Hail, Hierophants.

I address this to you collectively and not individually, since I have
amalgamated several conversations into one. This single post will
lighten my pack so much less than several.

As well, on public news you may choose one Hierophant to answer for
Oakstone. Even I am confused when I receive slightly different messages
from Greyda (in times past), or Ravien, or Aelyn, or Nynae, et cetera.

See below for communications to Lady Nynae, Lady Aelyn, Lady Ravien.


Lady Nynae,

You sent me a message that you "won't make this into a three ring
circus". As I have emphasised above, I have come to prefer dealing with
Hierophants in a public forum. This way, there are no post-hoc
difficulties regarding who said what to who (see Lady Aelyn's post and
my points thereupon). Please confine your communications to me to public
news.

To clarify matters for the realm at large, I received this unsolicited
message from you:

------------------------------------------------------------
Message #128 Sent by Nynae
11/13/10:48 Greetings, Tyrannus. This is an official
message from the Council of Oakstone, reminding you that
shrines to either of the Lords of evil are not permissable (sic)
within the forest. They are a security threat and will
not be tolerated.
------------------------------------------------------------

I replied with a two word message, "Public 17565". Oddly, despite my
plainly worded question in the public news forum, I received this
further message from you:

------------------------------------------------------------
Message #151 Sent by Nynae
11/14/2:55 I won't make this into a three ring circus,
Wulfen. The message I sent to you was sent from Nynae
the Hierophant of Oakstone. I would be happy to quote
from Oakstone's Charter which states explicitly that no
shrine dedicated to the Lords of Evil will be permitted
in the forest, if you just ask. This is an old statute,
mostly in reaction to the red fog and the actions of
many of Lord Sartan's followers after it's appearance in
the world. So you see, shrines to the Lords of Evil are
indeed seen as a security threat to the forest. You could
happily argue that the issue is dead but I seem to recall
Cain threatening me not too long ago with the possibility
of the red fog spreading should Oakstone not immediately
unenemy Tiamat. Curiously, he also seemed to have the same
misconception that Oakstone and Eleusis are the same...
------------------------------------------------------------

Since I choose my manner of communication with you, I will reply to your
messages on public news. You do not have the prerogative to choose how I
communicate with you. Additionally, further nonplussing messages from
you will be posted here, with the posting fee "charged" to enemies of
Evil through the Naga.

Once you, Leath-ri, Hierophant, make public threats against an order's
shrines, your actions are public and will be dealt with in the public
sphere. Despite your stated desire for lack of publicity, you have
already put up your tent and donned your green greasepaint. The realm at
large may as well join in despairing laughter those of us who have
already had dealings with Oakstone.

My question in Public 17565 was, "What threat is it that Oakstone sees
from these shrines?" By your answer, I can only interpret that you see
no (present, current, proximate) threat from these shrines. You are
bureaucratically following regulations laid down by Hierophants whose
actions predate even my own birth. Are you even capable of answering my
question, or will you again parrot from past Hierophants? I ask that
rhetorically, considering your previous answer.

Then, oddly, you wave Cain at me as if he were some form of talisman,
used to invoke the straw man of my alleged opinion of Oakstone and
Eleusis' relations. Cain is a simple citizen of Mhaldor, lower-ranked in
Mhaldor than those enemies of Evil who hold government authority in
Eleusis. I am aware of what Oakstone is and what Eleusis is.

Referring again to Public 17565, paragraph two, you will note my
disbelief towards your blurring of your positions as Leath-ri and
Hierophant. A Leath-ri of Eleusis, whose citizens have pursued decades
of hostilities towards Evil, uses her position as Hierophant to affect a
shrine dispute between orders. While a similar confusion attends many
interactions with Oakstone, the conflict of interest has obviously
escaped your attention. Are Oakstone and Eleusis as separate for you as
you claim? Again, I make the point, not expecting an answer.


