The final cut - Revision history

Dre at 18:59, 18 January 2026

2026-01-18T18:59:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:59, 18 January 2026
Line 189:		Line 189:
	<p>We are going to redesign this part of the game to make it work better. Players are welcome to send feedback at any time, but please don't attempt to change this part of the game in-character using the Senate. Once we've completed a review and made any changes, the Senate will be free to change religious laws as usual.</box>		<p>We are going to redesign this part of the game to make it work better. Players are welcome to send feedback at any time, but please don't attempt to change this part of the game in-character using the Senate. Once we've completed a review and made any changes, the Senate will be free to change religious laws as usual.</box>
	</div>		</div>
	Such a review will take time. Until that happens, they ask the Imperial Senate not to make any changes to Imperial law on the matter of religious crimes, lest that make the job more difficult. In the meantime, the Court has confirmed that the correct legal procedure is for the Synod to determine to the best of ~~it's~~ ability an individual has committed a religious crime. If that happens, then they can use a judgement of condemnation to condemn them and a magistrate will then conduct the trial, based on the assumption that the Synod has correctly determined that the actions constitute a religious crime.		Such a review will take time. Until that happens, they ask the Imperial Senate not to make any changes to Imperial law on the matter of religious crimes, lest that make the job more difficult. In the meantime, the Court has confirmed that the correct legal procedure is for the Synod to determine to the best of its ability an individual has committed a religious crime. If that happens, then they can use a judgement of condemnation to condemn them and a magistrate will then conduct the trial, based on the assumption that the Synod has correctly determined that the actions constitute a religious crime.

	This means that the role of the magistrate is limited to ensuring that no miscarriage of justice is being enacted. The prosecution must still meet basic evidential standards - they must present reasoning that shows why the actions the suspects are accused of are broadly compatible with the legal definition of blasphemy or heresy. Provided they meet that very basic standard, the magistrate will ''not'' try to assess whether actions constitute a religious crime or not - because that determination has already been made by the Synod. They will restrict their judgement to assessing whether or not the individual committed the actions they are accused of.		This means that the role of the magistrate is limited to ensuring that no miscarriage of justice is being enacted. The prosecution must still meet basic evidential standards - they must present reasoning that shows why the actions the suspects are accused of are broadly compatible with the legal definition of blasphemy or heresy. Provided they meet that very basic standard, the magistrate will ''not'' try to assess whether actions constitute a religious crime or not - because that determination has already been made by the Synod. They will restrict their judgement to assessing whether or not the individual committed the actions they are accused of.

Matt: Text replacement - "[[Imperial Synod" to "[[Synod"

2026-01-15T22:15:22Z

Text replacement - "[[Imperial Synod" to "[[Synod"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:15, 15 January 2026
Line 24:		Line 24:
	{{CaptionedImage\|file=CardWisdom.jpg\|width=250\|caption=Silas of the Cenotaph, Cardinal of Wisdom\|align=left}}		{{CaptionedImage\|file=CardWisdom.jpg\|width=250\|caption=Silas of the Cenotaph, Cardinal of Wisdom\|align=left}}
	==Overview==		==Overview==
	At the Autumn Equinox 386YE, four citizens publicly swore an oath to bear an [[aura]] of [[Malign spiritual presences#Peace\|Peace]] for the coming year. Three of the citizens were [[cardinal\|cardinals]] of the [[~~Imperial~~ Synod]], and the fourth was acting as [[proxy]] to the [[Cardinal of Prosperity]]. In the history of the Empire, there has never been a successful [[judgement]] of condemnation against a member of the [[Assembly#Assembly_of_the_Nine\|Assembly of the Nine]] elected by the Virtue assemblies. Despite this, all four were quickly [[Sanction#Condemnation\|condemned]] as [[Religious_crime#Heresy\|heretics]] and [[Religious_crime#Blasphemy\|blasphemers]] by the [[Assembly#The_Virtue_Assemblies\|Assembly]] of [[Vigilance]] and a trial was scheduled to happen at the subsequent summit.		At the Autumn Equinox 386YE, four citizens publicly swore an oath to bear an [[aura]] of [[Malign spiritual presences#Peace\|Peace]] for the coming year. Three of the citizens were [[cardinal\|cardinals]] of the [[Synod]], and the fourth was acting as [[proxy]] to the [[Cardinal of Prosperity]]. In the history of the Empire, there has never been a successful [[judgement]] of condemnation against a member of the [[Assembly#Assembly_of_the_Nine\|Assembly of the Nine]] elected by the Virtue assemblies. Despite this, all four were quickly [[Sanction#Condemnation\|condemned]] as [[Religious_crime#Heresy\|heretics]] and [[Religious_crime#Blasphemy\|blasphemers]] by the [[Assembly#The_Virtue_Assemblies\|Assembly]] of [[Vigilance]] and a trial was scheduled to happen at the subsequent summit.

