Rebels and loyalists - Revision history

Twiggy at 21:46, 24 March 2026

2026-03-24T21:46:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:46, 24 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Category:Winds of Fortune]][[Category:386YE Autumn]][[Category:Recent History]]		[[Category:Winds of Fortune]][[Category:386YE Autumn]][[Category:Recent History]]
	<ic>		<ic>
	"If you had to be just one virtue dad, what would you be? You know like ~~paragons~~ are?"		"If you had to be just one virtue dad, what would you be? You know like pagarons are?"

	Katy Vintner was always full of questions. More than was good for her on occasion. Like that time she'd asked what would happen if someone let a fox into Ma Cooper's henhouse.		Katy Vintner was always full of questions. More than was good for her on occasion. Like that time she'd asked what would happen if someone let a fox into Ma Cooper's henhouse.
Line 41:		Line 41:
	The thing some people are a little more wary about is that, as part of their rebellion, they struck against and in some cases murdered fellow Marchers. Their rebellion brought to a boil generations of simmering resentment between the miners of the central and southern Mourn, and the yeofolk of the northern regions. It's hard not to see a recognition here as the Synod siding with the miners, and that's got a cost all of its own.		The thing some people are a little more wary about is that, as part of their rebellion, they struck against and in some cases murdered fellow Marchers. Their rebellion brought to a boil generations of simmering resentment between the miners of the central and southern Mourn, and the yeofolk of the northern regions. It's hard not to see a recognition here as the Synod siding with the miners, and that's got a cost all of its own.

	Of course, if someone digs a trench, you've got to stand on one side or the other. If the Synod choose not to recognise the Miners as exemplars now that they have been put forward then miners will see ''that'' as evidence that the Synod is siding with the ~~famers~~ and that'll cause trouble to.		Of course, if someone digs a trench, you've got to stand on one side or the other. If the Synod choose not to recognise the Miners as exemplars now that they have been put forward then miners will see ''that'' as evidence that the Synod is siding with the farmers and that'll cause trouble too.

	Neither of these is likely to cause a full on barn fire however. Marchers like to argue, it's what Sunday is for, some people say. If there are problems, it will be manageable. What will be more of an issue is if, after receiving the recognition he and his allies have so clearly been working towards for some time, Jedediah Boon is able to secure a [[writ of consecration]] and builds an [[inspirational location\|memorial]] dedicated to these rebels in the Mourn - presumably in [[Mournwold#Ore Hills\|Ore Hills]] once the Jotun are dealt with.		Neither of these is likely to cause a full on barn fire however. Marchers like to argue, it's what Sunday is for, some people say. If there are problems, it will be manageable. What will be more of an issue is if, after receiving the recognition he and his allies have so clearly been working towards for some time, Jedediah Boon is able to secure a [[writ of consecration]] and builds a [[inspirational location\|memorial]] dedicated to these rebels in the Mourn - presumably in [[Mournwold#Ore Hills\|Ore Hills]] once the Jotun are dealt with.

	That will be a lit match in a dry field. Firstly it's yet another monument to a Marcher who took up arms in rebellion. Technically you could argue the rebellion wasn't against the Empire, if you wanted to... just the other Marchers. Either way something like that is another barrel of trouble in a taproom full of drunks. Next time someone in the Marches isn't happy with the way things are going (and with the Marches it feels like there's always a next time), then they'll point to the memorial with its true consecration and say "What would Esme Hooper do? Would Mary Digger put up with this?"		That will be a lit match in a dry field. Firstly it's yet another monument to a Marcher who took up arms in rebellion. Technically you could argue the rebellion wasn't against the Empire, if you wanted to... just the other Marchers. Either way something like that is another barrel of trouble in a taproom full of drunks. Next time someone in the Marches isn't happy with the way things are going (and with the Marches it feels like there's always a next time), then they'll point to the memorial with its true consecration and say "What would Esme Hooper do? Would Mary Digger put up with this?"

Twiggy at 21:44, 23 March 2026

2026-03-23T21:44:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:44, 23 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Category:Winds of Fortune]][[Category:386YE Autumn]][[Category:Recent History]]		[[Category:Winds of Fortune]][[Category:386YE Autumn]][[Category:Recent History]]
	<ic>		<ic>
	"If you had to be just one virtue dad, what would you be? You know like ~~pagarons~~ are?"		"If you had to be just one virtue dad, what would you be? You know like paragons are?"

