Figure of eight
The exarch nodded to the two guardians standing to attention. Alert to the signal, they stepped forward and lowered their torches. The kindling stuffed into the foundation of the pyre quickly caught and the flames began to rise.
"We are gathered here to say farewell to our friend. Esther, daughter of Ruth, beloved mother of Eli, Enoch, and Ephraim. The body burns, but the soul has fled to the Labyrinth."
He paused for a moment, to catch his breath. He knew the words off by heart of course, but it was different this time, different now it was Esther. He swallowed in the cold morning air, drawing the bitter draught into his lungs. As exarch of Virtue's Ride it was his duty to conduct this ceremony with all the solemnity that he could muster. It would not do for the others to hear his voice breaking so he let the pain of the frosty morning steel him to his duty.
"The virtuous soul pushes the world aside in its wake, leaving a mark on all those it touches as it passes. Now that the soul is gone, all that remains is for us to remember Esther's virtue."
The flames were rising higher now, obscuring the shrouded body on top of the bier.
"We commend the soul of our beloved sister Esther of Virtue's Rest to the Labyrinth and beyond, to the Land Without Tears."
The audience intoned the last and then all fell silent. The only sound was the pyre itself, the wood cracking and spitting as the flames took hold.
Overview
Almost a year ago, members of the Imperial Synod provoked a constitutional crisis when the Vigilance Assembly condemned four members of the Assembly of Nine for their public embrace of the malign spiritual presence of Peace. The resulting trial collapsed in dramatic fashion after Chief Magistrate Cosme i Zuhri i Guerra ruled that it was not possible to proceed with the prosecution following a contentious statement of principle that had been subsequently passed by the General Assembly that presented ambiguous guidance for the prosecution of religious crimes. After a hurried debate, the chief magistrates cancelled the trial, ultimately arguing that a fundamental philosophical principle of Imperial jurisprudence was at stake - if the magistrates can't determine if someone is guilty of blasphemy or heresy, if the Synod can't agree what constitutes a religious crime, how can any citizen be expected to observe the law?
To rectify this problem, the Constitutional Court announced that they would oversee a major review of how Imperial law is interpreted and upheld by the magistrates. The Senate has made crimes such as heresy and blasphemy illegal, and the Imperial Constitution dictates that it is the role of the Synod to determine what constitutes a religious crime. Traditionally that has been achieved through the use of a Judgement of Condemnation - but the shortcomings of that approach have been rudely exposed by the collapse of the trial of the so-called "peaceful Four".
Rather than rush to judgement, so to speak, the Court have taken almost a year to review current procedures before drawing up and issuing new guidance. With that process now complete, the ball will return to the Synod's court to determine what happens next.
Imperial Law
- The new approach changes the way existing Imperial law on religious crime is upheld and updated
- Imperial law is set by the Imperial Senate through the use of Senate motions
- Henceforth, the scope and application of religious laws will be set by the Imperial Synod
Current Imperial law defines five different types of religious crime: abuse of powers, blasphemy, desecration, heresy, and idolatry. Each has its own definition, but in all five cases these definitions are broad, and leave a great deal of room for interpretation. Heretofore, the assumption has been that the Synod would identify when someone's actions contravene the law using a judgement of condemnation. When that happened, the magistrates would prosecute those involved.
These definitions will not change under the new proposals adopted by the magistrates. Imperial law will continue to be set by the Senate; any changes to the underlying laws can only be made by a senator using a successful senate motion.
What is different is the religious crimes will be interpreted and enacted. Under the new approach laid down by the Constitutional Court, members of the General Assembly will be able to use a judgement of Proscription to identify specific actions that are illegal under the existing Imperial laws. These proscriptions will undergo scrutiny by the Constitutional Court to ensure that they are compatible with the Imperial Constitution, and with the body of Imperial law. Proscriptions that pass scrutiny, will be added to the rules employed by magistrates to determine if a crime has taken place.