	While preparations were made for the trial of the four, the Synod passed several judgements, all of which related to the trial, the underlying issues and the conduct of those involved. Several judgements passed by various assemblies decried the accusations of blasphemy and heresy, and called for a much narrower definition of the crime than is typically understood. The civil service had issued some guidance to the [[~~Imperial~~ Synod]] on how the General Assembly might use a [[judgement]] of [[Sanction#Vindication\|vindication]] to clear the accused, but every judgement stopped short of that - and it was clear that many priests were unhappy with the actions of those involved.		While preparations were made for the trial of the four, the Synod passed several judgements, all of which related to the trial, the underlying issues and the conduct of those involved. Several judgements passed by various assemblies decried the accusations of blasphemy and heresy, and called for a much narrower definition of the crime than is typically understood. The civil service had issued some guidance to the [[Synod]] on how the General Assembly might use a [[judgement]] of [[Sanction#Vindication\|vindication]] to clear the accused, but every judgement stopped short of that - and it was clear that many priests were unhappy with the actions of those involved.

	The trial itself collapsed in dramatic fashion following a [[statement of principle]], the now infamous ''[[386YE_Winter_Solstice_Synod_judgements#Judgement_42\|Judgement 42]] of the General Assembly'', that laid out new guidelines on how religious crimes should be judged. The judgement made it impossible for the magistrates to continue with the proceedings, and they ruled that if any trial was to take place then it would be necessary for a new judgement of condemnation to be raised.		The trial itself collapsed in dramatic fashion following a [[statement of principle]], the now infamous ''[[386YE_Winter_Solstice_Synod_judgements#Judgement_42\|Judgement 42]] of the General Assembly'', that laid out new guidelines on how religious crimes should be judged. The judgement made it impossible for the magistrates to continue with the proceedings, and they ruled that if any trial was to take place then it would be necessary for a new judgement of condemnation to be raised.

Teal: spelling-grammar

2025-06-11T18:02:40Z

spelling-grammar

Show changes

Kirkbride at 17:57, 11 June 2025

2025-06-11T17:57:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:57, 11 June 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Category:Winds of Fortune]][[Category:~~386YE Winter~~]][[Category:Recent History]]		[[Category:Winds of Fortune]][[Category:387YE Spring]][[Category:Recent History]]
	<ic>Metella shifted her quill and ink to the side of her desk, as she mentally rifled though her thoughts for the umpteenth time. The parchment in front of her had been sat here on the desk for three days now, despite which it remained stubbornly blank.		<ic>Metella shifted her quill and ink to the side of her desk, as she mentally rifled though her thoughts for the umpteenth time. The parchment in front of her had been sat here on the desk for three days now, despite which it remained stubbornly blank.