Lady Aelyn,

I thank you at least for your public post, for the reasons noted above.
As well, for reasons noted above I will keep my communications with
Hierophants in the view of the realm. This will prove no difficulty, as
I only have involved discussions with Hierophants every several decades,
if that.

You note that I was the Tyrannus that "removed the agreement between
Oakstone and Mhaldor". You are referring to Public 15122, where I used
the term "withdraw". As with the matter of shrines, some historical
background is necessary.

Early in my reign as Tyrannus, I undertook (and still wish) to improve
relations with those factions in the realm who are not inherently
enemies of Evil. Oakstone is, in my view, one of those factions.

I sought to codify the terms of the agreement with Oakstone.
Historically this agreement was subject to a certain amount of back and
forth on the particulars, and was even in abeyance several times. I felt
a codified treaty would act as a symbol of more amiable relations.

After several months of attempting to locate a Hierophant, I managed to
find Greyda, then Speaker of Eleusis (in 397 AF). She confirmed that the
(unwritten) agreement essentially had two clauses, and to the best of my
knowledge then brought the notion of a codified treaty to Oakstone.
Later you, Greyda, and me held another meeting (in 399 AF), which ended
on a similar note of discussions but no resolution. These two clauses
were, as near as I could ascertain:

1) Mhaldor would uncitizen and enemy exterminators for twenty years.
2) Oakstone would end its official herb ban against Mhaldor.

As the matter stood at the beginning of my reign, there had been no
organised extermination campaign since before I was born. There was no
herb ban, and had not been for decades. Therefore, the treaty
effectively had one restriction: that Mhaldor uncitizen and enemy
exterminators. (You will recall the Divine view on the matter of herb
bans).

A treaty is most often considered a codified matter between equals,
offering benefits to both. This treaty that you felt no pressing need to
codify had one operating clause, which only Mhaldor had to enforce, for
the benefit of Oakstone.

After our meeting I realized that a treaty which only burdens one party,
to the benefit of another party, is not a mutually beneficial matter
between equals. Mhaldor ended up policing Oakstone's laws regarding
extermination, among other barriers being blurred. To restore the
necessary separation between Oakstone's interests and Evil's interests,
I withdrew Mhaldor from the agreement with Oakstone (Public 15122).

More specifically to your post, I was pointing out Hierophant Nynae's
conflict of interest with her position as a Leath-ri of Eleusis. The
bias is not Eleusis', but Nynae's.

Again specifically to your post, you (Hierophants of Oakstone) continue
to flabbergast me. You enforce the letter of a law against shrines to
Evil that was old before I was young, in the complete absence of an
actual threat. By contrast, who has died to the wrath of the forests in
recent years? Mostly Lavantis, Ashtani when he most recently died, and
Dannyl, Shallamese when he most recently died. Despite their own
enemy-able actions, you do not ban shrines to Chaos and Good. Is this
only because there is no ancient law against shrines associated with
Ashtan and Shallam existing in the forests?

In closing, I am delighted to hear that you "have nothing against
Mhaldor personally". I will weigh this statement against your own
hidebound maintenance of laws that affect only Mhaldorians, to the
nigh-exclusive benefit of the Eleusians currently attacking Mhaldorians,
and consider your statements accordingly. Please keep them to the public
news board, so that we may all be quite certain of exactly what you are
saying.


Lady Ravien,

As Lady Aelyn notes, for those concerned about relationships, dialogue
is preferable. I am always amenable to dialogue, especially on matters
that will benefit both parties equally. I am especially amenable to
dialogue that does not confuse matters Oakstone with matters Eleusis.

When you are prepared with actionable items that will grant equal
benefit to Mhaldor and Eleusis, I will read the public post with
interest.


To the Hierophants of Oakstone, in final closing, I remain,

In service,

Father Wulfen
Messiah of the Damned, Blood Congregation
Tyrannus, Mhaldor


Penned by my hand on the 2nd of Phaestian, in the year 465 AF.