no direct knowledge

that the Oath has been broken he`s got "reasonable doubt" about the

situation and is not required to act according to his Oaths.



Gary

[irdeggman]

IMO the oaths only specifically apply to Khinasi not to other races.

BoM pg 12 "Any Khinasi spellcaster able to command true magic is legally bound to journey to the Temple of Rilni. . . . .Those called to true magic who will not journey to the temple and swear to them are hunted down and slain."

This seems to imply that it applies to those who 'reject' the oaths and not to those who do not know about them.

Now in the party at hand, if the Khinasi wizard had told the non-Khinasi wizard about the responsibilities of being a true wizard (i.e., making the journey and taking the oaths to the god of magic) and the non-Khinasi wizard continued in his practice of defying the intent of the oaths then there could be a real issue.

Otherwise as long as the non-Khinasi didn't do anything that defied the oaths the Khinasi would have no reason to take any action whatsoever. The non-Khinasi would probably be judged to be 'inferior' and not worth the time.

There is a lot of interpretation to be had in some of the oaths - who is the lawful ruler of the land? Is it the present regent or someone else? Just one example.

[RaspK_FOG]

The real issue with the Oaths would come in regard to elves: are Sidhelien going to accept a humanitarian (mark the irony here) way of action? Guess not.

[Benjamin]

I also tend to believe that the Oaths only apply to Khinasi. There is no where saying that Anuirean wizards have to obey the oaths. Khinasi have sayim that no one else does, and a very different culture. I don't think the Temple of Rilni tries to impose its cultural system onto others, just those of the same culture.

So I'd say it's fine.

However, a Khinasi wizard watching an Anuirean wizard Raise Dead may have issues and attack, but wouldn't have to base them on the Oaths, but on 'that's a crime against humanity'.

[teloft]

Is there any Khinasi wizards thet are at "war" with the Temple of Rilni. Not taking the oath, nd managing to hide them selfes from the Rilni oath wisards???

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by teloft@Jun 5 2004, 10:04 AM
Is there any Khinasi wizards thet are at "war" with the Temple of Rilni. Not taking the oath, nd managing to hide them selfes from the Rilni oath wisards???
In the Book of Magecraft there is a write up on one, Quirad al-dinn (BoM pg 35)

[ConjurerDragon]

teloft schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2665

>

> teloft wrote:

> Is there any Khinasi wizards thet are at "war" with the Temple of Rilni. Not taking the oath, nd managing to hide them selfes from the Rilni oath wisards???

>

The renegade Quirad al-Dinn of course who was invented to explain the

cover art of the Book of Magecraft which obviously shows a Khinasi

Wizard raising the dead which no Khinasi Wizard normally would do.

Located in Rjuvik.

bye

Michael

[soudhadies]

[COLOR=blue][COLOR=blue][COLOR=blue]
I think that something that also should be taken into account is location. If the party includes non-Khinasi and Khinasi wizards and adventures in non-Khinasi lands, then I believe that the arguments above regarding the BoM hold true, and there shouldn't be an obligation to kill the party member.

However, if the party adventures in Khinasi, then there is the "when in Rome" factor, and the non-Khinasi characters would be politely asked to make the journey to the ToR, refusal would leave them with the option of going back home or be hunted down.

[Athos69]

As I do not have teh BoM, what are the 5 Oaths, word for word? (I am entering a situation where my knowledge of them could be pivotal)

[Draius]

Unless they've changed/been updated, or there's another work out there that's more in-depth, here's the Five Oaths from the BoM.

* To obey the commands of the lawful ruler of the state.
* To preserve and protect all knowledge.
* To never raise a hand against another mage sworn to the oaths, except as commanded by the liege in lawful war.
* Never to use magic to raise or communicate with the dead.
* To destroy any wielder of true magic who does not abide by these oaths.

[Athos69]

thx!

[irdeggman]

They are also on pgs 54-55 of the BRCS-playtest

[Azrai]

I think that most Khinasi Wizards are wise and diplomatic and therefore they will accept the interests and customs of different cultures.

