Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Voting is open
[X] Egrimm, to try to sound out more information about the Alric situation.
[X] Thorek Ironbrow, to witness the arrival of the first Dwarf in Tor Lithanel for over four thousand years.
[X] Belegar, to discuss who has been made Loremaster after you.
[X] Stirland, to see for yourself how the war against Sylvania is progressing.
[X] The Gold College, to see what's become of their research into Skaven technology.
 
Both Mathilde and Algard do consider Wind magic as superior to Dhar. However both seem very aware of how it can go wrong.

Mathilde considering Dhar inherently corruptive for 'ordinary' humans (which was basically confirmed by Vlad, aka one of the original vampires in the Liber Mortis) but still worth it if that's necessary meshes quite well with the Wind magic - and really basically all magic - is safer but still very dangerous attitude.
Using dhar is on the "well sometimes you have to nuke your own cities" level of desperation.
In theory, sure, but trying to argue for it as a policy in the face of anything but complete and total extinction is kinda dicey.
 
No the belt also makes us immune to the mental corruption as well. Note using umbramancy as suggested would never actually involve channelling dhar. Its channeling which requires a certain mindset.

Now doing something so heavily proscribed comes with its own mental pressures but you wouldnt have literal magical mind poisoning happening. So yea you would see a lot of arguments some of them very wrong.
 
No the belt also makes us immune to the mental corruption as well. Note using umbramancy as suggested would never actually involve channelling dhar. Its channeling which requires a certain mindset.

Now doing something so heavily proscribed comes with its own mental pressures but you wouldnt have literal magical mind poisoning happening. So yea you would see a lot of arguments some of them very wrong.
Does it?
I though that was on the "try it and find out" and "setting your brain on fire is a bad idea" levels?
 
Does it?
I though that was on the "try it and find out" and "setting your brain on fire is a bad idea" levels?

I think theres a big misunderstanding about how Mathilde would use Dhar if she ever did. She is not going to channel it which is using her soul to manipulate it directly she is going to use it at a remove like Nagash. The belt means the dhar should never get in her body and brain meats.

Now that doesnt remove all mental influences as doing something like using Dhar has so much of a social stigma but the literal magical mind poison isnt relevant.
 
I think theres a big misunderstanding about how Mathilde would use Dhar if she ever did. She is not going to channel it which is using her soul to manipulate it directly she is going to use it at a remove like Nagash. The belt means the dhar should never get in her body and brain meats.

Now that doesnt remove all mental influences as doing something like using Dhar has so much of a social stigma but the literal magical mind poison isnt relevant.
Mind you that manipulating Dhar in the first place requires adopting the mindset that lets a wizard use Dhar, which is that of a paranoid megalomaniac. It's just by default unhealthy to use.
 
[X] Thorek Ironbrow, to witness the arrival of the first Dwarf in Tor Lithanel for over four thousand years.
[X] Qrech, who is putting the finishing touches on his tome on the Chaos Dwarves.
[X] Egrimm, to try to sound out more information about the Alric situation.
[X] Belegar, to discuss who has been made Loremaster after you.

[X] Vicarius Galenstra, to get to know him and his Ward.
 
I think theres a big misunderstanding about how Mathilde would use Dhar if she ever did. She is not going to channel it which is using her soul to manipulate it directly she is going to use it at a remove like Nagash. The belt means the dhar should never get in her body and brain meats.

Now that doesnt remove all mental influences as doing something like using Dhar has so much of a social stigma but the literal magical mind poison isnt relevant.
Keep in mind that Nagash did end up looking like warped, oversized skeleton.

Even when using Dhar once removed it can cause mutations.
Though our belt should help.
 
1. The belt makes us immune to the physical corruption of Dhar. Channeling a second wind—whether that is Shyish or Ashqy or Dhar—will still drive us insane. The whole wind magic thing means you have to cultivate a specific mindset to use that wind, and using two winds means having two mindsets, which is literally insanity and will very likely result in the quest ending shortly afterwards. The only people who can avoid this are Brettonian Damsels and maybe Kislev Ice Witches, and Mathilde won't be able to do what they did because she's turned a significant portion of her soul into Ulgu. We can't use a second wind, period. We can't even use divine magic—no Ranaldian miracles for us.