The practical impact of this approach is that the Imperial Synod will effectively write how religious laws are applied, similar to the leeway that the Conclave has to determine the appropriate use of magic. Successful proscriptions will determine how Imperial law on religious crimes are applied, they will determine what is investigated and enforced by the magistrates.
The main advantage to this approach identified by the Constitutional Court is the clarity it will provide to citizens - who will be better able to judge what does or does not constitute a religious crime. In the past, some citizens have been executed for carrying a hallowed item drawn from a so-called "false virtue" or for being dedicated to a spiritual force other than one of the seven virtues. In other cases the Synod has chosen not to condemn those who have committed the same crimes. This uncertainty has made it almost impossible for anyone to determine in advance whether their actions might be considered a religious crime or not. In the example of the peace hallows adopted by members of the Assembly of the Nine, the facts of the matter were not in doubt; what was disputed was whether such actions breached the law. Ambiguity such as this is fundamentally undesirable in a judicial system - it should be as easy as possible to know in advance whether an action constitutes a crime or not.
While the approach removes the power of the Synod to stand in judgement of individuals, it provides more control of Imperial law as it relates to the Virtues and the Way. The Synod will be able to proscribe specific actions and beliefs that they judge to be fundamentally incompatible with the Way. They will need to rely on the magistrates to enforce their proscriptions, but the magistrates will then be able to act without further recourse to the Synod, allowing them to pursue heretics, blasphemers, and idolators across the Empire. People will no longer be able to escape justice by committing their crimes beyond the watchful eyes of the Synod.
Transition
- Imperial law remains unchanged until the end of the Winter Solstice
- Magistrates will pursue a criminal investigation against any citizen who is condemned at the Winter Solstice
- Any judgement of proscription submitted at this summit will take effect from the end of the Winter Solstice
The Constitutional Court have confirmed that no part of Imperial law will change before the end of the Winter Solstice. That means that the Synod may condemn citizens for any religious crimes they have committed at the coming Solstice. The magistrates will respond accordingly by trying anyone who has been condemned by the Synod.
Any judgement of proscription that is submitted at this summit will not take effect until the end of the Solstice. To keep things simple the Tribune will ensure that all proscriptions are open for judgement until the end of the final session on Sunday. In future, a proscription will come into effect as soon as it passes the Synod.
From the end of the summit onwards, the magistrates will use whatever proscriptions the Synod have passed to prosecute religious crimes. That means it won't be necessary, or possible, for a priest to submit a judgement of condemnation from that point onwards.
Scrutiny
- Any judgement of proscription is subject to scrutiny by the Constitutional Court
- The Court will not pass a judgement unless it is consistent with the principles of the Constitution and clearly pertains to a religious crime
Any judgement of proscription will be scrutinized carefully by the Constitutional Court to ensure that it reflects the principles laid out by the Constitution, is compatible with the existing body of Imperial law, and is enforceable. An ideal judgement of proscription will lay out a single action and state which one of the five religious laws it breaks. Priests are welcome to include text explaining why the action should be proscribed, but any proscription which tries to identify multiple laws that are broken is likely to fail. The magistrates need simple, clear language that makes it obvious which Imperial law has been broken - anything which muddies that makes a proscription more likely to fail scrutiny.
The Court will judge whether the proscription falls within the remit of the relevant Imperial law. For example, blasphemy is defined as "The denigration of the paragons and the paths of virtue. This includes promoting false virtues and the teachings of false exemplars or false paragons." Attempting to proscribe an action as blasphemous will fail scrutiny if it is clear it is not compatible with the definition of blasphemy that the Imperial Senate has laid down. The Constitutional Court have a long history of jealously guarding the powers and responsibilities of each body of state - attempts by the Synod to encroach on the powers of other bodies such as the Bourse, the Conclave, or an Imperial sodality, will be firmly rebutted.
As an extension of Imperial law, a proscription must not violate the principles laid down in the Imperial Constitution. Proscriptions that violate the dignity, freedom, and prosperity of Imperial citizens or transgress the Constitution's principles will be struck down.