	Katy Vintner was always full of questions. More than was good for her on occasion. Like that time she'd asked what would happen if someone let a fox into Ma Cooper's henhouse.		Katy Vintner was always full of questions. More than was good for her on occasion. Like that time she'd asked what would happen if someone let a fox into Ma Cooper's henhouse.

Twiggy: /* Overview */

2025-07-12T23:42:34Z

Overview

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:42, 12 July 2025
Line 27:		Line 27:
	<div style="float:left; width: 500px; clear: left;">{{CaptionedImage\|file=The Versatile Pickaxe.jpg\|align=left\|caption=Resentment between miners and farmers in Mournwold had been simmering for almost three centuries, until it finally kicked off in 326YE.\|width=500}}</div>		<div style="float:left; width: 500px; clear: left;">{{CaptionedImage\|file=The Versatile Pickaxe.jpg\|align=left\|caption=Resentment between miners and farmers in Mournwold had been simmering for almost three centuries, until it finally kicked off in 326YE.\|width=500}}</div>
	==Overview==		==Overview==
	There are two developments in the Imperial Synod following the Autumn Equinox that have eyebrows raised across the Marches. The first is the decision of the [[Pride]] assembly to seek [[recognition]] for the leaders of ~~the~~ [[the Ore Hills Rebellion]]. The other is the [[revocation]] of one of the Marcher [[Senator\|senators]], for what seems to amount to an accusation of being "disloyal to the nation" - something that the Loyalty assembly has been very clear over the years is not acceptable.		There are two developments in the Imperial Synod following the Autumn Equinox that have eyebrows raised across the Marches. The first is the decision of the [[Pride]] assembly to seek [[recognition]] for the leaders of [[the Ore Hills Rebellion]]. The other is the [[revocation]] of one of the Marcher [[Senator\|senators]], for what seems to amount to an accusation of being "disloyal to the nation" - something that the Loyalty assembly has been very clear over the years is not acceptable.

	==Ore Hills Rebels==		==Ore Hills Rebels==

Hailmur: /* Eyes of Loyalty */

2025-05-01T23:36:21Z

Eyes of Loyalty

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:36, 1 May 2025
Line 57:		Line 57:
	* '''If the Loyalty Assembly don't denounce it, they will lose the ability to use the Eyes of Loyalty'''		* '''If the Loyalty Assembly don't denounce it, they will lose the ability to use the Eyes of Loyalty'''
	The Loyalty assembly has been [[Like_a_hurricane#Know_Your_Heart\|very clear]] that the virtuous must ''know your heart and what commands its devotion above all else.'' It is unvirtuous for any priest to try and coerce Loyalty, to tell someone who they ''should'' be Loyal to. The result of this commitment is that the Loyalty assembly is able to wield the [[Cardinal_of_Loyalty#Additional_Powers_-_The_Eyes_of_Loyalty\|Eyes of Loyalty]] - a special [[mandate]] that allows them to intensify the mandates of other assemblies. Over the years they have used this ability to encourage those who embrace a certain cause to Loyally support it, without dictating the loyalties the virtuous must, or should, have.		The Loyalty assembly has been [[Like_a_hurricane#Know_Your_Heart\|very clear]] that the virtuous must ''know your heart and what commands its devotion above all else.'' It is unvirtuous for any priest to try and coerce Loyalty, to tell someone who they ''should'' be Loyal to. The result of this commitment is that the Loyalty assembly is able to wield the [[Cardinal_of_Loyalty#Additional_Powers_-_The_Eyes_of_Loyalty\|Eyes of Loyalty]] - a special [[mandate]] that allows them to intensify the mandates of other assemblies. Over the years they have used this ability to encourage those who embrace a certain cause to Loyally support it, without dictating the loyalties the virtuous must, or should, have.
	{{SOP\|statement=We, the Marcher assembly, move to revoke Hal Talbot as Senator to Mitwold. It is clear that Hal was unprepared for the responsibilities that come with such a title and thus ill-equipped to stand alongside the other elected officials who have done and continue to do so much for our nation. I urge you to set aside your personal feelings towards this individual who has shown loyalty to his house but great disloyalty to his nation. He has yet to show willing to support his own territory, let alone the Marches, and should be removed from his position until such a time as he is prepared to make virtuous decisions on behalf of Mitwold.\|~~priest~~=~~Jack~~ Sawyer~~, Revocation~~, Marcher Assembly\|vote=Upheld 108-16\|when=Autumn Equinox 386YE}}		{{SOP\|statement=We, the Marcher assembly, move to revoke Hal Talbot as Senator to Mitwold. It is clear that Hal was unprepared for the responsibilities that come with such a title and thus ill-equipped to stand alongside the other elected officials who have done and continue to do so much for our nation. I urge you to set aside your personal feelings towards this individual who has shown loyalty to his house but great disloyalty to his nation. He has yet to show willing to support his own territory, let alone the Marches, and should be removed from his position until such a time as he is prepared to make virtuous decisions on behalf of Mitwold.\|by=John Sawyer, Marcher Assembly\|vote=Upheld 108-16\|when=Autumn Equinox 386YE}}
	One of the side effects of this commitment, however, has been that [[Revocation\|revocations]] and [[Excommunication\|excommunications]] for disloyalty to the nation or Empire would risk causing dissent. As far as the Loyalty assembly is concerned, any revocation or excommunication that assumes that a lack of loyalty to the Empire or a citizen's nation is the same as a lack of [[Loyalty]] would risk provoking dissent and unrest amongst those citizens who shared the recipient's apparent loyalties.		One of the side effects of this commitment, however, has been that [[Revocation\|revocations]] and [[Excommunication\|excommunications]] for disloyalty to the nation or Empire would risk causing dissent. As far as the Loyalty assembly is concerned, any revocation or excommunication that assumes that a lack of loyalty to the Empire or a citizen's nation is the same as a lack of [[Loyalty]] would risk provoking dissent and unrest amongst those citizens who shared the recipient's apparent loyalties.