Novemberalice: /* Questions for the Magistrates */

2025-06-11T17:11:05Z

Questions for the Magistrates

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 11 June 2025
Line 173:		Line 173:
	It is not explicit whether the judgement submitted by '''Tarquinius Ankarien''' and passed by the General Assembly contains conditions by which the Synod might judge whether an action constitutes heresy or blasphemy or whether it was intended to be used by the magistrate conducting the trial. The judgement passed shortly before the trial began, causing a hasty convention of senior magistrates outside the trial room.		It is not explicit whether the judgement submitted by '''Tarquinius Ankarien''' and passed by the General Assembly contains conditions by which the Synod might judge whether an action constitutes heresy or blasphemy or whether it was intended to be used by the magistrate conducting the trial. The judgement passed shortly before the trial began, causing a hasty convention of senior magistrates outside the trial room.

	The magistrate in charge of the trial, '''Cosme i Zuhri i Guerra''', took the view that the Synod intended them to follow the guidance in the judgement. As legal doctrine gives the magistrate the right to determine how they conduct a trial, the magistrate indicated that they intended to do so in accordance with the judgement. After a short but fractious conference with '''Abraham''' and '''Karkovitch''', ~~Coseme~~ announced the trial would proceed on the basis laid out in the judgement, but would be delayed until the next day to allow the priests who raised the original judgements time to reframe their prosecution. However, after subsequent discussion the [[Scrutiny#Constitutional Court\|Constitutional Court]] announced that the implications of the judgement were so far-reaching that it was not possible to continue with the trial.		The magistrate in charge of the trial, '''Cosme i Zuhri i Guerra''', took the view that the Synod intended them to follow the guidance in the judgement. As legal doctrine gives the magistrate the right to determine how they conduct a trial, the magistrate indicated that they intended to do so in accordance with the judgement. After a short but fractious conference with '''Abraham''' and '''Karkovitch''', Cosme announced the trial would proceed on the basis laid out in the judgement, but would be delayed until the next day to allow the priests who raised the original judgements time to reframe their prosecution. However, after subsequent discussion the [[Scrutiny#Constitutional Court\|Constitutional Court]] announced that the implications of the judgement were so far-reaching that it was not possible to continue with the trial.

	If magistrates are to use a set of criteria to assess if actions constitute a religious crime then it is not entirely clear what the purpose of a [[Condemnation\|Judgement of Condemnation]] is. Crucially, the fact that the judgement passed raises serious questions about the basis used by the Vigilance Assembly when they raised the original judgements of condemnation. Did the Vigilance Assembly intend the magistrates to assess whether the actions of the four met the legal definition of heresy and blasphemy or had they already concluded that that bar had been met? In the view of the Constitutional Court it was impossible for the trial to proceed without absolute clarity from the Synod on what basis such a trial should be conducted.		If magistrates are to use a set of criteria to assess if actions constitute a religious crime then it is not entirely clear what the purpose of a [[Condemnation\|Judgement of Condemnation]] is. Crucially, the fact that the judgement passed raises serious questions about the basis used by the Vigilance Assembly when they raised the original judgements of condemnation. Did the Vigilance Assembly intend the magistrates to assess whether the actions of the four met the legal definition of heresy and blasphemy or had they already concluded that that bar had been met? In the view of the Constitutional Court it was impossible for the trial to proceed without absolute clarity from the Synod on what basis such a trial should be conducted.
Line 196:		Line 196:

	As per [[A_little_understanding#The_Synod_Judges\|the guidance issued previously]], the ''only'' way that the Synod could influence or prevent the ensuing trial would be if the General Assembly passed a judgement of ''vindication''. If that was worded appropriately, then it would override any previous judgement of condemnation by the Synod.		As per [[A_little_understanding#The_Synod_Judges\|the guidance issued previously]], the ''only'' way that the Synod could influence or prevent the ensuing trial would be if the General Assembly passed a judgement of ''vindication''. If that was worded appropriately, then it would override any previous judgement of condemnation by the Synod.