Advice
- Any citizen may ask the chief magistrates or the Speaker for the Senate for advice on how to word a proscription at any point during the summit
- Citizens may obtain advice in writing from the office of the Constitutional Court before the summit begins
- Advice is designed to help a citizen, it does not guarantee that a proscription will pass scrutiny
Anyone seeking to pass a judgement of proscription is encouraged to seek advice on the wording from the civil service, to ensure there is the least possible chance of it failing scrutiny. Citizens can consult with the chief magistrates to receive advice on the constitutionality of any proscription at any point during the summit. They can also provide a copy of the wording of a judgement to the office of the Speaker of the Senate to receive feedback and advice. The Speaker meets regularly with the Constitutional Court throughout the summit to review upcoming Senate motions, so any judgement of proscription will be discussed with the court and then returned to the citizen later.
Citizens need not wait until the summit begins to obtain advice. They can submit a judgement to the Court for review before attending the summit (by emailing plot@profounddecisions.co.uk). The court will reply in writing before the summit begins provided they have time to do so. The Court are very busy during summits, but if possible, a member of the Constitutional Court will try to make themselves available on request from the Throne, a Member of the Senate, a cardinal or a grandmaster, if there is a serious issue of constitutionality that requires urgent discussion with the Court.
Obtaining advice is always recommended, but citizens are warned that advice, even from a member of the Constitutional Court, is only meant to help guide a citizen to Wisdom - it is not scrutiny itself, which only takes place after a judgement passes the Synod.
Administrative Judgements
- The Constitutional Court can ask the Tribune to raise administrative judgements of proscription to clarify matters of Imperial law
The Tribune of the Synod has the power to raise judgements in any Assembly. Traditionally this has been used to help facilitate the operations of the Synod, vis-a-vis appointments and similar.
In the future, it is likely that the Constitutional Court will ask the Tribune to use this power to raise an administrative judgement of proscription for consideration by the Synod. These judgements will be used to clarify any ambiguity that has arisen from other judgements. The same approach is commonly employed in the Senate, where the Court will ask the Speaker for the Senate to raise an administrative motion to remove any ambiguity introduced by previous decisions taken by the Senate.
Given the urgency of the matter, the magistrates have asked the Tribune to raise several judgements of proscription at the forthcoming summit. They have produced guidance to go with each of these judgements to lay out what the legal implications of passing or rejecting them would be. Of course, any member of the Synod is always free to use their own judgement to raise a different proscription - these administrative judgements are intended to clear up major issues of law and to provide clear examples of the kind of judgements that the Synod could raise.
A Winter of Judgement
- Five administrative judgements of proscription will be raised at the forthcoming summit
- Members of the Synod will be able to vote on these judgements from 6pm on Friday until 2pm on Sunday
At the forthcoming Winter Equinox, the Tribune of the Synod will raise the following administrative judgements of proscription in the General Assembly. They will be available for voting from the beginning of the summit, with the deadline for voting on all these judgements will be 2pm on Sunday. Any judgement, event an administrative judgement is subject to the Custodian of Virtue power of the Throne.
In each case, the magistrates have outlined what will happen if the administrative judgement is passed by the General Assembly, and what it will mean if it does not pass. Obviously, the Synod retains the right to reconsider at a later date, and priests are encouraged to raise alternative or additional proscriptions that they feel better define what is or is not a crime.
These judgements have been raised to provide examples of the kind of wording that is required for a successful proscription, to initiate the proceedings and focus minds on the key issues. The Synod is well within their remit to reject all these judgements and pass other proscriptions or none at all, should they choose.
Abuse of Powers
- The crime of abuse of powers is defined as: The misuse, or abuse, of the powers of a priest. This includes the powers of the Synod, as well as liao ceremonies.
