Stones in the wellspring

"But the proscription says receiving." The merrow Chief Magistrate's eyes, looming pools of black, did not blink. "Should we not assume that he picked that word deliberately?"

Murmurs broke across the table. "But are you suggesting that an Axou in the Empire but dedicated to... whatever could be immune to this proscription, where an Imperial citizen would not be?" The other Chief Magistrate's voice was firm. "That doesn't make sense to me."

"Well, if they accepted the dedication outside of the Empire-"

"Perhaps we send it back to them." The dour Marcher stared off into the distance, following a thought like a bird flying to its nest. "Another administrative proscription - to check if they meant to include bearing."

"Colleagues." Leonardo wiped the sweat from their brow, desperately shuffling between several pieces of paper. "I'm trying to keep notes - can I just - what would the situation be if an Imperial citizen had been dedicated three summits ago?"

A grumbling voice broke through the silence. "There's no way we could treat them any differently. Citizens have to be equal under the law - it's unconstitutional otherwise." Magistrate Abraham poked at his dinner, growing colder on the plate next to him.

A scribbling of pen on paper. "Right. So are we saying the only constitutionally valid interpretation of the proscription is-"

"Yes, the only constitutionally valid ruling we can make is that receiving means bearing." Abraham picked up his fork. "And just like with a Senate motion, all we can do is implement the only constitutionally valid approach. This reminds me..."

Leonardo glanced at their timepiece and grimaced. "Right, yes - colleagues, if we could turn to the other four proscriptions concerning blasphemy..."

The General Assembly has made its first judgements on religious crime.

Overview

At the Winter Solstice 387YE, the civil service laid out their changes to how religious crimes would be defined and handled. Fifteen different judgements of proscription were raised for the scrutiny of the General Assembly - five raised administratively by the Tribune of the Synod, and twice that number from members of the Synod. Furthermore, the General Assembly upheld a statement of principle raised by Wulfric and elevated by Lenarius Ankarien, calling in Ambition's name for a Symposium with the purpose of discussing proscriptions and ensuring we employ wisdom and vigilance in creating a solid foundation to build and spread virtue on.

On this occasion, the Court have asked the civil service to publish parts of the minutes of their meeting alongside the guidance, in a much more verbose form than they would normally employ. This additional information is unlikely to be of interest outside of a small group of priests who are interested in the creation and application of religious law in the Empire. Nonetheless, the Court hopes that this guidance and access to the Court's thinking may prove invaluable to those priests who do take a professional interest in such matters.

Citizens who are not interested in the innermost thoughts of a handful of ageing magistrates and their colleagues on the Constitutional Court might be better advised to skim or skip this briefing entirely.

The First Wave

It is the role of the Constitutional Court to scrutinise every law passed by the Imperial government to ensure that it is consistent with existing law and compatible with the Imperial Constitution
The Court have issued lengthy minutes and commentary following scrutiny in the hope that this will help inform future proscriptions by the Synod

The Constitutional Court have carefully reviewed the wording of all twelve proscriptions upheld at the last summit, ensuring that none overstep the constitutional role of the Synod and identifying how they have defined each of the religious crimes in question. The aim of scrutiny is to identify the correct, constitutionally valid interpretation of a proscription so that the Court can issue appropriate guidance to magistrates and citizens on how the law should be understood, applied, and followed.

A proscription could fail scrutiny for many reasons. It must be legally enforceable, based on the definition of the law on which it is based, and consistent with the principles of the Imperial Constitution.

Legally Enforceable: It must be possible to legally enforce a proscription. For example, a judgement that proscribes the thoughts someone had would fail scrutiny since there is no magic that can read someone's thoughts; the proscription would never be legally enforceable.

Based on Existing Law: Any proscription must explicitly state which religious law it is based on in a way that is consistent with a valid interpretation of that law. A proscription that didn't cite which religious law or cited two would fail scrutiny. A judgement which tried to proscribe the veneration of eternals as blasphemy would fail because such matters are best understood as idolatry.