	==Further Reading==		==Further Reading==
	* [[A little understanding]] - 386YE Winter wind of fortune discussing the initial repercussions of the peaceful decision		* [[A little understanding]] - 386YE Winter wind of fortune discussing the initial repercussions of the peaceful decision
	* [[Malign spiritual presences]]		* [[Malign spiritual presences]]

Novemberalice: /* Questions for Wintermark */

2025-06-11T17:08:47Z

Questions for Wintermark

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:08, 11 June 2025
Line 151:		Line 151:
	If this mandate is enacted, then it will encourage people in Wintermark to treat the words of the Synod with suspicion. They will judge harshly any statement of principle passed or mandate enacted, aware of the corruption in the Assembly of Nine at the heart of the Synod.		If this mandate is enacted, then it will encourage people in Wintermark to treat the words of the Synod with suspicion. They will judge harshly any statement of principle passed or mandate enacted, aware of the corruption in the Assembly of Nine at the heart of the Synod.
	<div style="float:right; width: 200px; clear: left;">{{CaptionedImage\|file=Assembly_Wintermark.png\|width=3200px\|align=right}}</div>		<div style="float:right; width: 200px; clear: left;">{{CaptionedImage\|file=Assembly_Wintermark.png\|width=3200px\|align=right}}</div>
	If that happens, then any mandate that does not pass with a [[greater majority]] will have limited or no effect on Wintermark, unless that mandate were passed by the Wintermark Assembly itself. No amount of [[liao]] will persuade the people of the' Mark to listen to the mandate unless the Synod is able to speak with the resounding clarity produced by a greater majority.		If that happens, then any mandate that does not pass with a [[greater majority]] will have limited or no effect on Wintermark, unless that mandate were passed by the Wintermark Assembly itself. No amount of [[liao]] will persuade the people of the 'Mark to listen to the mandate unless the Synod is able to speak with the resounding clarity produced by a greater majority.

	Such a decision is not to be taken lightly, for it would not be easy to reverse. It would need more than just a compelling statement of principle in the Wintermark Assembly to convince the people of the Mark to regain their trust in the Synod. It would have to be accompanied by clear evidence that the Assembly of Nine are no longer dealing with malign spiritual auras and the General Assembly are making more responsible decisions.		Such a decision is not to be taken lightly, for it would not be easy to reverse. It would need more than just a compelling statement of principle in the Wintermark Assembly to convince the people of the Mark to regain their trust in the Synod. It would have to be accompanied by clear evidence that the Assembly of Nine are no longer dealing with malign spiritual auras and the General Assembly are making more responsible decisions.

Emmanovi: /* Competition and Unity */ sp - the Tribune is referred to in the singular, adding link

2025-06-11T17:08:00Z

Competition and Unity: sp - the Tribune is referred to in the singular, adding link

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:08, 11 June 2025
Line 128:		Line 128:
	[[Varushka]], [[Urizen]], and now potentially [[Wintermark]] all take issue with [[mandate\|mandates]] enacted by the General Assembly that do not achieve a greater majority. If one of these mandates is upheld and enacted without that majority, it will have no impact in those nations critical of such things. This risks causing further disruption, as the majority of the Empire's virtuous citizens follow the guidance of the Synod but those other nations continue to argue, their concerns in no way mollified. It's not possible to predict what form this might take, but it will certainly mean more disruption for the Synod.		[[Varushka]], [[Urizen]], and now potentially [[Wintermark]] all take issue with [[mandate\|mandates]] enacted by the General Assembly that do not achieve a greater majority. If one of these mandates is upheld and enacted without that majority, it will have no impact in those nations critical of such things. This risks causing further disruption, as the majority of the Empire's virtuous citizens follow the guidance of the Synod but those other nations continue to argue, their concerns in no way mollified. It's not possible to predict what form this might take, but it will certainly mean more disruption for the Synod.