2. Van Hel did go crazy. He became a paranoid monster that believed the people he was defending had turned against him, and was planning on launching a surprise attack against the Empire before they could attack him. Vlad had to put him down like a rabid dog in the end.
1. It makes us immune to the mental effects as well
2. We wouldn't be channeling two branches, the whole point of necromancy, and in our case, unbramancny, is that we use another wind to indirectly manipulate it to great effect
3. Wether or not he went insane or was betrayed by fools who thought he would go insane is a matter of historical debate (although personally, I don't take much issue with him planning a surprise attack on the empire tbh, it's not like he was planning something evil, even if he actually did plan to betray and that's not just propaganda)
 
The thing that confuses me the most is the word "heresy". I looked for the definition of the word to get a proper bearing as to what counts, but by god is the definition broad:

"belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine." or "opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted."

What, then, counts as heresy? This looks like a profoundly individual assessment, especially since the Verenans are largely at odds with the Sigmarites and don't bend to the authority of the Empire that they reside in completely, so clearly what they consider "heresy" would vary wildly, especially since what is "generally accepted" can vary wildly and can change with time. An excellent example of this is Magic. 200 years ago it was illegal and you would be burnt for it, definitely heresy. Now, while the populace might not be super happy about it, it's generally accepted that the Colleges are a thing so it's no longer heresy to practice regular magic if you're affiliated.

From what I'm reading in Tome of Salvation though, these debates are super common and it's something the Verenans relish. They are literally a "debate me" crowd.
That dictionary entry sounds to me like it's being deliberately broad and vague to step around the endless flamewar of some religious arguments, so I'm going to offer my own more specific definition and a bit of associated speculation and context, at risk of starting an argument. The term "heresy" is Christian in origin, and is/was loosely part of a set of terms:

1. Schism is when two Christian churches differ over a small but irreconcilable point, though what is "small" is itself a source of much discourse, and the point of difference is usually outside the core doctrines. A classic example of Schism is when Church A thinks the Papal Election of [year] was illegitimate due to the military occupation at the time influencing the outcome so they follow the other guy who was picked to be Pope in the do-over of [year+2], whereas Church B thinks the [year] election was irregular but valid because the military occupation did not directly compel the vote so they're with the [year] Pope and the [year+2] guy is a pretender, what's illegitimate is holding an election when there's already a Pope. The two churches still agree on the substance of what one should believe about Christ.
2. Heresy is when two Christian churches disagree over a larger point of Christian doctrine, for example whether Jesus existed from the beginning of the world and was only waiting to incarnate on Earth, or whether Jesus was created at the moment when Mary conceived. The mainstream Christian creed teaches the former ("we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all times") and would therefore regard the latter as heresy, and vice versa. Generally, if it's a disagreement about Jesus but both churches still believe in Jesus, it's heresy.
3. Heathenry is how a Christian describes someone who doesn't believe in the Christian God at all, and/or someone who believes in other deities. Sometimes you'll see this split into "atheist" and "pagan", and sometimes "heathen" is used to describe the latter only, not including atheists.

The substitution of another church for Christians in interpreting the word is straightforward. Beyond that... well, Warhammer Fantasy includes some weird quasi-monotheist cults believing e.g. that all the other gods are secretly Ranald in disguise, but nothing like the RL monotheism that gave us the word "heresy". Also, I practically never see "heathenry" used in WHF. So between the official polytheism, the limited vocabulary, and my general observations of WHF, I think the use of "heresy" in-setting mostly covers something like #3, being a cultist of forbidden gods and/or denying the Imperial pantheon, and #2 to a greatly reduced extent, given the degree and number of divergent splinter sects in canon that are not considered heretics. *shakes fist at GW* (note: the official Cult of X sometimes declares a sect of X to be heretical, like the Sons of Ulric, so there's at least some #2 in the WHF definition.)
Games Workshop is evidently doing some of their usual weird nonsense where they co-opt a cool-sounding term and implicitly redefine it for their setting without spelling out its new meaning properly, because in addition to the above, there's item 7 of the Imperial Articles of Magic: Whoever studies necromancy is a Heretic. The lores of the Chaos Gods are heresy, sure, that one makes a kind of sense. But necromancy? What? :thonk:

Other canon points of interest:
There were times when the Ulricans believed all the early Sigmarites were heretics. I'm guessing because Sigmar wasn't yet an approved god.
There's a miscast entry named Heretical Vision: "A Daemon Prince shows you a vision of Chaos. You gain 1d10 Insanity Points. Any time after this event, you can spend 100 xp and gain the Dark Lore (Chaos) talent."
Your mention of [arcane] Magic as an example of no-longer-heresy was not merely illegal, but believed to be associated with the Chaos Gods. In particular, Tzeentch, who is kinda-sorta the God of Magic, and the wizard miscast rules are sometimes named "Tzeentch's Curse" in the rulebooks.
Witch Hunters are tasked with searching out heretics, though Realms of Sorcery says their scope does not include "traitors, seditionists, or revolutionaries", which suggests there's a religious component required to be a heretic, not merely being at odds with what's generally accepted. OTOH, Witch Hunters are also tasked with hunting out, again, necromancers.

Something funky is going on with necromancy that gets it included into the WHF definition of "heresy" repeatedly.
 
3. Wether or not he went insane or was betrayed by fools who thought he would go insane is a matter of historical debate (although personally, I don't take much issue with him planning a surprise attack on the empire tbh, it's not like he was planning something evil, even if he actually did plan to betray and that's not just propaganda)

It's pretty explicit in the text; the use of Necromancy drove him insane. It's not "propaganda", Mathilde saw his decline as recorded in his very own journal for herself, and attacking and invading the Empire is an evil act, and one Mathlide could never bring herself to do, due to her rather justified pre-existing loyalties to the Empire.
 
Something funky is going on with necromancy that gets it included into the WHF definition of "heresy" repeatedly.

This is probably partly a carryover from when all magic was considered derived from Chaos and therefore heretical, and partly a matter of practicality, as it wouldn't work well to have one group for hunting Chaos Sorcerers and another group for hunting all other unlicensed magic-users when it would be really hard to distinguish between them based on uneducated eyewitness reports.
 
That dictionary entry sounds to me like it's being deliberately broad and vague to step around the endless flamewar of some religious arguments, so I'm going to offer my own more specific definition and a bit of associated speculation and context, at risk of starting an argument. The term "heresy" is Christian in origin, and is/was loosely part of a set of terms:

1. Schism is when two Christian churches differ over a small but irreconcilable point, though what is "small" is itself a source of much discourse, and the point of difference is usually outside the core doctrines. A classic example of Schism is when Church A thinks the Papal Election of [year] was illegitimate due to the military occupation at the time influencing the outcome so they follow the other guy who was picked to be Pope in the do-over of [year+2], whereas Church B thinks the [year] election was irregular but valid because the military occupation did not directly compel the vote so they're with the [year] Pope and the [year+2] guy is a pretender, what's illegitimate is holding an election when there's already a Pope. The two churches still agree on the substance of what one should believe about Christ.
2. Heresy is when two Christian churches disagree over a larger point of Christian doctrine, for example whether Jesus existed from the beginning of the world and was only waiting to incarnate on Earth, or whether Jesus was created at the moment when Mary conceived. The mainstream Christian creed teaches the former ("we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all times") and would therefore regard the latter as heresy, and vice versa. Generally, if it's a disagreement about Jesus but both churches still believe in Jesus, it's heresy.
3. Heathenry is how a Christian describes someone who doesn't believe in the Christian God at all, and/or someone who believes in other deities. Sometimes you'll see this split into "atheist" and "pagan", and sometimes "heathen" is used to describe the latter only, not including atheists.