Compatible With the Constitution: All Imperial law must be compatible with the Imperial Constitution. A judgement that tried to take away citizens' rights to freedom, dignity and prosperity would fail scrutiny. In particular, the Court are minded to pay close attention to the constitutional role of the Synod and the other houses of government, particularly the Conclave. A proscription that tried to dictate which rituals could or could not be cast would fail scrutiny since it is the role of the Conclave to ensure the fit and proper use of magic.

Abuse of Powers

The Synod proscribes the use of the ceremony of excommunication without authorisation by writ of the Synod as an abuse of powers.

Tribune, Winter Solstice 387YE, Vote: 1522-684

It is an abuse of powers to apply an excommunication without a writ
It is not currently an abuse of powers to remove an excommunication

The only proscription defining abuse of powers was raised administratively by the Tribune of the Synod, and covered the ceremony of excommunication without a writ.

The wording of the proscription does not make any mention of removing an excommunication. Such an act requires a priest to employ the same skills required to excommunicate someone, but the Court have confirmed that it is not covered by this proscription. While that would be a legally valid interpretation of the wording, it doesn't accord with the plain sense interpretation. While the Synod might wish to enact that proscription, the Court do not wish to presume on that intent.

If the Synod wish to proscribe the removal of excommunication without a writ, they could do so.

Blasphemy

The Synod proscribes as blasphemy the act of dedicating any person to a false virtue or of creating an aura of a false virtue.

Tribune, Winter Solstice 387YE, Vote: 2301-370 (Greater Majority)

The Synod proscribes the receiving of a False Virtue Anointing or a False Virtue Dedication as BLASPHEMY

Brother Geoffrey Orchard, Winter Solstice 387YE, Vote: 1252-536

It is blasphemy to create a dedication or aura of one of the false virtues
It is also blasphemy to bear a dedication or anointing of a false virtue
It is also blasphemy to preach or promote the false virtues of vengeance, understanding, hatred or freedom

The Synod upheld six different proscriptions relating to the crime of blasphemy.

The first two proscriptions focus on the use of religious ceremonies that draw on the power of the false virtues. Together they define which acts that draw on a false virtue should be proscribed as blasphemy. The view of the court was that the administrative judgement is relatively clear - namely the act of dedicating someone to a false virtue or creating an aura of one of the false virtues, that is anointing, hallowing or consecration is an act of blasphemy.

The judgement raised by Brother Geoffrey Orchard raised spirited debate amongst the Constitutional Court. Initially, the use of the word receiving was taken to indicate the Synod's intent that it was only at the point of the ceremony being completed that a crime could be committed. However, this would create a situation where it was legal to be dedicated if it happened prior to the passing of the proscription, but illegal if it happened afterwards.

If that was allowed to stand, the law would be forced to treat a citizen who was dedicated to Hate this season differently to a citizen who was dedicated to Hate last season. That was considered intolerable, since it would violate a founding principle of law that all citizens should be treated equally. In practical terms, it would also make the proscription exceptionally difficult to enforce since anyone who could make a convincing claim to have been dedicated before the proscription came into force would be able to evade prosecution.

As a result, the Court settled on the view that the only constitutionally valid interpretation of Geoffrey Orchard's judgement was to proscribe anyone bearing a dedication or anointing to a false virtue. If it was the intention of the Synod to only proscribe receiving a false virtue, then they would need to take legal advice from members of the Constitutional Court on how that might be achieved.

As a result, it is now an act of blasphemy to bear a dedication or anointing to a false virtue. This has significant implications for some foreigners visiting the Empire - particularly from Axos, who are known to make use of all manner of virtues, false or otherwise- but also from Faraden, who revere the false virtue of Vengeance. News of the proscription is likely to spread quickly, and those foreign nations will issue guidance to their citizens, which will mean fewer foreigners fall foul of the Empire's laws, but it is inevitable that an incident will arise at some point.