Line 69:		Line 69:

	One element that gives some members of the Loyalty assembly pause is that this is not the first time a situation like this has arisen and it doesn't look like being the last. It's near certain to ''keep'' coming up, and this same problem is going to keep happening. Whenever an assembly tries to assume or coerce Loyalty, the Loyalty assembly will need to denounce them and risk inflaming tensions, or they will lose the Eyes of Loyalty. Is it, these folk wonder, still worth picking a fight over this, when there are [[One of us\|bigger fish to fry]]?		One element that gives some members of the Loyalty assembly pause is that this is not the first time a situation like this has arisen and it doesn't look like being the last. It's near certain to ''keep'' coming up, and this same problem is going to keep happening. Whenever an assembly tries to assume or coerce Loyalty, the Loyalty assembly will need to denounce them and risk inflaming tensions, or they will lose the Eyes of Loyalty. Is it, these folk wonder, still worth picking a fight over this, when there are [[One of us\|bigger fish to fry]]?

	==Further Reading==		==Further Reading==
	* [[The Ore Hills Rebellion]] - historical research regarding the Mournwold rebellion in which miners and yeofolk fought		* [[The Ore Hills Rebellion]] - historical research regarding the Mournwold rebellion in which miners and yeofolk fought
	* [[Like_a_hurricane#Know_Your_Heart\|Like a hurricane]] - 383YE Summer Wind of Fortune regarding the establishment of the Eyes of Loyalty		* [[Like_a_hurricane#Know_Your_Heart\|Like a hurricane]] - 383YE Summer Wind of Fortune regarding the establishment of the Eyes of Loyalty

Dre at 19:43, 23 April 2025

2025-04-23T19:43:49Z

Rafferty at 19:21, 23 April 2025

2025-04-23T19:21:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:21, 23 April 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[[Category:Winds of Fortune]][[Category:386YE Autumn]][[Category:Recent History]]
	<ic>		<ic>
	"If you had to be just one virtue dad, what would you be? You know like pagarons are?"		"If you had to be just one virtue dad, what would you be? You know like pagarons are?"

Rafferty: Created page with " "If you had to be just one virtue dad, what would you be? You know like pagarons are?" Katy Vintner was always full of questions. More than was good for her on occasion. Like that time she'd asked what would happen if someone let a fox into Ma Cooper's henhouse. "A paragon you mean?" "Yeah, that's what I said! Which virtue's the ''best'' dad? Which one would you be?" "It's a tough question... they're all important..." Katy Vintner gave her father a very hard s..."

