Greetings,
I know that, as a commoner, I have no right to question the decision of any noble, let alone a council of paladins. I am sure great consideration was utilized by the Ordo Aurum before reaching their decision, and they are under no obligation to explain it. However, I consider myself both a student of chivalry and a friend of Ulthoc Crownsmith, and, as such, I feel it necessary to put forth several statements and questions regarding this matter, in the event that the paladins were inadequately informed of the details of the situation. I was not present, but I have corresponded with Ulthoc on the matter, and that correspondence has raised some points on which I desire to obtain greater clarity.
First, in general, it seems that Ulthoc’s decisions were made emphasizing the values of compassion, defense of the innocent, and combatting of evil, while the judgment of the Ordo Aurum seems to lean more heavily towards the values of honesty and love of country. Surely these are all admirable and noble qualities, and I understand the desire of the paladins to emphasize loyalty to the state at this time. However, I know Ulthoc to be of noble spirit. I am somewhat familiar with the tenets of your Code Of Chivalry, but am only a novice at it’s philosophy. Are some tenets weighted greater than others?
Perhaps addressing some specifics would be helpful. To the best of my knowledge, Ulthoc never lied. He did withhold information regarding intel he had that affected his decision. However, if I am correct, he was the only baron in town at the time, nor was there a noble in town that outranked him. He only withheld information from subordinates. I do not mean to disrespect the feelings of anyone who felt insulted by not knowing the full details of the plan, but in military situations, the commander does not always share all the information and motivations behind his decision. He is not obligated to, nor is it always considered safe, prudent, and beneficial to agenda, army, or country. I realize that is a military interpretation, but do not nobles serve as military commanders in situations likely to resolve with armed conflict? Or are the rules inherently different for nobles addressing lower ranking nobles and commoners?
The other charge levied against Ulthoc was aiding a Galanthian senator. I am assuming that means that all Galanthian officials are considered enemies of the state, and I could understand how, in this, Icenia’s time of strife, the paladins wisely advise all to be wary of associating with such enemies, however benign their intentions might seem. However, the actions Ulthoc took at the behest of the Galanthian senator were surely ones he would have taken anyway, if he otherwise had the opportunity. Ulthoc allowed the mirror to be reassembled once he realized that doing so (to the best of his knowledge) would release innocent prisoners that were unjustly trapped within its confines, and that the mirror’s fragmented state was most likely causing the afflictions of many local citizens. In both ways he was performing the first tenet of the Icenian Code of Chivalry.
The other action he performed that coincided with the senator’s wishes was to grant him a ritual Gift of Life, thereby removing his vampirism. Surely, as far as combatting evil is concerned, this is at least as good an option for eliminating necromancy as is destroying an undead outright. Additionally, for what it is worth, all indications were that it would permanently destroy or severely weaken the senator’s spirit in the process and, I have to suspect, would also incur the wrath of HIS superiors, thereby likely removing his senatorial title in the process. Again, this may seem like a strategic position rather than a chivalric one, but it sounds like a reasonable action for a man in Ulthoc’s position to make.
As far as the end not justifying the means, I agree that this is a noble maxim, but I, personally, cannot consider it an absolute, for it implies that, in every situation, it is possible to do no evil. Unfortunately, that is simply not true. I know I do evil every time I kill an enemy. I am doing it to prevent the evil of his killing of innocents. My means are evil; the end is good. I wholeheartedly believe that Ulthoc’s intentions were to prevent and reverse evils. His actions defended the weak, fought evil by punishing a vampire for his acts of necromancy, weakening his spirit while allowing him the redemption of starting over without even the memory of his time of evil acts. In the process, Ulthoc may have made decisions that not everyone in his position would have made. Sometimes chivalry involves deciding between two imperfect actions. That is why it is difficult, and that is why it is entrusted to a few individuals, and that is why they are called nobles.
The same can be said of the decision of the Ordo Aurum. I’m sure they realized that no decision would be perfect. If I offend with my novice understanding of the Code, or if I speak out of turn, I apologize. I, as my friend Ulthoc, will abide by your decision. If he did not think his actions questionable, he would not have presented himself to you. But I do think he is of noble character, and I wanted to make sure the situation was served by the most thorough knowledge possible. If Ulthoc or any noble of Icenia would like to clarify my understanding of the situation or the Icenian Code of Chivalry, I would graciously accept the enlightenment. Otherwise, peace be to all, and let us continue to fight evil despite our titles or differences.
Thank you all for your time,
Aelawen Gildenfeather