[irdeggman]

I also think they are snobish and superior so they will think that other cultures are just 'inferior' and shouldn't be kept to the same standards as are the 'civilized' people (i.e., Khinasi). But it would be just bad Sayim to point that out to them.

[anacreon]

The question is, how binding these oaths are. I tended to see them as the three oaths binding Aes Sedai in Robert Jordan's "The Wheel of Time" series. If that is so, than Wizards cannot "turn off" their oaths, and they will have to act upon the 5th oath.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by anacreon@Jun 10 2004, 12:27 AM
The question is, how binding these oaths are. I tended to see them as the three oaths binding Aes Sedai in Robert Jordan's "The Wheel of Time" series. If that is so, than Wizards cannot "turn off" their oaths, and they will have to act upon the 5th oath.
The oaths are ultimately binding - that is any who swear to them (at the temple of Rilni) can not go against them.

Having said that they are always subject to interpretation. The oaths are a Khinasi item, only brought up in relation to Khinasi and a very strong connection to Sayim can be seen between the two.

As interpretation goes - if the 10 commandments were considered the equivalent of the 5 oaths what exactly do they mean? For example, where exactly is the line for coveting and admiring drawn?

No matter how you cut it it will always be a matter of DM interpretation on this one - there can be no difinite answer here only opinions.

[teloft]

I have a understanding of the oaths thet can be healpfull to a DM using them, where he dos not want the Khinasi NPC wisard to attack his players.

3rd * To never raise a hand against another mage sworn to the oaths, except as commanded by the liege in lawful war.

5th * To destroy any wielder of true magic who does not abide by these oaths.

.. So in combonation, a mage would not know wether the player is sworn or not exept fyrst consulting the temple, no mater what the player migth say about it. So in order for the mage to be willing to act upon the 5th oath he must fyrst consult the temple. Some wisards migth even opt to jurney on foot to the temple in order to consult the temple. :)

[ausrick]

I think that one possibility is how the oaths are interpreted and how that plays with the individual character's alignments. Chaotic characters will look more at the spirit of the oaths and the reasoning behind them and apply that situationally, Lawful characters will look for more flat-out yes's and no's based out of the wording. Good will try to weigh the intent and motives of the infraction and interpret the situation in what causes the most good to come of it, while Evil would interpret the infractions in a way that best forwards the evil character's goals.

So, for instance, I could see a N/G or L/G Khinasi wizard having some words with an Anuirean wizard who had cast a spell to speak to a corpse, and maybe even a fair amount of chastisement/rebuking, probably explaining why the belief that talking to the dead is bad exists, is important, and should be held dear.

On the otherhand, I could see a L/E Khinasi wizard ordering the execution of a paladin for throwing a book in a garbage can IF he had some desire to get rid of the paladin, or was in a particulary cruel or foul mood.

And if your party is on their way to stop a necromancer who is raising armies of undead, I could see the C/G or N/G Khinasi wizard showing some disgruntlement, but not raising a big fuss as another wizard consulted a spirit magically about the wearabouts of the necromancer. It boils down to the greater good, intent, and the more pressing issue at hand. . . Maybe ends justify the means.

And it could be a comedic moment when the PC's get fined/jailed/stock-and-pilloried by a local L/N Khinasi Wizard lord while traveling in Khinasi lands for something accidental that they didn't even know about.

I guess one way to look at it is through the idea that the oaths are a geas/compulsion/charm that becomes the characters "own", they whole-heartedly believe in them. . . but their interpretation is seen through the filter of their alignment.
Thanks and take care,
Ausrick

[irdeggman]

I think that one possibility is how the oaths are interpreted and how that plays with the individual character's alignments. Chaotic characters will look more at the spirit of the oaths and the reasoning behind them and apply that situationally, Lawful characters will look for more flat-out yes's and no's based out of the wording. Good will try to weigh the intent and motives of the infraction and interpret the situation in what causes the most good to come of it, while Evil would interpret the infractions in a way that best forwards the evil character's goals.