2025-04-23T19:21:21Z

Created page with "<ic> "If you had to be just one virtue dad, what would you be? You know like pagarons are?" Katy Vintner was always full of questions. More than was good for her on occasion. Like that time she'd asked what would happen if someone let a fox into Ma Cooper's henhouse. "A paragon you mean?" "Yeah, that's what I said! Which virtue's the ''best'' dad? Which one would you be?" "It's a tough question... they're all important..." Katy Vintner gave her father a very hard s..."

New page

<ic>
"If you had to be just one virtue dad, what would you be? You know like pagarons are?"

Katy Vintner was always full of questions. More than was good for her on occasion. Like that time she'd asked what would happen if someone let a fox into Ma Cooper's henhouse.

"A paragon you mean?"

"Yeah, that's what I said! Which virtue's the ''best'' dad? Which one would you be?"

"It's a tough question... they're all important..."

Katy Vintner gave her father a very hard stare. She was thirteen years old now and if her dad thought she was going to be fobbed off with a non-answer, he was very much mistaken.

Tom pushed his head down so he could scratch the back of his neck and look at his feet, while the pondered the question.

"I reckon I'd be stubborn." he said eventually with a smile.

Katy rained punches on her father in outrage at his obvious cheating. "T'ain't a Virtue!" she howled.

"Why not? I reckon it should be!" he said laughing, as he tried desperately to fend her off.

Katy stepped back and folded her arms over her chest. "We learned about this in school. It can't be a Virtue. Ambition, Courage, Prosperity, Wisdom. They're all proper ''nouns''. Stubborn's an ''adjective''! And ''that'' means it ''can't'' be a Virtue." Having deployed an unbeatable argument she proudly waited for him to admit defeat.

Tom mused on that for a moment and then grinned at his daughter. "Well then I'd be Obstinacy" he said as the umpire rang the bell for the start of the second round.
</ic>
<div style="float:left; width: 500px; clear: left;">{{CaptionedImage|file=The Versatile Pickaxe.jpg|align=left|caption=Resentment between miners and farmers in Mournwold had been simmering for almost three centuries, until it finally kicked off in 326YE.|width=500}}</div>
==Overview==
There are two developments in the Imperial Synod following the Autumn Equinox that have eyebrows raised across the Marches. The first is the decision of the [[Pride]] assembly to seek [[recognition]] for the leaders of the [[the Ore Hills Rebellion]]. The other is the [[revocation]] of one of the Marcher [[Senator|senators]], for what seems to amount to an accusation of being "disloyal to the nation" - something that the Loyalty assembly has been very clear over the years is not acceptable.

==Ore Hills Rebels==
* '''The Pride Assembly has declared the leaders of the Ore Hills Rebellion to be examplars'''
* '''If the General Assembly concurs some folk will see it as the Synod siding with the miners over the farmers of the Mourn'''
* '''If the General Assembly strikes it down some folk will see it as the Synod siding with the farmers over the miners of the Mourn'''
* '''If true liao is used to make a memorial to the rebels it will strengthen independent spirit in the Mourn and force the question of who runs the Marches back into the spotlight'''

During the Autumn Equinox the Pride Assembly upheld the [[recognition]] of the leaders of [[the Ore Hills Rebellion]]. This recognition is now to be debated by the General Assembly. There has been some discussion about whether it is appropriate to recognise a group of people but it isn't entirely unknown to do so. [[The Marked]] for example are widely believed to be a group of people. The "trick" is that none of the six leaders - Esme Hooper, Mary Digger, Ezekial "Zeke" Boon, Henry Killinghall, Maggie John, and Tom John - are considered exemplars separately. It is their role as ringleaders of a rebellion that is being recognised as an inspiration of Pride.

If the recognition passes through the General Assembly, everyone in the Empire will know about their actions during the rebellion, and that the Synod believes that at least from the [[Pride#Guidance_on_the_Path|point of view of Pride]] they were laudable. Again, this isn't unprecedented - [[Isaella]] murdered an [[Emperor Nicovar|Emperor]] and is still an exemplar. It's certainly going to attract a little attention - rebellion against Imperial law is not something the Synod often endorses. A few professional concerned citizens ask where it will all end - will the leaders of the [[Freedom Heresy]] who killed Dawnish soldiers be considered exemplars next? Most people are more sensible, however.