	As such the ~~Tribunes~~ of the Synod ~~have~~ advised that if one of these mandates is raised, it might be prudent for the Cardinal of Vigilance or the Cardinal of Wisdom (as appropriate) to request that [[Cardinal#Further_Scrutiny\|further scrutiny]] be applied, ensuring as many Synod members as possible have time to discuss and make their opinions known. If both mandates are raised and upheld, the ~~Tribunes note~~ that as with all competing mandates it is the one with the greater margin that will be enacted - meaning that it is just as important for priests to vote against a mandate they do not support as it is to vote in favour of one they do support.		As such the [[Tribune of the Synod]] has advised that if one of these mandates is raised, it might be prudent for the Cardinal of Vigilance or the Cardinal of Wisdom (as appropriate) to request that [[Cardinal#Further_Scrutiny\|further scrutiny]] be applied, ensuring as many Synod members as possible have time to discuss and make their opinions known. If both mandates are raised and upheld, the Tribune notes that as with all competing mandates it is the one with the greater margin that will be enacted - meaning that it is just as important for priests to vote against a mandate they do not support as it is to vote in favour of one they do support.

	===No Clear Decision===		===No Clear Decision===

Novemberalice: /* Questions for Wintermark */

2025-06-11T17:07:24Z

Questions for Wintermark

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:07, 11 June 2025
Line 143:		Line 143:
	{{SOP\|by=Ingrid Talon-of-the-Mark, Wintermark Assembly\|when=Winter Solstice 386YE\|statement=The Assembly of Nine have dabbled with malign spiritual forces in an irresponsible way. The General Assembly continues to act with reckless disregard for the finite resources in of the Empire. While this chaos continues we, your stormcrows, urge the people of Wintermark to heed the guidance of the National Assembly over the poor example set by the rest of the Synod.\|vote=Greater Majority (180-34)}}		{{SOP\|by=Ingrid Talon-of-the-Mark, Wintermark Assembly\|when=Winter Solstice 386YE\|statement=The Assembly of Nine have dabbled with malign spiritual forces in an irresponsible way. The General Assembly continues to act with reckless disregard for the finite resources in of the Empire. While this chaos continues we, your stormcrows, urge the people of Wintermark to heed the guidance of the National Assembly over the poor example set by the rest of the Synod.\|vote=Greater Majority (180-34)}}

	The [[Wintermark]] Assembly has openly criticized the decisions of the Assembly of Nine to dabble with malign spiritual forces. They passed a judgement, with a greater majority, calling them irresponsible and criticizing the decisions of the General Assembly to act with reckless ~~disregar~~ for the Empire's wellbeing. The judgement concluded with a collective plea from the [[Stormcrow\|Stormcrows]] at Anvil for the people of Wintermark to turn their backs on the other assemblies.		The [[Wintermark]] Assembly has openly criticized the decisions of the Assembly of Nine to dabble with malign spiritual forces. They passed a judgement, with a greater majority, calling them irresponsible and criticizing the decisions of the General Assembly to act with reckless disregard for the Empire's wellbeing. The judgement concluded with a collective plea from the [[Stormcrow\|Stormcrows]] at Anvil for the people of Wintermark to turn their backs on the other assemblies.

	A dramatic and controversial statement like this is bound to cause a reaction. By itself, such a plea might not be enough to convince people that they should stop listening to the Synod. In light of the controversy surrounding the decisions taken by members of the Assembly of Nine, people are open to the idea that the rest of the Synod can no longer be trusted. If the Wintermark Assembly are serious about their statement they could use a mandate to encourage people to do as they have suggested.		A dramatic and controversial statement like this is bound to cause a reaction. By itself, such a plea might not be enough to convince people that they should stop listening to the Synod. In light of the controversy surrounding the decisions taken by members of the Assembly of Nine, people are open to the idea that the rest of the Synod can no longer be trusted. If the Wintermark Assembly are serious about their statement they could use a mandate to encourage people to do as they have suggested.