I tend to agree with most of this. As it also fits with the way most regents behave in Cerilia, IMO. LN are rules laywers who seek to wordsmith the "letter of the law" into any agreement.

LG tend to want to meet the intent of the law.

LE interpret it to their own selfish means, but still keep their word (hence the lawful part) eventually.


So, for instance, I could see a N/G or L/G Khinasi wizard having some words with an Anuirean wizard who had cast a spell to speak to a corpse, and maybe even a fair amount of chastisement/rebuking, probably explaining why the belief that talking to the dead is bad exists, is important, and should be held dear.

Now this one leaves absolutely no room for interpretation. The only thing interpretable about speaking to the dead is whether or not the caster is a wizard or a cleric, or if he was really "speaking to the dead" vice some parlor trick, etc. But if the wizard watching it "knows" that the other one is a wizard and actually speaking with the dead, well . . . .


On the otherhand, I could see a L/E Khinasi wizard ordering the execution of a paladin for throwing a book in a garbage can IF he had some desire to get rid of the paladin, or was in a particulary cruel or foul mood.

Yes, and actually nothing to do with the oaths since paladins aren't wizards.


And if your party is on their way to stop a necromancer who is raising armies of undead, I could see the C/G or N/G Khinasi wizard showing some disgruntlement, but not raising a big fuss as another wizard consulted a spirit magically about the wearabouts of the necromancer. It boils down to the greater good, intent, and the more pressing issue at hand. . . Maybe ends justify the means.

Hard to not see this one as an absolute either. If you command an army of undead then you must be "communicating with them". It doesn't say having a conversation. Besides in the BoM, it describes necromancy as a shunned school for Khinasi wizards. See that it also describes those who practise shunned sshools as facing death or at least disownment (my words but the intent is there).


And it could be a comedic moment when the PC's get fined/jailed/stock-and-pilloried by a local L/N Khinasi Wizard lord while traveling in Khinasi lands for something accidental that they didn't even know about.

Yup, always up for some creative interpretation by the DM.


I guess one way to look at it is through the idea that the oaths are a geas/compulsion/charm that becomes the characters "own", they whole-heartedly believe in them. . . but their interpretation is seen through the filter of their alignment.

I agree with this one. And they can't voluntarily break their oaths. Which to me inplies that they need to know they are breaking them, i.e., know it is wrong otherwise they can do it. Even though that doesn't mean some paladin of avani hasn't been spying on them and decides that they need to be brought to justice.

[ausrick]

It could be my bad Irdeggman, I thought the oath about protecting knowledge meant that the Khinasi wizard would have a problem with anyone destroying it, not just arcane casters.

Oh, and to clerify on the army of dead necromancer example. I was trying to say that if faced with an enemy necromancer raising an undead army and a member of your party talking to one spirit, the non-lawful Khinasi wizard might be at liberty with his oath to prioritize. Not meaning he would be happy with the party member's actions.


take care.

Ausrick

[irdeggman]

It could be my bad Irdeggman, I thought the oath about protecting knowledge meant that the Khinasi wizard would have a problem with anyone destroying it, not just arcane casters.

Good point. Also depends on what preserving and destroying all knowledge. Was it the last copy of the book? Should the wizard go to superhuman lengths to cast protective spells on everything written down? Could he then ever use a scroll since the writing fades once cast? Would a paladin of the goddess of knowledge destroy knowledge himself without violating his own oaths (of paladinhood that is)?

The one pertaining to destroying (absolute) only applies to wielders of true magic.

• To obey the commands of the lawful ruler of the state.
• To preserve and protect all knowledge.
• Never to raise a hand against another mage sworn to the oaths, except as commanded by the liege in lawful war.
• Never to use magic to raise or communicate with the dead.
• To destroy any wielder of true magic who does not abide by these oaths.