The mostly commonly understood abuse of priestly powers is the use of the ceremony of excommunication without an accompanying writ of Excommunication. Many people assume that means that the use of the ceremony without the writ of the Synod will always result in a prosecution, but technically this is not a legal requirement. The writ of excommunication simply ensures that a priest will not be investigated for abuse of powers. Now that such matters will no longer go before the Synod for consideration before being investigated by a magistrate, an administrative judgement is being raised to confirm that this is the case.
The Synod proscribes the use of the ceremony of excommunication without authorisation by writ of the Synod as an abuse of powers.
General Assembly Administrative JudgementIf the General Assembly passes this judgement of proscription then it will become illegal to perform or participate in an excommunication ceremony unless a writ of excommunication has been approved of first. It will be treated as an abuse of powers and punished accordingly. If the General Assembly declines to pass this judgement, and doesn't pass a different judgement of proscription that speaks to this issue, then it will be legal under Imperial law to use the ceremony of excommunication without the approval of the Synod.
Options
- The use of true liao for any purpose without a writ of consecration could be declared an abuse of powers
- Consecrating any area without the permission of those who control that area could be declared an abuse of powers
- Calling yourself to inquisition could be declared an abuse of powers
Rumours suggests that the alleged corruption of the Assembly of Nine began when the convicted heretic, Fintan Nighthaven, used a dose of true liao to create a blasphemous relic dedicated to peace. The magistrates have not raised a judgement regarding the use of true liao to consecrate a location or hallow an item, but any priest could do so. Currently it is perfectly legal to use true liao in this way without the Synod's approval - but the General Assembly could use a similar judgement to the one above to forbid the use of true liao to create any true auras without an accompanying writ of consecration.
It was made illegal to consecrate the Senate without the prior approval of senators in Winter 376YE, and that law was extended to cover the Civil Service Hub two years later. A violation of this law is prosecuted as a crime against the state, rather than a religious law, because it involves interference with the business of these state bodies. The Synod could go further, and use a judgement of proscription to class the consecration of any location without the permission of those who control that area, as an abuse of powers.
A citizen can only be legally compelled to attend one inquisition per summit, to prevent vexatious use of the power. In the past there have been accusations that members of the Synod have or might deliberately called themselves to inquisition - to ensure that nobody else could then inquisition them. The Synod could declare such a practice to be an abuse of powers - they could even go further and declare that any attempt to use the power of inquisition to shield a citizen from the Vigilance of the Synod was an abuse of powers.
Blasphemy
- The crime of blasphemy is defined as: The denigration of the paragons and the paths of virtue. This includes promoting false virtues and the teachings of false exemplars or false paragons.
The most common accusations of blasphemy relate to dedication to malign spiritual presences. As such the magistrates have asked the Tribune to put forward the following proscription.
The Synod proscribes as blasphemy the act of dedicating any person to a false virtue or of creating an aura of a false virtue.
General Assembly Administrative JudgementOOC Design - Spontaneous Auras
Some auras occur spontaneously arising naturally, rather than through the use of liao. It is often assumed that spontaneous auras are associated with a Virtue - they usually appear at moments associated with exceptionally Virtuous acts. However it is never possible to tell what Virtue is associated with an aura (insight won't reveal this information). To make matters more difficult, spontaneous auras are usually different in effect to the standard auras created using liao ceremonies.
As a result it is not possible to definitively tell spontaneous auras of false virtues from the ones associated with the true virtues. A skilled theologian might be able to infer what has happened, based on the circumstances and the effect of the aura, but there is no definitive test that can confirm it.
If the General Assembly passes this judgement then it will become illegal to perform a dedication to any of false virtues, as well as to use a liao ceremony creating an aura drawn from a false virtue. Doing so will be treated as an act of blasphemy and be punished accordingly. If they decline to pass this judgement, and don't pass a different judgement of proscription that speaks to this issue, then it will be legal under Imperial law to dedicate someone to a false virtue and to create auras using them.
Currently there are four known false Virtues, anarchy, hatred, peace and vengeance. Other malign spiritual forces exist, but they are not considered to be false virtues because there is no evidence that people can be dedicated to them. If that were found not to be true, or if a new false virtue were ever discovered, it would automatically be covered by this proscription because of the way it is written.