The thing some people are a little more wary about is that, as part of their rebellion, they struck against and in some cases murdered fellow Marchers. Their rebellion brought to a boil generations of simmering resentment between the miners of the central and southern Mourn, and the yeofolk of the northern regions. It's hard not to see a recognition here as the Synod siding with the miners, and that's got a cost all of its own.

Of course, if someone digs a trench, you've got to stand on one side or the other. If the Synod choose not to recognise the Miners as examplars now that they have been put forward then miners will see ''that'' as evidence that the Synod is siding with the famers and that'll cause trouble to.

Neither of these is likely to cause a full on barn fire however. Marchers like to argue, it's what sunday is for, some people say. If there are problems, it will be manageable. What will be more of an issue is if, after receiving the recognition he and his allies have so clearly been working towards for some time, Jedediah Boon is able to secure a [[writ of consecration]] and builds an [[inspirational location|memorial]] dedicated to these rebels in the Mourn - presumably in [[Mournwold#Ore Hills|Ore Hills]] once the Jotun are dealt with.

That will be a lit match in a dry field. Firstly it's yet another monument to a Marcher who took up arms in rebellion. Technically you could argue the rebellion wasn't against the Empire, if you wanted to... just the other Marchers. Either way something like that is another barrel of trouble in a taproom full of drunks. Next time someone in the Marches isn't happy with the way things are going (and with the Marches it feels like there's always a next time), then they'll point to the memorial with it's true consecration and say "What would Esme Hooper do? Would Mary Digger put up with this?"

More immediately, the Ore Hills Rebellion was rooted in frustration that it was the yeofolk of Mournwold who appointed the senator, and saw to the distribution of Bourse seats. A location consecrated with true liao, dedicated to the people who lost everything trying to overthrow that very system, the system that has ruled the Marches ever since they marched... well that will cause serious trouble. All the arguments about just who should be appointing senators will come boiling back to the surface.

Whether or not the Ore Hills Rebels are made examplars is a decision for the General Assembly. If that goes ahead then consecration will be a decision for the Pride Assembly and then the General Assembly.

==Eyes of Loyalty==
* '''Hal Talbot has been denounced and revoked for a lack of Loyalty to the Marches'''
* '''The Eyes of Loyalty is founded on opposition to the misuse of Loyalty in this way'''
* '''If the Loyalty Assembly denounce the actions of the Marcher Assembly it risks open conflict between the two assemblies'''
* '''If the Loyalty Assembly don't denounce it, they will lose the ability to use the Eyes of Loyalty'''
The Loyalty assembly has been [[Like_a_hurricane#Know_Your_Heart|very clear]] that the virtuous must ''know your heart and what commands its devotion above all else.'' It is unvirtuous for any priest to try and coerce Loyalty, to tell someone who they ''should'' be Loyal to. The result of this commitment is that the Loyalty assembly is able to wield the [[Cardinal_of_Loyalty#Additional_Powers_-_The_Eyes_of_Loyalty|Eyes of Loyalty]] - a special [[mandate]] that allows them to intensify the mandates of other assemblies. Over the years they have used this ability to encourage those who embrace a certain cause to Loyally support it, without dictating the loyalties the virtuous must, or should, have.
{{SOP|statement=We, the Marcher assembly, move to revoke Hal Talbot as Senator to Mitwold. It is clear that Hal was unprepared for the responsibilities that come with such a title and thus ill-equipped to stand alongside the other elected officials who have done and continue to do so much for our nation. I urge you to set aside your personal feelings towards this individual who has shown loyalty to his house but great disloyalty to his nation. He has yet to show willing to support his own territory, let alone the Marches, and should be removed from his position until such a time as he is prepared to make virtuous decisions on behalf of Mitwold.|priest=Jack Sawyer, Revocation, Marcher Assembly|vote=Upheld 108-16|when=Autumn Equinox 386YE}}
One of the side effects of this commitment, however, has been that [[Revocation|revocations]] and [[Excommunication|excommunications]] for disloyalty to the nation or Empire would risk causing dissent. As far as the Loyalty assembly is concerned, any revocation or excommunication that assumes that a lack of loyalty to the Empire or a citizen's nation is the same as a lack of [[Loyalty]] would risk provoking dissent and unrest amongst those citizens who shared the recipient's apparent loyalties.