Oh, and to clerify on the army of dead necromancer example. I was trying to say that if faced with an enemy necromancer raising an undead army and a member of your party talking to one spirit, the non-lawful Khinasi wizard might be at liberty with his oath to prioritize. Not meaning he would be happy with the party member's actions.

Another good point.

Back to my other point, does the wizard who is not trying to kill his fellow party member know that what he did was communicating with the dead? Also nothing actually places a time period on these actions, so the wizard could actually wait until the more urgent crisis was dealt with and then fulfill his oath by destroying the party member. To everything there is a season, turn, turn, turn.

[ausrick]

Good points,

So basically the oaths lead to interesting opportunities for role-playing and character development. Same way that alignment does but yet another layer to interact with. Since two characters of the exact same alignment don't necessarily see everything the same way and we are dealing with faliable humans and not perfect omniscient deities outside of the bounds of space/time, that leaves a lot of gray area to deal with.

Since I get the feeling that playercide and interparty murder isn't an acceptable means of problemsolving in quite a few people's campaigns. I would definately recommend letting the players error on interpretation. And maybe if that isn't clear-cut enough, mentally replacing "destroy any wielder of true magic who does not abide by these oaths" to "destory any wielder of true magic who does not abide by these oaths and remains unrepentant and is deemed to be unlikely to turn from his or her wickedness"

I know it's wordy but it's just my initial thought on preventing intraparty slaughter for people who might like simple answers.

And, btw, as you pointed out Irdeggman, it does say "destory ANY wielder" which if you stuck to the letter of the law (i.e. a L/N rules lawyer), that would be all you need to start a mage-hunt.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by ausrick@Jun 15 2005, 05:08 PM
And, btw, as you pointed out Irdeggman, it does say "destory ANY wielder" which if you stuck to the letter of the law (i.e. a L/N rules lawyer), that would be all you need to start a mage-hunt.
Yup,

That is probably the single statement that causes the most issues with interpretation and there have been several discussion topics on that one over the years.

I mean does it apply to an Anuirean wizard who is visiting the Land of the Sun or what would a visiting Khinasi wizard think when in Anuire where they don't take the oaths (and there is no overreaching reason why most wouuld evenknow about them).

Which is one of the reasons why the code of conduct of Avani paladins was written the way it was in the revised Ch 1 of the BRCS. Something that also needs to be included in the chap on magic when it gets updated. What this does, IMO, is to eliminate the requirement to perform wizard-cide but still will allow a coniving, not real good-aligned Khinasi wizard to interpret things for himself and still go about killing non-Khinasi wizards and not lose Sayim in the process.

Code of Conduct: Paladins of Avani follow a Code of Conduct and they lose all class abilities if they ever fail to defend places of learning or to protect Avani’s people against those who would use magic against them. They also must respect legitimate authority and not act chaotically or without fore thought. All paladins of Avani know the Five Oaths of Service that the Khinasi require to be taken by all capable of casting true magic. They maintain and keep to these oaths as a point of honor, even though they do not undergo the same rituals that those taking them do. They are frequently used as hunters of those who refuse to take them but don’t hold other nationalities to the same standards since they are considered less civilized and knowing than are the Khinasi. These are the basic codes of conduct for Paladins of Avani, individual sects have varying interpretations of them and any paladin belonging to one will adjust his code of conduct to reflect that interpretation.

[A_dark]

Can a wizard not abide by the oaths, even if he has not sworn them? In other words, if an Anuirean mage visits khinasi and he's LG and does nothing to violate the oath (he doesn't talk to the dead, he doesn't disobey his master, he doesn't kill other mages unless instructed to do so by his liege etc etc etc), would he then need to get killed?