Options
- The Synod would need to use a separate judgement for each false virtue to proscribe some false virtues but not others
- The Synod could proscribe being dedicated to a false virtue as blasphemous
- Proselytising a false virtue could be defined as blasphemy
- The Synod could proscribe the promotion of false paragons
- The Feast of the Broken Wheel could be declared blasphemous
If the Synod wanted to proscribe some of the false virtues, but not others, they would have to use separate judgements to proscribe each false virtue individually. The Synod can pass a judgement that proscribes all false virtues or a false virtue, but they cannot pass a single judgement that lists some false virtues but not others.
The Synod could take a different route and proscribe being dedicated to or bearing an aura of a false virtue. If the Synod did that, then it would be illegal simply to be dedicated to or anointed using a false virtue. Items hallowed to false virtues would be illegal to own or carry, and areas consecrated with such powers would need to be desecrated or destroyed. Such a law would be much more restrictive - visitors from Axos and Faraden are often dedicated to virtues other than the Seven, and commonly bear anointing or hallowed items drawing on them. They are usually careful not to proselytise their views in the Empire, but if the Synod took the strictest possible approach then such visitors would be breaking the law and would suffer the punishment when they were caught. Attempts to define blasphemous actions as only being relevant to Imperial citizens would fail scrutiny by the Constitutional Court; foreign visitors to the Empire are required to abide by the same laws as ordinary citizens.
The Synod could proscribe the act of proselytising a false virtue. That would mean that anyone attempting to convince others to embrace one of false virtues would face prosecution. Any judgement on this matter should ensure that it makes clear where the Synod would expect the magistrates to draw the line. For example, in the past people have championed raids to free slaves from the Grendel, the Druj, and the Asaveans which have resulted in widespread spontaneous auras that appeared to be Anarchist in nature. If the Synod intends to proscribe such acts, they would need to make that clear in the wording of the judgement. A differently worded proscription might try to only proscribe someone actively trying to convince people to embrace a false virtue; this would be far less expansive but in practice it might be little different to proscribing someone performing a false virtue dedication.
Likewise the Synod could proscribe the promotion of false paragons. The judgement of recognition is used to recognise a specific figure as a false paragon - passing a judgement proscribing the promotion of false paragons would make it illegal to promote one - anyone inviting people to draw inspiration from a known false paragon or encouraging others to emulate the figure would then be subject to prosecution for blasphemy.
One step the magistrates have not taken, due to the political implications, is to raise a judgement proscribing the celebration of the Feast of the Broken Wheel by the Freeborn. This festival could at best be described as irreverent - many traditionalists have seen its deliberate impiety as nothing short of blasphemy. The Synod could test the limits of their new powers by raising a judgement of proscription which forbade the celebration of the festival, though doubtless such an attempt would incur the wroth of many Freeborn priests and sutannirs.
Desecration
- The crime of desecration is defined as: The removal of spontaneously created virtuous auras such as legacies of ascendance to paragonhood. This includes such auras arising on areas and objects, and those people who do not wished them removed.
The law of desecration is fairly recent having been created in Summer 377YE to outlaw the removal of spontaneous auras and then amended three years later to restrict it to the "desecration" of virtuous auras. Part of the reason the law was created was to protect the legacies associated with paragons and exemplars. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to determine if a spontaneous aura is "virtuous" or not because they rarely duplicate the effects of auras created with liao ceremonies and insight will not reveal the Virtue of an aura. With that in mind, the magistrates have focused on confirming the intent of the original law. They have submitted the following administrative judgement of proscription.
The desecration or destruction of any relics associated with a paragon or exemplar, or the destruction of any memorial associated with them, is proscribed.