We proscribe as blasphemy the preaching or promotion of the false virtue of vengeance

Alessi of the Basilisks of the Labyrinth, Winter Solstice 387YE, Vote: 804-46

We proscribe as blasphemy the preaching or promotion of the false virtue of understanding

Olyvar of Esther's Sanctum, Winter Solstice 387YE, Vote: 770-70

We proscribe as blasphemy the preaching or promotion of the false virtue of hatred

Silas of the Cenotaph, Winter Solstice 387YE, Vote: 842-46

We proscribe as blasphemy the preaching or promotion of the false virtue of freedom

Theodora, Winter Solstice 387YE, Vote: 790-70

A further four proscriptions were raised regarding individual false virtues. Alessi of the Basilisks of the Labyrinth, Olyvar of Esther's Sanctum, Silas of the Cenotaph and Theodora raised proscriptions relating to the preaching and promotion of Vengeance, Understanding, Hatred and Freedom respectively.

It is now an act of blasphemy to preach or promote any of these four false virtues. The Court has pored over the wording of these very similar proscriptions carefully, and has concluded that they do not go so far as to proscribe championing causes like the historic raids on barbarians that appeared to cause widespread spontaneous auras associated with Anarchy. Rather, preaching and promotion will be understood to mean only active encouragement to follow a false virtue, such as that performed most recently by the disciple of Sulemaine Severus of the Blinding Light

It would be "difficult" for the Synod to proscribe any actions that simply lead to the creation of spontaneous auras of malign spiritual presences, since it requires discerning judgement to determine whether a spontaneous aura is associated with a false virtue or not, since each one is unique. Magistrate Abraham felt that magistrates were capable of demonstrating such judgement, but the remainder of the court were hostile to that view. Absent a reliable test to tell whether a spontaneous aura was based in Virtue or drew on a malign presence, it would be impossible for magistrates to enforce such a proscription.

Desecration

The desecration or destruction of any relics associated with a paragon or exemplar, or the destruction of any memorial associated with them, is proscribed.

Tribune, Winter Solstice 387YE, Vote: 1744-290

It is blasphemy to destroy any relics or memorials associated with paragons or exemplars
This only applies if they bear a spontaneous aura

The only proscription defining desecration was raised administratively by the Tribune, and covered the destruction of any relics or memorials associated with exemplars and paragons.

It is now an act of desecration to destroy any relic or memorial associated with any of the recognised paragons and exemplars. However, due to the restrictive nature of the law of desecration, this only applies where it bears a spontaneous aura. This means that destruction of an inspirational memorial hallowed with true liao would not be prosecuted as desecration, nor would destruction of a relic that bore no aura at all.

The members of the Constitutional Court advise that the Senate could look to revise the crime of desecration, if it believed its remit should include destruction or removal of regular auras, or if it should include all historical items or locations associated with a paragon or exemplar.

Heresy

Excessionsism and Yaelianism have been proscribed as heresy
No other heterodox beliefs have been proscribed so far

Two different proscriptions handled instances of Heresy. One, raised by the Tribune, dealt with the matter of Excessionism - the other, raised by Corey Wayfarer, dealt with Yaelianism. The latter helpfully defined the key beliefs of the Yaelian Heresy - the Court notes that a well-worded proscription seeking to define anything as heresy will always clearly set out which beliefs are proscribed, unless it is one of the heresies already well-understood in the empire. Magistrate Abraham insisted that the Court records include a clear message of thanks to the Navarr priest for the clear and concise wording employed.

The General Assembly proscribes the Excessionist Heresy - the claim that too much of a Virtue can be as bad as too little.

Tribune, Winter Solstice 387YE, Vote: 1532-580

The General Assembly proscribes the Yaelian Heresy - the belief in the Land Without Tears and in Yael as a rebirth of the First Empress. These have shown to be false.

Corey Wayfarer, Winter Solstice 387YE, Vote: 1880-110

It is now an act of heresy to preach Excessionism, the idea that too much Virtue can be as bad as too little - or Yaelianism, the idea that there is a Land without Tears and that Yael was a reincarnation of the First Empress.