IMHO, no. The oath compels someone to kill a mage who actually violates the law. Killing them for simply not swearing them is not compelling by the oath itself. (you are however, compelled by the khinasi states laws to go and swear the oath. imho Quirad al-Dinn must die, not because the oath compels other mages to go kill him, but because all of the khinasi states have sentenced him to death for not swearing the oath and because all the Avani paladins are given this quest by their temples and because the High Priest of Rilni simply says so)

just two more cents :)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by A_dark@Jun 16 2005, 05:20 PM
Can a wizard not abide by the oaths, even if he has not sworn them? In other words, if an Anuirean mage visits khinasi and he's LG and does nothing to violate the oath (he doesn't talk to the dead, he doesn't disobey his master, he doesn't kill other mages unless instructed to do so by his liege etc etc etc), would he then need to get killed?

IMHO, no. The oath compels someone to kill a mage who actually violates the law. Killing them for simply not swearing them is not compelling by the oath itself. (you are however, compelled by the khinasi states laws to go and swear the oath. imho Quirad al-Dinn must die, not because the oath compels other mages to go kill him, but because all of the khinasi states have sentenced him to death for not swearing the oath and because all the Avani paladins are given this quest by their temples and because the High Priest of Rilni simply says so)

just two more cents :)
Yes and yes.

Good points and like we have been saying the oaths make for an interesting role-play situation.

Now once a wizard has taken the oaths (at the temple) he cannot voluntarily violate them. None of the books (2nd ed or even the BRCS) specifically states why. This is left up to the DM to insert something into his game if he wishes.

I find it interesting (and frustrating) when players try to set traps to get a Khinasi wizard to "violate" his oaths. He can't - he doesn't have that option. The best that the trap may prove is whether or not he actually took them in the first place - another interesting concept since there is no ready way to tell if a wizard has actually taken them or not, shy of checking any records that may have been kept at the temple (remote location and all of that).

[jsharen]

I see a very simple reason for the Khinasi wizards not going on witch hunts for those outside of Khinasi lands:

The rulers of Khinasi, whom the wizards MUST obey, have forbid it. They don't want to deal with a war that is potentially suicidal.

Depending on how you view the oaths, and if any take precedence over the others, the Khinasi wizards may relish the idea of removing the 'lesser' wizards from the face of Cerilia, for different reasons, and with different amounts of enthusiasm depending on their alignment and personal beliefs.

Also in regards to the speaking with/raising the dead. I personally don't allow any interpretation whatsoever in this area of the oaths. The god of magic, also carries another face, that of the protector of the viel between the shadowworld and cerilia. Any tampering with the dead, whether speaking with them, or raising them, weakens that viel and directly violates rournils(sp?) guardianship. This would be one of the interpretations of the oath that I'd place above even that of ones lawful lord.

[Thorogood Roele]

Ok, very simply put.... the 5th oath says "does not abide by" it says no where that any of the mages have to be sworn to the oaths also. So, any Oath sworn mage is only agreeing to destroy those that he personally has knowledge of specific ACTIONS by another mage. Thus if he sees one speaking to or raising the dead.... bam, fireball candidate. If he sees one harming another mage, he would be honor bound to ensure he's not doing so as an act of lawful warfare, commanded by his liege before toasting him. If he doesn't observe and actual ACT of violation, or have direct knowledge of a past transgression, he would have no reason to act against that mage, reguardless of whether he swore to the oath or not.

That said, I believe it also says in Cities of the Sun, that they do hunt their own mages (khinasi) if they refuse to go take the oaths.

[irdeggman]

If he sees one harming another mage, he would be honor bound to ensure he's not doing so as an act of lawful warfare, commanded by his liege before toasting him. If he doesn't observe and actual ACT of violation, or have direct knowledge of a past transgression, he would have no reason to act against that mage, reguardless of whether he swore to the oath or not.

Except the not harming another mage only applies to those who have sworn the Oaths not those who abide by them. Even more situational things to work out in role-play.


That said, I believe it also says in Cities of the Sun, that they do hunt their own mages (khinasi) if they refuse to go take the oaths.

Yup that is why the paladin of Avani code of behaviour (from the revised ch 1 of the BRCS) talks about them often being used to hunt downthose transgressors.