General Assembly Administrative JudgementIf this judgement is approved by the majority of the General Assembly then it will make it illegal for any individual to remove or replace an aura on a relic associated with a paragon or exemplar, or otherwise destroy such an item. Likewise, removing spontaneous auras that have arisen in a place as the result of actions taken by an exemplar or paragon would be a crime. Spontaneous auras are often unique in nature, but their provenance can often be identified by magic such as Skein of Years or Clear Lens of the Eternal River- their historical association with such an important figure almost invariably leaves a trace. If the judgement is not passed, then the various relics and spontaneous auras will not be protected by Imperial law from destruction or desecration.
Other Potential Desecrations
- The current wording of the law is very specific and only allows for a very narrow range of possibilities
- The Senate could amend the law to empower the Synod to proscribe more general acts of desecration or the removal of auras
The current law is very specific in nature - rather than granting the Synod broad sway over a range of possible activities which could collectively be described as desecration, it explicitly outlaws the removal of auras under very specific situations. The auras must be spontaneous - so no aura created using liao would ever be covered by this law as it stands - a relic created by a paragon would not be protected from desecration under this law if the paragon used liao to make the aura.
Likewise powerful auras associated with true liao, such as the consecrations often found at memorials and sacred sites would not be covered by this law. In theory a more expansive law would give the Synod the power to proscribe any kind of desecration of a memorial or sacred site created by a priest of the Way. As things stand, it would not be illegal for a citizen to seek to destroy the true consecration in Holberg, or the one in the Soveann.
In the same vein items with spontaneous auras on them are protected from desecration, but not items hallowed with true liao. For that matter, the Senate could give the Synod the power to proscribe the removal of any aura without the permission of the owner. All these are acts that would best be defined as desecration, but the Synod could not proscribe them under the current wording of the law. To proscribe these actions would require the Imperial Senate to change the law to use a more expansive definition of desecration.
Heresy
- The crime of heresy is defined as: The wilful rejection, or perversion of, the orthodox Doctrines of the Faith as laid down by the Imperial Synod, or actively teaching and promoting false doctrines.
In the history of the Empire, there have been numerous schisms and heresies which have been carefully catalogued. Most of these heresies are historical in nature now, and few pose a direct threat to the stability of the Empire at this time. Accordingly the magistrates have not submitted individual judgements of proscription for each of these heresies. There is nothing to stop an individual priest raising their own judgement of proscription for a specific heresy - but the magistrates don't see any pressing need to settle these matters urgently. There will be plenty of time for the Synod to consider their response carefully, if a heresy should become active once more.
The Excessionist Heresy is the one known heresy that appears to be active currently. In Summer the Synod called Yosephus Morningson to inquisition for preaching the "creed of the Temple of Balance". He was subsequently condemned on that basis and a trial is expected at the coming summit. Preaching excessionism was also one of the reasons cited by Tarquinius Ankarien for calling Lady Josephine of Adina's Charge to inquisition at the same summit.
Accordingly, the Synod have been asked to consider a clear statement proscribing the heresy of excessionism.
The General Assembly proscribes the Excessionist Heresy - the claim that too much of a Virtue can be as bad as too little.
General Assembly Administrative JudgementIf the Synod pass this judgement then anyone preaching excessionism, the idea that too much of a Virtue can be as bad as too little will proscribed under the law. The trial of Yosephus Morningson will proceed normally no matter the outcome, because they have already been condemned by the Synod but anyone who expresses similar ideas in the future will face prosecution by the magistrates. If the General Assembly reject the judgement and don't proscribe excessionism, then it will not be illegal to preach such ideas in the future.
Options
- The Synod could proscribe the Yaelian Heresy
- The Synod could easily proscribe any of the more well-known heresies
- If the Synod proscribe a new heresy they must take care to clearly outline the heretical beliefs
- The Synod could proscribe the beliefs of the Marcher Orcs
Perhaps the most dramatic instance of heresy in recent times is the Yaelian Heresy, in which Yael of Felix's Watch, a Highborn theologian, claimed to have received a past life vision showing herself to be the First Empress reborn. As her fame spread, thousands placed their trust in her, believing her to be the reincarnation of the founder of the Empire. Eventually her lies were uncovered through the discovery that crucial documents supporting her claims of a place beyond the Labyrinth, which she called the "Land Without Tears", were forgeries. She was ultimately condemned by the Synod and executed, but to this day there are folk who believe that Yael was the First Empress reborn, and her account of the Land Without Tears was a true vision. The Yaelian heretics have not caused issues in many years, and short of Yael herself being reborn, they are not likely to do so.