The Synod has not yet addressed any other well-known heresies. Whilst some more institutionalist individuals have expressed dark concerns about the risk of heresy taking root somewhere in the Empire, others have lauded this as a wise move. The Synod faces myriad pressing issues to focus its attention on - historic heresies with no known active presence in the Empire do not number amongst them. The Court is careful to note that whilst the Synod could rule on any heresy at any time, there is no urgent need to address any others at present. The peoples of the Empire are aware of the Doctrines of the Faith - the Synod does not need to proscribe Humanism for the laity to remain faithful to the Doctrine of Reincarnation. If a heresy were to develop and spread within the Empire, the Synod would have ample time to consider their position and rule accordingly.

That is, except for the matter of the Marcher orcs, whose heterodox beliefs in reincarnation are directly at odds with the Doctrine of the Howling Abyss. There is still time for the Synod to carefully contemplate its decision - but it will not be much longer before this paradox needs to be resolved, one way or the other.

Idolatry

Venerating an icon of an Eternal is Idolatry. Producing an Image of one is just Art. To make art exalts your pride. To venerate an eternal subsumes your will.

Felix Saltspire, Winter Solstice 387YE, Vote: 496-244

It is idolatry to venerate icons or similar images of an eternal
Creation of icons or images of eternals is not idolatry
It is idolatry to enter into the service of an eternal or tulpa
Kaela has indicated her displeasure at this decision

Where other religious crimes saw clear support for various proscriptions, idolatry proved to be a much more contentious topic. Five separate judgements of proscription attempted to define acts of idolatry, but only two were upheld.

The Synod upheld a proscription raised by Felix Saltspire defining veneration of icons of eternals as idolatry. The Court is comfortable that this is clear and focused in scope and accepted the proscription without comment. It is now an act of idolatry to venerate an icon or other image of an eternal. There was some discussion of what acts would or would not constitute, but the view of the court was that the plain sense interpretation of the word is widely understood and could be legally enforced.

Technically, the Synod have not proscribed the act of venerating an eternal in person, only the veneration of an icon of an eternal. It seems staggeringly unlikely that that was the Synod's intent, and the Court express the hope that the Synod will quickly remove the burden of interpreting that from the magistrates.

Felix's judgement also makes it explicit that it is not idolatry to create an icon, or indeed any art at all. The Constitutional Court confirm that it is legally valid and practically useful to employ proscription in this matter. While it is a principle of law that nothing is illegal unless it is explicitly made so - the purpose of proscription is to provide much-needed clarity to the magistrates on how religious laws should be interpreted and applied. Hence it can be practically useful to clearly identify when something is not proscribed - and doing so provides a service to citizens and magistrates alike.

It is also legally valid to do so; since the judgement of proscription can be used to reverse or remove a previous proscription, meaning something is no longer illegal, it is consistent with that approach that the judgement can be used to state that an act is not proscribed.

In practical terms, the current arrangement with Tharim to hang his image in the Hall of Worlds does not, by itself, count as veneration - nor would other basic acts of respect and politeness. However, veneration of that image, would be prosecuted as idolatry.

The Synod proscribes entering into the service of an eternal or tulpa, where the service subsumes the individual's free will. This is idolatry. This is different from bartering for limited boons in service to your virtue.

Eevi of the Gadrai, Winter Solstice 387YE, Vote: 1010-102

The Synod also passed Eevi of the Gadrai's proscription stating that entering into the service of an eternal or tulpa in such a way as to subsume one's free will was an act of idolatry.

The Constitutional Court spent much time deliberating on what it might mean to "subsume" an individual's free will in the context of service to an eternal or tulpa. Abraham argued that this was outwith the remit and responsibility of the Court - that this is the precise role of the Synod in defining idolatry via proscription. The aged Magistrate made a persuasive argument - ultimately agreed to by the rest of the Court - that the only valid interpretation of Eevi's proscription is that service to an eternal or tulpa (beyond simply bartering or bargaining) is proscribed as idolatry.

The clearest cases of such service are twofold. Firstly, eternals have occasionally offered to name an individual their representative to the Empire. Tharim, for instance, has made it clear that Claudia Varkulova Remislav acts as the Hand of Tharim, sometimes termed the Keeper of Tharim's Throne. This is not an Imperial title like Archmage that acts as the Empire's representative to Tharim - but as Tharim's designated mouthpiece to the rest of the Empire. Similarly, Ylenwe has recently announced that zie wishes to designate an individual Cultivator of Solace, who would be zir representative.