During the Autumn Equinox, the Marcher Assembly [[386YE_Autumn_Equinox_Synod_judgements#Judgement_127|upheld a revocation]] of one of their [[senator|senators]], '''Hal Talbot''' who had ''shown loyalty to his house but great disloyalty to his nation''. He had "''yet to show willing to support his own territory, let alone the Marches''" and "''should bre removed from his position until such time as he is prepared to make virtuous decisions on behalf of Mitwold''." The wording of any judgement is crucial, and this one reads very much like a revocation based on a lack of loyalty to the nation, one that presumes to tell the Talbot senator who they should be loyal to. And that is a red-rag to a bull to some in the Assembly.

There have even been some rumblings among the particularly Loyal dedicates in the Marches, who take their virtue very seriously. After all, do the Marchers not believe in "Pride in small things, loyalty to great ones"? Why would the Marcher assembly attempt to dictate who Hal Talbot should be Loyal to? Call him a shit senator if that's what you mean, but to call him out for having loyalties that do not put the nation first... that's a different matter. Right now, the pot is simmering but this revocation has put the Loyalty Assembly on an irrevocable course. During the Winter Solstice, the assembly will need to take action.

If they denounce the Marcher Assembly for attempting to dictate who Hal Talbot should be loyal to, and receive a [[greater majority]] of support from their members in the process, then the situation cannot help but escalate. Most Marchers are going to side with the national Assembly, but not all. Those will follow the lead of the Loyalty assembly, will make their dissatisfaction plain, and some of them will be Marchers.

Pitting one Assembly against another in this way is dangerous business. Yet it is the only way to show that the Loyalty assembly remains committed to the idea that one ''cannot'' dictate another's Loyalty. If they do nothing, or speak in support of the Marcher Assembly, or do not manage to achieve a greater majority for a denunciation, then folk will grumble but they will settle back on their heels. This course of action, however, sends a clear signal that the Loyalty Assembly are no longer prepared to fight those who misuse Loyalty in this way. It won't lead to a massive explosion, but the Eyes of Loyalty will lose their power and the assembly will no longer be able to use them to support other mandates in future.

One element that gives some members of the Loyalty assembly pause is that this is not the first time a situation like this has arisen and it doesn't look like being the last. It's near certain to ''keep'' coming up, and this same problem is going to keep happening. Whenever an assembly tries to assume or coerce Loyalty, the Loyalty assembly will need to denounce them and risk inflaming tensions, or they will lose the Eyes of Loyalty. Is it, these folk wonder, still worth picking a fight over this, when there are [[One of us|bigger fish to fry]]?
==Further Reading==
* [[The Ore Hills Rebellion]] - historical research regarding the Mournwold rebellion in which miners and yeofolk fought
* [[Like_a_hurricane#Know_Your_Heart|Like a hurricane]] - 383YE Summer Wind of Fortune regarding the establishment of the Eyes of Loyalty

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:43, 23 April 2025
Line 30:		Line 30:

	==Ore Hills Rebels==		==Ore Hills Rebels==
	* '''The Pride Assembly has declared the leaders of the Ore Hills Rebellion to be ~~examplars~~'''		* '''The Pride Assembly has declared the leaders of the Ore Hills Rebellion to be exemplars'''
	* '''If the General Assembly concurs some folk will see it as the Synod siding with the miners over the farmers of the Mourn'''		* '''If the General Assembly concurs some folk will see it as the Synod siding with the miners over the farmers of the Mourn'''
	* '''If the General Assembly strikes it down some folk will see it as the Synod siding with the farmers over the miners of the Mourn'''		* '''If the General Assembly strikes it down some folk will see it as the Synod siding with the farmers over the miners of the Mourn'''
Line 39:		Line 39:
	If the recognition passes through the General Assembly, everyone in the Empire will know about their actions during the rebellion, and that the Synod believes that at least from the [[Pride#Guidance_on_the_Path\|point of view of Pride]] they were laudable. Again, this isn't unprecedented - [[Isaella]] murdered an [[Emperor Nicovar\|Emperor]] and is still an exemplar. It's certainly going to attract a little attention - rebellion against Imperial law is not something the Synod often endorses. A few professional concerned citizens ask where it will all end - will the leaders of the [[Freedom Heresy]] who killed Dawnish soldiers be considered exemplars next? Most people are more sensible, however.		If the recognition passes through the General Assembly, everyone in the Empire will know about their actions during the rebellion, and that the Synod believes that at least from the [[Pride#Guidance_on_the_Path\|point of view of Pride]] they were laudable. Again, this isn't unprecedented - [[Isaella]] murdered an [[Emperor Nicovar\|Emperor]] and is still an exemplar. It's certainly going to attract a little attention - rebellion against Imperial law is not something the Synod often endorses. A few professional concerned citizens ask where it will all end - will the leaders of the [[Freedom Heresy]] who killed Dawnish soldiers be considered exemplars next? Most people are more sensible, however.