Novemberalice: /* Competition and Unity */

2025-06-11T17:04:53Z

Competition and Unity

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:04, 11 June 2025
Line 126:		Line 126:
	* '''If a mandate is not upheld with a greater majority, it will not affect Urizen or Varushka'''		* '''If a mandate is not upheld with a greater majority, it will not affect Urizen or Varushka'''

	[[Varushka]], [[~~urizen~~]], and now potentially [[Wintermark]] all take issue with [[mandate\|mandates]] enacted by the General Assembly that do not achieve a greater majority. If one of these mandates is upheld and enacted without that majority, it will have no impact in those nations critical of such things. This risks causing further disruption, as the majority of the Empire's virtuous citizens follow the guidance of the Synod but those other nations continue to argue, their concerns in no way mollified. It's not possible to predict what form this might take, but it will certainly mean more disruption for the Synod.		[[Varushka]], [[Urizen]], and now potentially [[Wintermark]] all take issue with [[mandate\|mandates]] enacted by the General Assembly that do not achieve a greater majority. If one of these mandates is upheld and enacted without that majority, it will have no impact in those nations critical of such things. This risks causing further disruption, as the majority of the Empire's virtuous citizens follow the guidance of the Synod but those other nations continue to argue, their concerns in no way mollified. It's not possible to predict what form this might take, but it will certainly mean more disruption for the Synod.

	As such the Tribunes of the Synod have advised that if one of these mandates is raised, it might be prudent for the Cardinal of Vigilance or the Cardinal of Wisdom (as appropriate) to request that [[Cardinal#Further_Scrutiny\|further scrutiny]] be applied, ensuring as many Synod members as possible have time to discuss and make their opinions known. If both mandates are raised and upheld, the Tribunes note that as with all competing mandates it is the one with the greater margin that will be enacted - meaning that it is just as important for priests to vote against a mandate they do not support as it is to vote in favour of one they do support.		As such the Tribunes of the Synod have advised that if one of these mandates is raised, it might be prudent for the Cardinal of Vigilance or the Cardinal of Wisdom (as appropriate) to request that [[Cardinal#Further_Scrutiny\|further scrutiny]] be applied, ensuring as many Synod members as possible have time to discuss and make their opinions known. If both mandates are raised and upheld, the Tribunes note that as with all competing mandates it is the one with the greater margin that will be enacted - meaning that it is just as important for priests to vote against a mandate they do not support as it is to vote in favour of one they do support.

Emmanovi: /* Questions for Wintermark */ sp

2025-06-11T16:56:48Z

Questions for Wintermark: sp

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:56, 11 June 2025
Line 147:		Line 147:
	A dramatic and controversial statement like this is bound to cause a reaction. By itself, such a plea might not be enough to convince people that they should stop listening to the Synod. In light of the controversy surrounding the decisions taken by members of the Assembly of Nine, people are open to the idea that the rest of the Synod can no longer be trusted. If the Wintermark Assembly are serious about their statement they could use a mandate to encourage people to do as they have suggested.		A dramatic and controversial statement like this is bound to cause a reaction. By itself, such a plea might not be enough to convince people that they should stop listening to the Synod. In light of the controversy surrounding the decisions taken by members of the Assembly of Nine, people are open to the idea that the rest of the Synod can no longer be trusted. If the Wintermark Assembly are serious about their statement they could use a mandate to encourage people to do as they have suggested.

	{{Mandate\|mandate=Despise folly and chastise the fool that spreads it. We send {named priest} with 50 doses of liao to encourage Wintermark citizens to heed the guidance of the stormcrows and ignore the judgements of other assemblies. Cold cannot ~~compromises~~.\|assembly=Wintermark Assembly}}		{{Mandate\|mandate=Despise folly and chastise the fool that spreads it. We send {named priest} with 50 doses of liao to encourage Wintermark citizens to heed the guidance of the stormcrows and ignore the judgements of other assemblies. Cold cannot compromise.\|assembly=Wintermark Assembly}}