If the General Assembly proscribes this heresy, then it will make it definitively clear that no part of Yael's claims were ever true. Anyone who professes such beliefs or worse proselytizes them will face prosecution under Imperial law. The magistrates won't actively seek out these heretics, unless given clear instruction to do so, since the cost and disruption would be significant, but it would allow them to act swiftly should there be any attempt to resurrect the heresy.
There are plenty of other historic heresies, blasphemies, and schisms known to the Empire. The Synod would require a separate judgement for each heresy they wished to proscribe, but they would not need to provide any additional details if they wanted to outlaw lucidianism for example, because the heresy is well known and detailed. If the Synod proscribed a new heresy that was not familiar, then the judgement would need to include a clear statement of the heretical beliefs, so that the magistrates could correctly identify it.
One issue that the Constitutional Court do point out is that it would not remotely be constitutional for the Synod to attempt to proscribe the expression or discussion of religious beliefs for some individuals but not others. In the past there has sometimes been a tacit belief that members of the Synod have special rights and the necessary training to investigate or contemplate religious heresies. That approach is directly counter to the ethics of Imperial law, which treats all citizens equally. Either everyone may use their judgement to consider the teachings of the Lucidians or nobody can. Any attempt to proscribe heresy for people who weren't priests would be immediately struck down as unconstitutional.
There is arguably a much more complicated heresy active in the Empire at this time: that of the Marcher orcs. These former thralls, freed along with their human neighbours when the Mournwold was liberated, still trace their religious beliefs to their Jotun roots. They firmly believe that they will reincarnate after death, provided they do not take up weapons to fight. While strange, these beliefs form the cornerstone of their entire world view - and it was clear they would not give them up to join the Empire. Their spiritual spokesperson Hap the Soft made it clear to the Marcher and Imperial Orcs assemblies that his people would be prepared to face death, and reincarnate, if anyone tried to force them to abandon their beliefs. This is unfortunate, because they are flatly at odds with the Doctrine of the Howling Abyss which explicitly states that orcs live only one life. This makes them heretical.
Thus far, the Empire has been resolving this problem by very assiduously looking the other way. Because the Marcher orcs only come to Anvil infrequently, and they don't proselytise their views, it has broadly been seen as better to let sleeping dogs lie than to force the execution of a population of these Marchers. But that can't continue forever - the longer the issue continues, the more it fundamentally undermines the moral authority of the Synod. Heresy can't be a crime, legally enforceable by law, while simultaneously there are hundreds of people living in the Mournwold who everyone knows reject one of the Doctrines of Faith.
Aware of the sensitivity of the subject, the magistrates have not submitted an administrative judgement of proscription - cognisant that that would force the Synod to act. If such a judgement is submitted, then the Synod will have no choice but to confront the issue, either directly outlaw the beliefs of the Marcher orcs, or if they failed the judgement, to implicitly approve them. Both courses of action would have far-reaching consequences - and wise heads determine that the Synod won't likely benefit from the magistrates rushing them on this. Still, it cannot be put off forever - at some point soon, the Synod will have to settle the matter of the Marcher orcs and the Doctrine of the Howling Abyss, one way or the other - a situation that is made more complex as more orc septs come to the attention of the Empire whose beliefs are incompatible with doctrine.
Idolatry
- The crime of idolatry is defined as: Subsuming human will and destiny to any inhuman entity or force. This includes the worship, veneration or exaltation of any such being or power.
