Musings on the nature of blood and its theft

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

IC:

“Written as an invitation to debate, in the reputed and slightly cerebral Imperial Regent, a magazine, distributed to all blooded regents of any note across Anuire.”

Godsblood, regency, derivation, all terms inextricably connected, to the mystical and divine nature of our blessed right to rule.

Since Deismaar, blood has been the currency of rulers, and as any currency, there are those who would think to take it for themselves. And thus blood-theft occurs.

The method is of little consequence, those who know the grim details already do. And those who do not, well they do not need to hear it from this article.

It occurs, and therefore we discuss it. It is reasonable that the act is deplored, as murder always should be, and the inherent risks involved for the thief makes it intractable for the weaker bloodlines, lest they inadvertently becomes tainted by Azrai’s dark touch.

However, since the days of Roele, the bloodlines have been depleted and weakening over the long centuries. There is only two ways to improve a bloodline, one is hard work and tireless effort for a lifetime. The other, is the timely and opportune act of bloodtheft.

So, are there ever a time where bloodtheft is the right thing to do? – Any situation where the regent must be locked in this action of divine meddling, to serve a goal greater than himself?

[X-IHH/Wallac Isilviere (Kasper)]

Blood thiefes risk Excommunication

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

Field Marshal Loeren Maricoere of the Aegis coldly writes a contrary article...

Again the question is raised, still Fahir of Besaiam's discourse on practical morality circulates amongst the nobility seeking to justify usurpation.  Let me then review the key arguments of the text and prove the hollowness of this so-called scholar's logic.

1.  The usurpation of the criminal redeems the bloodline and prevents its loss.
An argument based purely on blinding greed; should the bloodline be invested in a worthy heir, or in absence of worthy heir, a hero of the realm, it is continued and granted chance to be redeemed.  Justice is impartial, carried out based on the merits of the case - to levy punishment for one's own personal benefit is to undermine all justice.

Again and again we have seen this 'practical solution' twisted to evil intent - how many times have goodly folk been imprisoned on some trumped up charge and 'executed' merely so that their executioner can claim their holy birthright?  To permit usurpation in such an act thus encourages unlawfulness, tyranny, and murder of the innocents.

2. The usurpation of another in battle is spoils of war.
Greed piled upon folly.  A ransomed noble will oft grant the chance for peaceful treaty, or in ransom render much to the realm - to slay a noble is thus to place one's personal power above the needs of ones realm and so embrace tyranny.

In war it is necessary to battle others, even to slay them.  This all know, however there is then a great leap of logic taken without grounds, that since one has slain the other, it is right to take what is theirs.  This is ever the clarion call of Belinik seeking to sway righteous warriors to slaughter. 

In war the aim of the noble warrior is to defend their people, to win victory - not to simply loot, pillage, and claim that which is rightfully another's.  How often have generals seen plans go awry for the selfish desires of some captain bent on improving their position?  How often have wars been provoked with precisely the aim of bloodtheft?  No, to blithely condone usurpation even in war is to encourage the slaughter of innocents, the destruction of land and property, and the ruin of nations.

There are some who claim otherwise - the goblins who make war incessantly, even to the point of slaughtering siblings, parents and children.  the Gorgon, who for centuries has waged war, burning and pillaging his way across Anuire to 'harvest the nobility' as some term it.  Those who follow such examples  are anathema to all those of goodly intent.

3. It is the right of a noble to claim to wealth of their subjects, to claim bloodline is no more than exercise of rightful power.
Only a goblin king considers his subjects property in such a manner.  Great Haelyn granted many rights to the nobility, but did so in return for the acceptance of many duties.  Any noble forsaking their duties to feed vampiric upon their subjects forfeits their rights also.

4. The reunion of the bloodlines is divine will.  To consider such is to consider all the heroes of Deismaar made incarnate divinity usurper - no true temple holds such as its creed.  The doctrine of the restoration of the old gods is heresy, the murderous brutality of its adherents in times past proof, if any were needed, of the lie at its core.


5. And what of matters the discourse fails to consider? 

The corruption of bloodtheft
Consideration must be given to the effect of bloodtheft.  The dark act corrupts the slayers often, time and again the siren call of Azrai's blood is heard corrupting that which should remain pure into eternity into darkness poisoning the blood of light into darkness and oft corrupting the flesh of the slayer into abomination and terror.

The chaos of blood-duel.  To encourage or accept blood theft is to encourage murder - for what else would one call the deliberate insult to provoke duel that we have seen in previous years?  Veteran swordsmen demean their craft by challenging youths, or provoking them into challenge, then claim righteous death on claiming their usurped prize.  Again and again we have seen good and noble lords struck down by those with steel in hand and blood in heart, and wholesome realms thrown into turmoil and chaos in the wake of such slaughter.  No noble stands as an island, with their passing all those about and below suffer and such suffering can never be justified by mere the gratification of the slayer.

The truth of bloodtheft.  So I have this to say on the matter of bloodtheft.  It is the choice of abomination, it is the path of darkness that ever descends and corrupts.  However 'rightfully' it seems to those who follow it, inevitably it is righteous only in the eyes of greed and over-weening pride, and those who follow it are justly outcast and heretic.

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

A reply appears a few months later, presumably by the original writer.

Eloquently written, and seemingly insurmountable in its effable volume of girth.