This proscription prohibits these types of non-Imperial appointments - increasingly referred to as the Chosen of eternals. It is now an act of idolatry to accept any such position, and any who bear such a role already - such as Claudia - are advised to take prompt steps this summit to shed themselves of their responsibilities and forswear their status as Chosen - or face the consequences of Imperial law.

Secondly, there are cases where citizens of the Empire have appeared to become heralds of eternals, by whatever means. The most notable example is that the Lady of Oblivion, will occasionally take certain willing individuals to join her Grim Legion. There is no question in the minds of the Constitutional Court that this represents service to Kaela, and therefore is now an act of idolatry. Whilst in most (if not all) cases it will be impractical to prosecute an individual who became a herald, the same cannot be said for any accomplices who aided them in doing so. This includes any Archmage who used their power of plenipotentiary to request any eternal that amounted to an individual entering their service as a herald.

News of this proscription appears to have quickly reached the ears of Dark-Between-The-Stars. A dour and utterly implacable grim legionnaire emerges from the portal to the Hall of Worlds the morning before the start of the summit, and in cold words devoid of any emotion expresses that the Lady of the Grim Host is displeased to hear the Synod may have changed its ruling on the gift she offers those worthy individuals. Those unliving whom she spares the ignominy of death, says the legionnaire, are glad to receive her blessing. If the Synod no longer thinks so, my Lady-Captain will take that into careful consideration for the future. The consequences of her displeasure are not stated. The Constitutional Court note in no uncertain terms that it will never be acceptable to carve out a specific exception for Kaela or any individual eternal via proscription - either it is idolatry to enter into the service of an eternal, or it is not.

Three further proscriptions for idolatry were proposed but not upheld by the General Assembly. The administrative proscription against the making of statues in the likeness of eternals was not upheld; neither was a call by Vaclav Mladenovich Kosti to proscribe the creation of commissions honouring Sadogua; nor the proscription raised by Syene proscribing the ceding of land to tulpas or eternals. These are thus not currently recognised as idolatrous acts. Magistrate Abraham notes that he would have moved to strike the proscription on commissions honouring the so-called Brother of Wizards as unconstitutional because it impinges on the legitimate authority of the Conclave. The Synod could proscribe commissions honouring any eternal - that would be within their remit - but which eternals the Empire should deal with is properly a matter for the Conclave only. The matter is moot, however, since the proscription was not upheld.

The Empire has changed in the last hundred years more than could possibly be imagined. We have orc citizens now... And thus we should shape our laws to reflect that. The Prosperity assembly suggests that the religious crime of idolatry be amended to include orc citizens of the Empire. Correcting the wording as follows: Subsuming a sapients' will and destiny to any inhuman entity or force. This includes the worship, veneration or exaltation of any such being or power. Anything less than this in law is seen as an affront to the virtue of orcish citizens.

Task, Winter Solstice 387YE, Vote: Upheld with a Greater Majority 308-0

A change in perspective

The Prosperity Assembly has called on the Senate to change the formal definition of idolatry

Finally, the Prosperity Assembly upheld a statement of principle by Task calling for a change in the religious crime of idolatry. Despite the emancipation of orc slaves across the Empire in the time of Emperor Ahraz, the Imperial Orcs becoming the tenth nation of the Empire and the incorporation of new doctrine relating to the orcish soul, idolatry continues to be formally defined as subsuming human will and destiny. The Prosperity Assembly calls for this to be changed to sapient will or destiny.

The Senate could make this change with a suitably worded motion. Doing so would not affect any existing proscriptions, but would cement the commonly-held idea that the Synod considers orcs and humans to equally risk spiritual peril through idolatry.

The Constitutional Court notes that the current definition of idolatry also uses the term inhuman. If the Senate wishes to make changes to the formal definition of idolatry, it may also wish to address this term as well.