Sadly, the Imperial legal system has struggled to hold the line on idolatry in recent times. There have been perennial problems in the Empire's negotiations with eternals, in which these creatures demand veneration, exaltation, adulation or sacrifice. Eleonaris, the so-called "Queen" of the Fields of Glory, demanded that a statue be built in her honour. The Imperial Senate even passed a Senate motion approving the sacrifice of a ship laden with treasure to please Rhianos the "Regent" of the Eternal Sea. The Synod could put an end to all this, by clearly proscribing these acts.
The General Assembly proscribes the creation of statues in the likeness of any eternal. It is idolatry to commission a structure designed to honour an inhuman entity.
General Assembly Administrative JudgementIf the General Assembly approves this judgement, then it will no longer be legal to create statues of an eternal. It won't be legal for the Senate or for anyone else to make sacrifices to them. Magicians will still be able to negotiate with eternals, but they won't be able to offer them veneration or sacrifice in return for their favour. It wouldn't be illegal for artists or actors to portray an eternal, but it would be illegal to create a grand statue of an eternal or commission any edifice clearly intended to honour them.
Pragmatists may argue that such restrictions tie the hands of the archmages who are often forced to use flattery to convince eternals to favour the Empire. There is no doubt at all that passing this judgement will make life considerably harder for the Conclave - there absolutely will be situations where magicians are forced to forego the help of an eternal because this proscription would make it impossible to meet their price. Arguably, that is why so little has been done to stop the practice in recent years. Traditionalists argue that is exactly why it is so important for the Synod to act now to ban the practice - otherwise people will always find a way to justify it when the opportunity presents itself. The best time to clamp down on this behaviour was centuries ago; the second best time is now.
If the Synod declines to proscribe the practice, then it is difficult to imagine the law of idolatry having any teeth in the future. Few people are going to accept the idea that it's illegal to venerate an inhuman power, but it's acceptable to build a giant statue or sacrifice a ship full of treasure to them. If the judgement does not pass, cases of idolatry will inevitably continue to rise. Trouble-makers like Sadogua, Janon, or Jaheris are likely to view it as an open invitation to seek the veneration of those to whom they offer their patronage.
Options
- The Synod could single out individual eternals, using a judgement of proscription for each one
- The Synod could proscribe the creation of fanes and similar structures
The Synod could try to proscribe statues or edifices to honour individual eternals - effectively singling out those eternals that were most problematic and proscribing them one at a time. That approach might be politically fraught. It's easy to proscribe edifices to venerate Agramant but they would arguably be illegal anyway, given the eternal is under enmity. The truth is that the eternals that are arguably most in need of being proscribed in this way - are the ones most likely to offer powerful aid in return. Trying to pick and choose between them will inevitably create a law that proscribes idolatry in some cases but permits it in others.
The Synod could choose to go further. Since their creation in 384YE in response to a request by the Conclave, the commission of a fane has been somewhat problematic. These structures are specifically dedicated to an eternal, serving as places where their power within the Empire is paramount. They must be conceded to the eternal in question, and some theologians argue that this is an even more direct example of idolatry than the creation of statues. Fanes are not the only way that an eternal might be placated - and these priests argue vehemently that any concedence of Imperial lands or structures to inhuman powers is a religious crime.
Proscribing all fanes would have profound implication for recent commissions, such as the fane of Sung, and for titles such as the Master of the Koboldi whose powers come from the College of Engineering conceded to Adamant.
Other Judgements
With the change in the way the magistrates apply the law, there is no further need for a judgement of condemnation and the court have instructed the Tribune to withdraw it. However, the expansion to the judgement of condemnation pushed by Jorma Steelhail that introduced castigation, penance and vindication do still provide considerable benefits. The Court have worked with the Tribune and the magistrates to provide additional new guidance to help the Synod use these judgements effectively.
Further Reading
- The final cut - 387YE Spring wind of fortune regarding the fallout of the constitutional crisis
- A little understanding - 386YE Winter wind of fortune about the aftermath of Judgement 42