	If this mandate is enacted, then it will encourage people in Wintermark to treat the words of the Synod with suspicion. They will judge harshly any statement of principle passed or mandate enacted, aware of the corruption in the Assembly of Nine at the heart of the Synod.		If this mandate is enacted, then it will encourage people in Wintermark to treat the words of the Synod with suspicion. They will judge harshly any statement of principle passed or mandate enacted, aware of the corruption in the Assembly of Nine at the heart of the Synod.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:15, 15 January 2026
Line 24:		Line 24:
	{{CaptionedImage\|file=CardWisdom.jpg\|width=250\|caption=Silas of the Cenotaph, Cardinal of Wisdom\|align=left}}		{{CaptionedImage\|file=CardWisdom.jpg\|width=250\|caption=Silas of the Cenotaph, Cardinal of Wisdom\|align=left}}
	==Overview==		==Overview==
	At the Autumn Equinox 386YE, four citizens publicly swore an oath to bear an [[aura]] of [[Malign spiritual presences#Peace\|Peace]] for the coming year. Three of the citizens were [[cardinal\|cardinals]] of the [[~~Imperial~~ Synod]], and the fourth was acting as [[proxy]] to the [[Cardinal of Prosperity]]. In the history of the Empire, there has never been a successful [[judgement]] of condemnation against a member of the [[Assembly#Assembly_of_the_Nine\|Assembly of the Nine]] elected by the Virtue assemblies. Despite this, all four were quickly [[Sanction#Condemnation\|condemned]] as [[Religious_crime#Heresy\|heretics]] and [[Religious_crime#Blasphemy\|blasphemers]] by the [[Assembly#The_Virtue_Assemblies\|Assembly]] of [[Vigilance]] and a trial was scheduled to happen at the subsequent summit.		At the Autumn Equinox 386YE, four citizens publicly swore an oath to bear an [[aura]] of [[Malign spiritual presences#Peace\|Peace]] for the coming year. Three of the citizens were [[cardinal\|cardinals]] of the [[Synod]], and the fourth was acting as [[proxy]] to the [[Cardinal of Prosperity]]. In the history of the Empire, there has never been a successful [[judgement]] of condemnation against a member of the [[Assembly#Assembly_of_the_Nine\|Assembly of the Nine]] elected by the Virtue assemblies. Despite this, all four were quickly [[Sanction#Condemnation\|condemned]] as [[Religious_crime#Heresy\|heretics]] and [[Religious_crime#Blasphemy\|blasphemers]] by the [[Assembly#The_Virtue_Assemblies\|Assembly]] of [[Vigilance]] and a trial was scheduled to happen at the subsequent summit.

	While preparations were made for the trial of the four, the Synod passed several judgements, all of which related to the trial, the underlying issues and the conduct of those involved. Several judgements passed by various assemblies decried the accusations of blasphemy and heresy, and called for a much narrower definition of the crime than is typically understood. The civil service had issued some guidance to the [[~~Imperial~~ Synod]] on how the General Assembly might use a [[judgement]] of [[Sanction#Vindication\|vindication]] to clear the accused, but every judgement stopped short of that - and it was clear that many priests were unhappy with the actions of those involved.		While preparations were made for the trial of the four, the Synod passed several judgements, all of which related to the trial, the underlying issues and the conduct of those involved. Several judgements passed by various assemblies decried the accusations of blasphemy and heresy, and called for a much narrower definition of the crime than is typically understood. The civil service had issued some guidance to the [[Synod]] on how the General Assembly might use a [[judgement]] of [[Sanction#Vindication\|vindication]] to clear the accused, but every judgement stopped short of that - and it was clear that many priests were unhappy with the actions of those involved.

	The trial itself collapsed in dramatic fashion following a [[statement of principle]], the now infamous ''[[386YE_Winter_Solstice_Synod_judgements#Judgement_42\|Judgement 42]] of the General Assembly'', that laid out new guidelines on how religious crimes should be judged. The judgement made it impossible for the magistrates to continue with the proceedings, and they ruled that if any trial was to take place then it would be necessary for a new judgement of condemnation to be raised.		The trial itself collapsed in dramatic fashion following a [[statement of principle]], the now infamous ''[[386YE_Winter_Solstice_Synod_judgements#Judgement_42\|Judgement 42]] of the General Assembly'', that laid out new guidelines on how religious crimes should be judged. The judgement made it impossible for the magistrates to continue with the proceedings, and they ruled that if any trial was to take place then it would be necessary for a new judgement of condemnation to be raised.