Magistrate Abraham argued that this change is not legally necessary, because "any competent magistrate knows what is intended here". His view is that the law should be interpreted from the context in which it was written but upheld in the context in which it is applied. When the law was written, the only beings recognised as citizens of the Empire were humans, so it was understood at the time the law was passed to apply to all citizens of the Empire. When the law is applied now, that same context includes orcs, and therefore the law correctly applies to orcs and humans equally. Abraham's colleagues described his jurisprudence as "novel", "original" and "imaginative" - which should not be interpreted as compliments. They prefer to reiterate a polite request to the Imperial Senate to remedy this outstanding artefact of Imperial law at the point where there is time to do so.

Ripples in the Ocean

Only acts that have been proscribed can be prosecuted as religious crimes
If something hasn't been proscribed, it can't be prosecuted by the magistrates as a religious crime
The Constitutional Court has issued further guidance on the application of proscriptions

Following further careful consideration, the Constitutional Court do not believe it is appropriate to ask the Tribune of the Synod to raise any further administrative proscriptions at this time. Each of the religious crimes has at least one act proscribed - and the Synod may continue raising its own judgements of proscription as it sees fit.

In the interim, the Court is at pains to stress that only acts that have been proscribed can be prosecuted as a religious crime by the magistrates. If an act has not been proscribed, it cannot and will not be prosecuted unless it meets the definition of another, non-religious crime. The state of affairs is clear - the interpretation of religious crime is the constitutional responsibility of the Synod, and the Magistracy requires a clear mandate from the Synod to charge anyone with a religious crime.

The Constitutional Court has, however, received a number of queries on potential proscriptions and has published some further guidance to help the Synod achieve its aims. Primarily, this is that proscriptions must be specific. It is not possible to simply restate the current definition of a religious crime as a proscription - such an act would add no further clarity to how religious laws should be applied. The Magistracy wish to avoid as far as possible being put in the unconstitutional position of having to take the Synod's role in interpreting religious crime. Instead, the Synod must strive to clearly define acts that fall within the aegis of each religious crime - and the magistrates can then apply those clear proscriptions to identify whether a religious crime has been committed.

At the last summit, the Court instructed the Tribune to ensure voting on all judgements of proscription closed at 14:00 on Sunday. Moving forward, that will no longer be the case - it will be up to the raising priest to choose when voting will close, as normal. Where a proscription is upheld during the summit, it will still need to undergo scrutiny by the Constitutional Court before it goes into law. This may be possible during the summit - or it may need to wait until after the summit has concluded, depending on the complexity of the issue and the demands on the Court's time. This is no different to how the motions of the Senate or the declarations of the Conclave are treated - but proscriptions can have much broader impacts than many declarations, so it is likely that detailed scrutiny will be needed.

The role of the magistrates is not simply to investigate and prosecute crimes - but also to encourage citizens to be law-abiding. If a proscription passes during a summit, the magistrates will focus on educating any who act in contravention of it, and encouraging them to align their actions with the expressed will of the Synod. Only wilful and deliberate refusal to do so after being appropriately notified - by a civil servant if needed - is likely be prosecuted at that summit. Again, this is consistent with the approach the magistrates would take where the Senate created new criminal law.

In between summits, the outcomes of any upheld proscriptions will be clearly communicated across the Empire. That means from the summit after a proscription is passed, the magistrates will prosecute it as normal. Ignorance of the law is not a defence - citizens are expected to ensure that their actions are legal, or face the consequences.

A Convocation of Condemnation

I Wulfric, Ambition Priest, Marcher. With the support of both Assemblies and approval of the AO9. Call for a Symposium with the purpose of discussing proscriptions and ensuring we employ wisdom and vigilance in creating a Solid foundation to build and spread virtue on.

Wulfric, Winter Solstice 387YE, Vote: 1226-170

The General Assembly has called for a symposium on the topic of proscriptions

Finally, the Cardinal power of Elevation was used for the first time at the Winter Solstice by Lenarius Ankarien, Cardinal of Ambition - allowing Wulfric of the Marches to raise a statement of principle for the scrutiny of the General Assembly. In it, Wulfric called for a symposium to discuss proscriptions, referring to a solid foundation to build and spread virtue on. Wulfric's judgement was upheld, and as the only such statement of principle in the General Assembly, has come to the attention of many across the Empire.