The substitution of another church for Christians in interpreting the word is straightforward. Beyond that... well, Warhammer Fantasy includes some weird quasi-monotheist cults believing e.g. that all the other gods are secretly Ranald in disguise, but nothing like the RL monotheism that gave us the word "heresy". Also, I practically never see "heathenry" used in WHF. So between the official polytheism, the limited vocabulary, and my general observations of WHF, I think the use of "heresy" in-setting mostly covers something like #3, being a cultist of forbidden gods and/or denying the Imperial pantheon, and #2 to a greatly reduced extent, given the degree and number of divergent splinter sects in canon that are not considered heretics. *shakes fist at GW* (note: the official Cult of X sometimes declares a sect of X to be heretical, like the Sons of Ulric, so there's at least some #2 in the WHF definition.)
Games Workshop is evidently doing some of their usual weird nonsense where they co-opt a cool-sounding term and implicitly redefine it for their setting without spelling out its new meaning properly, because in addition to the above, there's item 7 of the Imperial Articles of Magic: Whoever studies necromancy is a Heretic. The lores of the Chaos Gods are heresy, sure, that one makes a kind of sense. But necromancy? What? :thonk:

Other canon points of interest:
There were times when the Ulricans believed all the early Sigmarites were heretics. I'm guessing because Sigmar wasn't yet an approved god.
There's a miscast entry named Heretical Vision: "A Daemon Prince shows you a vision of Chaos. You gain 1d10 Insanity Points. Any time after this event, you can spend 100 xp and gain the Dark Lore (Chaos) talent."
Your mention of [arcane] Magic as an example of no-longer-heresy was not merely illegal, but believed to be associated with the Chaos Gods. In particular, Tzeentch, who is kinda-sorta the God of Magic, and the wizard miscast rules are sometimes named "Tzeentch's Curse" in the rulebooks.
Witch Hunters are tasked with searching out heretics, though Realms of Sorcery says their scope does not include "traitors, seditionists, or revolutionaries", which suggests there's a religious component required to be a heretic, not merely being at odds with what's generally accepted. OTOH, Witch Hunters are also tasked with hunting out, again, necromancers.

Something funky is going on with necromancy that gets it included into the WHF definition of "heresy" repeatedly.
Night's Dark Masters says that while Witch Hunters will root out Necromancers and undead for the safety of the realm, their domain is primarily dealing with Chaos and seeking out undead is seen as a dereliction of duty. This is part of the reason why "Vampire Hunters" and "Witch Hunters" aren't exactly the same thing, and sometimes Witch Hunters might even hunt down Vampire Hunters for knowing too much about necromancy and the undead so clearly they're up to no good.

There is also the argument that there are Vampire cults like the Cult of Risen Dead and the general Nagash cult started by Kadon and likely exists in some form that gives a cult like nature to some necromancy/undead. Lahmian infiltration of levels of society is also the kind of thing that could be easily mistaken for Chaos, so when the Witch Hunter pursues every lead and eventually finds out that oh it's not a Slaanesh cult, it's just Lahmian vampires, he's not going to shrug and go back to seek out chaos. He'll purge the taint then go look for other heretics.

Essentially, the line between chaos cultist and necromancer/Vampire cabal can sometimes be hard to define, or maybe the terms merge very often as with the Cult of the Risen Dead. In that case Heresy would fit.
 
Mind you that manipulating Dhar in the first place requires adopting the mindset that lets a wizard use Dhar, which is that of a paranoid megalomaniac. It's just by default unhealthy to use.


Im sorry this is wrong. You are talking about channelling dhar. Using it in the Nagashian sense means not channelling dhar you would use in Mathildes case Ulgu to manipulate and make dhar so the primary mindset would be Ulgus.

It's pretty explicit in the text; the use of Necromancy drove him insane. It's not "propaganda", Mathilde saw his decline as recorded in his very own journal for herself, and attacking and invading the Empire is an evil act, and one Mathlide could never bring herself to do, due to her rather justified pre-existing loyalties to the Empire.