	The thing some people are a little more wary about is that, as part of their rebellion, they struck against and in some cases murdered fellow Marchers. Their rebellion brought to a boil generations of simmering resentment between the miners of the central and southern Mourn, and the yeofolk of the northern regions. It's hard not to see a recognition here as the Synod siding with the miners, and that's got a cost all of its own.		The thing some people are a little more wary about is that, as part of their rebellion, they struck against and in some cases murdered fellow Marchers. Their rebellion brought to a boil generations of simmering resentment between the miners of the central and southern Mourn, and the yeofolk of the northern regions. It's hard not to see a recognition here as the Synod siding with the miners, and that's got a cost all of its own.

	Of course, if someone digs a trench, you've got to stand on one side or the other. If the Synod choose not to recognise the Miners as ~~examplars~~ now that they have been put forward then miners will see ''that'' as evidence that the Synod is siding with the famers and that'll cause trouble to.		Of course, if someone digs a trench, you've got to stand on one side or the other. If the Synod choose not to recognise the Miners as exemplars now that they have been put forward then miners will see ''that'' as evidence that the Synod is siding with the famers and that'll cause trouble to.

	Neither of these is likely to cause a full on barn fire however. Marchers like to argue, it's what ~~sunday~~ is for, some people say. If there are problems, it will be manageable. What will be more of an issue is if, after receiving the recognition he and his allies have so clearly been working towards for some time, Jedediah Boon is able to secure a [[writ of consecration]] and builds an [[inspirational location\|memorial]] dedicated to these rebels in the Mourn - presumably in [[Mournwold#Ore Hills\|Ore Hills]] once the Jotun are dealt with.		Neither of these is likely to cause a full on barn fire however. Marchers like to argue, it's what Sunday is for, some people say. If there are problems, it will be manageable. What will be more of an issue is if, after receiving the recognition he and his allies have so clearly been working towards for some time, Jedediah Boon is able to secure a [[writ of consecration]] and builds an [[inspirational location\|memorial]] dedicated to these rebels in the Mourn - presumably in [[Mournwold#Ore Hills\|Ore Hills]] once the Jotun are dealt with.

	That will be a lit match in a dry field. Firstly it's yet another monument to a Marcher who took up arms in rebellion. Technically you could argue the rebellion wasn't against the Empire, if you wanted to... just the other Marchers. Either way something like that is another barrel of trouble in a taproom full of drunks. Next time someone in the Marches isn't happy with the way things are going (and with the Marches it feels like there's always a next time), then they'll point to the memorial with ~~it's~~ true consecration and say "What would Esme Hooper do? Would Mary Digger put up with this?"		That will be a lit match in a dry field. Firstly it's yet another monument to a Marcher who took up arms in rebellion. Technically you could argue the rebellion wasn't against the Empire, if you wanted to... just the other Marchers. Either way something like that is another barrel of trouble in a taproom full of drunks. Next time someone in the Marches isn't happy with the way things are going (and with the Marches it feels like there's always a next time), then they'll point to the memorial with its true consecration and say "What would Esme Hooper do? Would Mary Digger put up with this?"