This is not the first time in recent years that the Synod called for a symposium. The last time one was held at the Autumn Equinox 380YE, the so-named Symposium of Revelation produced two significant new doctrines - both cementing beliefs about the spiritual nature of orcs into the Way. This symposium has a narrower scope - but its outputs have the potential to be just as impactful in defining what the Synod considers to be right and wrong.

Eight years ago, the civil service proposed a very traditional approach to the Symposium of Revelation, requiring the General Assembly to authorise it with a greater majority. Different individuals serve as Tribune of the Synod now, and Leonardo i Del'Toro i Riqueza suggests that the General Assembly has already authorised a symposium to proceed - there is simply the matter of finalising the details.

The civil service advises that supporting a symposium involves a huge demand on the time and resources of the civil service. As such, they cannot support more than one symposium within a twelve-month period. If the Synod were to call for a second symposium within a year, the civil service would timetable that meeting at the first available opportunity.

A New Symposium

The civil service has made arrangements for a symposium at the Summer Solstice
The Assembly of Nine could appoint a Symposiarch - otherwise authority will default to Wulfric of the Marches

As no date was specified, the civil service will make preparations for a symposium to be held at the Summer Solstice 388YE, to give proceedings time to be planned. The Sodality Chamber will be reserved for the use of the symposium in four ninety-minute sessions:

Friday 21:00-22:30
Saturday 13:30-15:00
Saturday 19:30-21:00
Sunday 10:30-12:00

If the Synod wishes to proceed, then it will likely wish to decide on an agenda of discussions. The Assembly of Nine could use a statement of principle to name a "Symposiarch" with authority for deciding the agenda. If they do not do so, then authority will default to Wulfric, whose statement of principle calling for the symposium the General Assembly has already supported. Whoever has authority would ideally decide upon how the Sodality Chamber will be used for the symposium, perhaps dividing it into a series of shorter lectures, discussions or workshops, and potentially identifying other individuals to lead or manage these sessions. Whatever their decision, if they present the Tribune of the Synod with their finalised agenda by the end of the Spring summit, the civil service will publish it prominently in advance.

The Tribune of the Synod is at pains to clarify that there is no requirement to wait for the symposium before raising further judgements of proscription. It represents a key opportunity for spirited debate - but does nothing to constrain the Synod from going about its business.

Invitations

The Synod could invite groups to attend the Symposium
Foreigners are unlikely to attend
Invited parties within the Empire might attend if they are convinced their views will be heard
The Symposiarch could request the presence of one or more members of the Constitutional Court at an agreed time

Similar to last time, the Assemblies of the Synod could reach out to foreign nations to invite them to attend. There is nothing stopping them from doing so again - but it is unlikely that any would choose to send representatives. The matter of proscription and religious crime is very focused on the Empire itself and what it chooses to prohibit, rather than the more open topic of the previous symposium. Even the präster of Sumaah are unlikely to take interest, given the mutual agreement between Synods that their paths would diverge. Any invitation to any foreign nation will not result in any visitors unless a very strong case is made for their attendance.

The Synod could choose to invite parties from within the Empire. Whilst it has taken a clear stance on Excessionism and Yaelianism, it has not yet taken a stance on other heresies - including the Marcher orcs who dispute the Doctrine of the Howling Abyss. Any Assembly could invite adherents of any well-known viewpoint - for example, the Marcher orcs, or Lucidians - to attend if they so wished. Groups such as these are only likely to send representation if they believe their voices will be listened to. In the case of the Marcher orcs, this would almost certainly require an invitation from the Marcher Assembly. It is very clear that no group will attend if their beliefs have already been proscribed - for example, no invitation to dedicants of Freedom is likely to be successful now that the Synod has clearly prohibited preaching that false virtue.

If the Symposiarch feels the symposium would benefit from the presence of members of the Constitutional Court, either to advise or to question, then the Court would appreciate a clear indication of when their presence would be useful.