This is completely correct, he also didn't have the Belt Mathilde has.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty explicit in the text; the use of Necromancy drove him insane. It's not "propaganda", Mathilde saw his decline as recorded in his very own journal for herself, and attacking and invading the Empire is an evil act, and one Mathlide could never bring herself to do, due to her rather justified pre-existing loyalties to the Empire.
How is fighting the empire inherently evil? If we can be better then them, then it clearly seems like a good thing
 
How is fighting the empire inherently evil? If we can be better then them, then it clearly seems like a good thing

Because you don't create better societies by burning down old ones and building a new one on top of the burning bodies. Especially when your idea of a better society is "being ruled by a dark wizard, but it's okay because she has a magic belt".

Like seriously, what would invading and taking over the Empire actually result in? A better world, or the same one, only slightly more on fire?
 
If Mathilde wants to change the Empire, she can do it the slow and subtle way by using the ridiculously immense advantages she has access to. Namely, her confidant status with the Empress and her status as Godmother of the Heir to the Imperial throne giving her the ability to quite possibly shape the next Emperor. If she really wants to start shaking things up, she also has her hands on an absurdly powerful and growing trade conglomerate that is building a near monopoly on a canal that is likely to shake up the entirety of the Empire, giving her a frankly ludicrous degree of pull in the state of the Empire for someone who spends so much time outside it.

I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of revolutions, but there has to be a compelling reason for there to be one, rather than a slow and steady advancement of society. No need to break society down when Mathilde has great leverage to help it along if she wants to.
 
her status as Godmother of the Heir to the Imperial throne giving her the ability to quite possibly shape the next Emperor.
Just going to interject here, being the kid of the previous Emperor is no guarantee of being voted for by the other Elector Counts, and so Mannfred is not heir to the Imperial Throne. The best Karl Franz managed in the first round of the Elector's Meet was keeping Boris Todbringer from gaining the votes needed to win, so they had to reconvene.

What Mandred is heir to, is the title of the Prince of Reikland. Still significant, of course, given that Reikland is one of the Empire's breadbasket regions and at the heart of the Reik river trade, not even mentioning being the home of the Colleges of Magic.
 
Last edited:
Just going to interject here, being the kid of the previous Emperor is no guarantee of being voted for by the other Elector Counts, and so Mannfred is not heir to the Imperial Throne. The best Karl Franz managed in the first round of the Elector's Meet was keeping Boris Todbringer from gaining the votes needed to win, so they had to reconvene.

What Mannfred is heir to, is the title of the Prince of Reikland. Still significant, of course, given that Reikland is one of the Empire's breadbasket regions and at the heart of the Reik river trade, not even mentioning being the home of the Colleges of Magic.
The last couple Emperors have all been from the same line, as the Emprie has a tendency to produce Dynasties. It's not guaranteed that Mandred will be the next Emperor, but it is "likely" which is why I used that qualifier. Unless a seriously convincing candidate pops up or Mandred is a really bad choice for whatever reason, he has an advantage.

Whether Boris contests the election in DL is not a guarantee. Chances are he undergoes a different series of events over the following years.
 
1. It makes us immune to the mental effects as well
2. We wouldn't be channeling two branches, the whole point of necromancy, and in our case, unbramancny, is that we use another wind to indirectly manipulate it to great effect
3. Wether or not he went insane or was betrayed by fools who thought he would go insane is a matter of historical debate (although personally, I don't take much issue with him planning a surprise attack on the empire tbh, it's not like he was planning something evil, even if he actually did plan to betray and that's not just propaganda)
I think someone implied earlier that you haven't actually read all of the threadmarks yet? I don't think you're qualified to have this debate if you're not up to date on the quest, as this is just explicitly wrong per the text.

I've never understood people who start taking part in the thread before reading the threadmarks. You're going to get spoilt on a lot of things, are fundamentally not equipped to join the discussion, and it creates a weird pressure on other thread-goers to stop talking about the parts you haven't read yet.
 
Fighting the empire with armies of the dead whose tread poisons the earth and whose breath is as the wailing of the damned is bad, it is in far worse than anything the empire could do. There is no such thing as a good necromantic army.
About the best you can really hope for in terms of necromantic armies are wandering warbands of Wights that busted out of their burial mounds of their own accord, and haven't yet been suborned by a necromancer or vampire. And even then, YMMV on how morally adjusted a millennia-dead tribal king and their honour guard are going to be.
 
Voting is open
Back
Top