	More immediately, the Ore Hills Rebellion was rooted in frustration that it was the yeofolk of Mournwold who appointed the senator, and saw to the distribution of Bourse seats. A location consecrated with true liao, dedicated to the people who lost everything trying to overthrow that very system, the system that has ruled the Marches ever since they marched... well that will cause serious trouble. All the arguments about just who should be appointing senators will come boiling back to the surface.		More immediately, the Ore Hills Rebellion was rooted in frustration that it was the yeofolk of Mournwold who appointed the senator, and saw to the distribution of Bourse seats. A location consecrated with true liao, dedicated to the people who lost everything trying to overthrow that very system, the system that has ruled the Marches ever since they marched... well that will cause serious trouble. All the arguments about just who should be appointing senators will come boiling back to the surface.

	Whether or not the Ore Hills Rebels are made ~~examplars~~ is a decision for the General Assembly. If that goes ahead then consecration will be a decision for the Pride Assembly and then the General Assembly.		Whether or not the Ore Hills Rebels are made exemplars is a decision for the General Assembly. If that goes ahead then consecration will be a decision for the Pride Assembly and then the General Assembly.

	==Eyes of Loyalty==		==Eyes of Loyalty==
Line 60:		Line 60:
	One of the side effects of this commitment, however, has been that [[Revocation\|revocations]] and [[Excommunication\|excommunications]] for disloyalty to the nation or Empire would risk causing dissent. As far as the Loyalty assembly is concerned, any revocation or excommunication that assumes that a lack of loyalty to the Empire or a citizen's nation is the same as a lack of [[Loyalty]] would risk provoking dissent and unrest amongst those citizens who shared the recipient's apparent loyalties.		One of the side effects of this commitment, however, has been that [[Revocation\|revocations]] and [[Excommunication\|excommunications]] for disloyalty to the nation or Empire would risk causing dissent. As far as the Loyalty assembly is concerned, any revocation or excommunication that assumes that a lack of loyalty to the Empire or a citizen's nation is the same as a lack of [[Loyalty]] would risk provoking dissent and unrest amongst those citizens who shared the recipient's apparent loyalties.

	During the Autumn Equinox, the Marcher Assembly [[386YE_Autumn_Equinox_Synod_judgements#Judgement_127\|upheld a revocation]] of one of their [[senator\|senators]], '''Hal Talbot''' who had ''shown loyalty to his house but great disloyalty to his nation''. He had "''yet to show willing to support his own territory, let alone the Marches''" and "''should ~~bre~~ removed from his position until such time as he is prepared to make virtuous decisions on behalf of Mitwold''." The wording of any judgement is crucial, and this one reads very much like a revocation based on a lack of loyalty to the nation, one that presumes to tell the Talbot senator who they should be loyal to. And that is a red-rag to a bull to some in the Assembly.		During the Autumn Equinox, the Marcher Assembly [[386YE_Autumn_Equinox_Synod_judgements#Judgement_127\|upheld a revocation]] of one of their [[senator\|senators]], '''Hal Talbot''' who had ''shown loyalty to his house but great disloyalty to his nation''. He had "''yet to show willing to support his own territory, let alone the Marches''" and "''should be removed from his position until such time as he is prepared to make virtuous decisions on behalf of Mitwold''." The wording of any judgement is crucial, and this one reads very much like a revocation based on a lack of loyalty to the nation, one that presumes to tell the Talbot senator who they should be loyal to. And that is a red-rag to a bull to some in the Assembly.

	There have even been some rumblings among the particularly Loyal dedicates in the Marches, who take their virtue very seriously. After all, do the Marchers not believe in "Pride in small things, loyalty to great ones"? Why would the Marcher assembly attempt to dictate who Hal Talbot should be Loyal to? Call him a shit senator if that's what you mean, but to call him out for having loyalties that do not put the nation first... that's a different matter. Right now, the pot is simmering but this revocation has put the Loyalty Assembly on an irrevocable course. During the Winter Solstice, the assembly will need to take action.		There have even been some rumblings among the particularly Loyal dedicates in the Marches, who take their virtue very seriously. After all, do the Marchers not believe in "Pride in small things, loyalty to great ones"? Why would the Marcher assembly attempt to dictate who Hal Talbot should be Loyal to? Call him a shit senator if that's what you mean, but to call him out for having loyalties that do not put the nation first... that's a different matter. Right now, the pot is simmering but this revocation has put the Loyalty Assembly on an irrevocable course. During the Winter Solstice, the assembly will need to take action.