Savacion Gauntlets, 398-423

The Savacion House Gauntlets from 398, the year in which they first started being held as (somewhat more) formal affairs at Covenant Leo Compulsus:

For each one, I've given a list of that year's candidates, as well as a short description of the overall tenor of the event. I've also linked to a "more about" phantom for each the individual gauntlet years; I figure that it might be useful to have a designated place where we can jot down all of the various stories and anecdotes and ideas about what went down at the gauntlets. (This might be a useful thing to have for the Manerean Conjugations too, now that I think about it).

The date in parantheses is the year that the record-keepers of Annalum list these magi as having ascended to magehood. House Savacion itself, however, does not recognize magi as such until they have passed their gauntlet. The covenant given represents the home of each individual at the time of his gauntlet—which is not necessarily where he lives now.

Note also that the "mage numbers" here are derived from Annalum's records, not from those of House Savacion. They should therefore not be construed as having any bearing whatsoever on the question of how well each candidate might or might not have performed at his gauntlet.


The Gauntlet of 398
The first of the Leo Compulsan House gauntlets.

Candidates: More about the Gauntlet of 398


The Gauntlet of 406

The notoriously violent gauntlet of 406.

Long delayed by the disruptions of the Two Purges of the early fifth century, the gauntlet of 406 was, even by Savacion standards, a rather shockingly violent affair. The avidity with which the candidates set about trying to hamper, harm, maim and even kill one another disturbed the House, and it helped contribute to the growing belief of many within Savacion that the House really did need a First Sword.

Candidates: More about the Gauntlet of 406


The Gauntlet of 408


If the gauntlet of 406 was a bit too bloodthirsty for the liking of the House, then the gauntlet of 408 was really far too tame. The three candidates got along so well, in fact, that they formed a fast friendship over the course of their gauntlet, and secretly conspired to aid one another in later attempts to join Leo Compulsus itself.

Candidates: More about the gauntlet of 408


The Gauntlet of 410


One of the candidates stood accused of being a Cristoferean. One of the candidates wanted to be an Aegidian. And one of the candidates had already been a mage for five years —and finally grown tired of waiting for an invitation.

Candidates: More about the gauntlet of 410


The Gauntlet of 413

Sucks to be the odd man out.

After four of the five candidates chose to express their rejection of the fifth in no uncertain terms, conflict erupted among even the elder magi over whether he should be accepted into the House or denied membership.

Candidates: More about the gauntlet of 413


The Gauntlet of 418

Highly unorthodox.

Candidates: More about the gauntlet of 418


The Gauntlet of 420

Little did they know that they would soon be having a reunion at Covenant Isrillion...

Candidates: More about the gauntlet of 420


The Gauntlet of 423


Held in the wake of the rogue hunt, and amidst the first stirrings of the Savacion House restructure. Two of the candidates had quite recently been orphaned - a sign of the times.

Candidates:
More about the gauntlet of 423

By the end of 425 there will be four new Savacion magi awaiting gauntlet.

I have no opinion as to when Leo Compulsus should call the next one. Should there have been one in 425? Or would they have waited another year to get a bigger crop? I've no particular leanings either way, myself.

4 Comments

#1 | April 20 05 8:41 am  
Kip Manley writes:

Gauntlet comments—


  • Vickie? Jacquie? Wow. Seriously: wow.

  • I think they'd probably be hep to a Gauntlet in late 425 or early 426: more magi more Gauntlets more quickly, I'm thinking, both to further centralize the House, or at least cement the system of gens, and impress upon everyone else the power and vitality of Savacion. —Also, entirely too many of the Gauntlets have been “irregular.” The only way to get better is practice, practice, practice.

  • My memory of the very original firstmost game is that Nechanorré and Elias made their appearance at the end of the first session, having returned from Elias's 420 Gauntlet. Does that jibe with everyone else's? I ask for the obvious reasons.

posted by Kip Manley | Apr 20 2005 8:41 am | Reply
#2 | April 20 05 12:21 pm  
cs writes:

First game
That matches exactly with my memory of the first game as well.

posted by cs | Apr 20 2005 12:21 pm | Reply
#3 | April 20 05 4:53 pm  
SK writes:

Gauntlet Stuff
My memory of the first Isrillion game matches both of yours as well. So the gauntlet of 420 was held in the summer (which helps explain Viridunculus being registered as mage with Annalum in 420 yet not gauntletted until 423 -- although they have no strict doctrine about it like the Aegidians and some Lemmites do, the Plenilunial Elementalists often prefer to declare their students mage at the very end of the year, often on Dissipation.)

Gauntlet soon sounds good to me. It does make sense that they'd want to cement the new tribal system - leaving it too long could seem to be just asking for trouble. Also, while the Litans don't have much in the way of clout, both the Plenliunial Elementalists and the Derlethians sure do, as do the descendants of Porphyrus -- and I'm sure that both Praeses and Aestus Fornax would rather see their students gauntletted sooner than later. And Calvus has clout too, and friends in high places -- as Matt pointed out to me the other day, if there's a gauntlet soon, see, then that means that it won't look too much like favoritism for there to be another in a couple of years, which is when Calvus expects his apprentice to be ready for it.

As for Vickie and Jacquie, I seem to remember that you were the one who nicknamed them, actually. Sadly, though, I can't quite remember the context of the conversation in which that happened.

posted by SK | Apr 20 2005 4:53 pm | Reply
#4 | April 21 05 8:17 am  
Kip Manley writes:

Vickie? Jacquie?

Nah, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t me; those two were detailed a little after or before my time, depending on how you cut it. But the nicks do paint a vivid if perhaps somewhat unfair portrait of the two of them.

posted by Kip Manley | Apr 21 2005 8:17 am | Reply

Leave a Comment

Leave a comment

You can sign in using your Livejournal or Vox account, or with any other form of OpenID. [Need OpenID?]