Seemingly taking into account all black and white situations of life. It is good, then, that life is all black and white.

Let us not dwell too long at that thought, lest we be tainted by the very audacity of the concept and begin weighing each and all on scales lacking the ability to swing back and forth.

I dare say, that more than a few lords of Anuire owe their bloodlines to the exchange of blood by blade.

Indeed we may soon see the first excommunications and public burnings if the above is held to be true, in actions as well as posturing.

I would encourage others, who might be less black, to make their voice heard too. If nothing else, to let the resounding uniform opinion be stated.

As mere facilitator of this discussion, I shall hold myself to consider the philosophical impact of bloodtheft as a fact of life, rather than condemn one way or the other.

[X-IHH/Wallac Isilviere (Kasper)]

Persist in advocating for blood theft and you will be asked to meet for the Conclave of Temples where you can carry on the argument without the risk of poising the minds of the innocents by your sinister perceptions. If you really mean this is a matter worth fighting for, your arguments can be scrutinized by inquisitors of the Conclave of Temples, to test them

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

Field Marshal Loeren Maricoere writes a follow up article...

Black and white?  Not at all, would that it were so simple.  The assumption that one is pure and so could never be twisted to evil has been the failing of many over the years.  I am strong, I will slay only the unrighteous and unworthy and so beget a line of kings - how many ambitious greedy fools have told the lie to themselves and failed to see the path before them darken from white to grey and then black, or walked down heedless ever telling themselves they can turn back?

The danger of bloodtheft, the true reason why it is anathema beyond simply a crime like murder, is the seduction of it, the execution for good reason that makes the executioner ever stronger and so makes the next death ever easier to justify until murder is no more than right and men no more than prey.  The Curse of Azrai has come upon many who started their bloody trail thinking themselves righteous and the horror of the awnsheghlien shadows much of Cerilia to this day.  Could anything more clearly show the folly of the path of blood than the Curse?

As to why we do not slay children for the crimes of their parents - why should we?  Do any suggest executing the children of a murderer for the crimes of the parent - an awnsheghlien might burn hate and death into its being and beget monsters but the child of one yet uncursed is as innocent as any other.

As to actions, certes, should anyone begin to hunt and slaughter scions to usurp their bloodline then you will indeed see action - bring proof of such before any noble following Haelyn's laws or any faith of the Conclave and action will follow swiftly.  None of us wish to see awnsheghlien brought to power in our midst!

Edit:  Typed usurpation when meant bloodtheft now corrected - posted late and tired, sorry.

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

Yet another article appears, this one clearly addressed to the High Pontiff in particular...

It is clear to all, that the High Pontiff finds the philosophical discussion anathema to his senses of propriety. - Indeed, we know blood theft can lead to excommunication and torture by the hands of the inquisition.

However, it must be made eminently clear, that I do not advocate blood theft, nor does this discussion break any laws.

The good Field Marshal Maricoere has given both good and valid reasons, why blood theft should never occur, both in definitive terms of black and white, and indeed, spurred by deliberate and well considered arguments, she has given us all even deeper insight into the horror of blood theft.

It is only when we hold the actions of our fellow men up for scrutiny, that we can truly learn who we are ourselves.

That is the goal of this discussion, none other.

Now then, as facilitator of this discussion, and knowing we have such eminent readership among the esteemed clergy of Haelyn, I wish to pose our readers a question.

What should a man do, if he is engaged in battle and through no prior knowledge, finds that he has unintendedly performed blood theft?

Edit: Its a She. 

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

The Field Marshal responds.

The only thing clear is that the so-called facilitator seeks to push an agenda, ignores argument and instead pretends that reasoned debate is dictate simply because it does not serve his purpose.  If the facilitator has some argument, let him put it forth as I have put forth the views long agreed by the faiths, otherwise accept the judgments made centuries ago and proved wise a thousand times over since.  To debate bloodtheft is to debate the murder of another for profit - and to start for a position other than 'it is wrong' is folly, worse, it is dangerous.

Accusations stifling debate are hurled - does any civilised realm casually permit incitement to riot?  Any noble permit encouragement of rebellion?  To encourage, or even pretend that bloodtheft is some uncertain matter of morality, is to encourage the slaughter of nobles and the bringing of war and dissolution to realms - and such incitement is indeed anathema, one would hope to more than merely the Marshal's of the Aegis!

Accusations of torture are made - lectures on morality, learned court debating motive and intent may be pedantic and boring to men of action, but are hardly torture - and such is what occurs in a court, witnesses are called, evidence reviewed, prayers sent for guidance.  Should guilt be found then sentence is passed - but never are people maimed or brutalised for pleasure.  Or does the 'facilitator' argue that any law is inherently unjust, that arrest is slavery and any punishment wrongful?

As to the warrior who accidentally commit usurpation - and please note you have proposed acceptance of bloodtheft not usurpation - they do what any other warrior who kills another does.  They examine their conscience - was it necessary?  Was it just and proportionate?  Were their motives pure?  He approaches those who are learned and wise in the clergy and seeks penance if need be.  Such accident is far from bloodtheft where the battle itself is sought purely for the purpose of committing bloodtheft - the two are distinct issues albeit blurred be many who seek exoneration from their crimes.

Note: The Marshal incidentally is a nun not a man...