Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Murder is defined as unlawful killing.

I'd argue she hasn't, yet.
Are extra-judicial killings counted? Because she totally did do that to that noblewoman way back when she'd just finished off Drakenhof. I'd guess that the law of the Empire isn't actually ok with that, but that it doesn't really go to court often.
 
Murder is defined as unlawful killing.

I'd argue she hasn't, yet.
She has not committed murder untill she kills the Tzar, The thing is next Tzar is the one who has asked so it can't be unlawful then.

Infact there is no point it this line of events where this killing is unlawful. Unless of course she fails to kill the Tzar the first time, then it is unlawful. Or somebody figures out what she is going to do before hand but at that point it is just conspiracy to commit Murder not genue article.
 
Murder is defined as unlawful killing.

I'd argue she hasn't, yet.
Killing that one noble who was involved with the Lahmian conspiracy counts IMO. It was loyal to the Empire, no doubt about it, she had it coming, but typically traitors are hung, not anonymously killed in the middle of the night.

Also, regicide has more impact.
 
Killing that one noble who was involved with the Lahmian conspiracy counts IMO. It was loyal to the Empire, no doubt about it, she had it coming, but typically traitors are hung, not anonymously killed in the middle of the night.

Also, regicide has more impact.
Yeah, my understanding is that the Grey Order's "better to never ask forgiveness or permission" MO isn't really compatible with such activities being legal as such, even if it is kinda one of their functions as an apparatus of the state.
 
So long as we kill the tzar without him noticing us, technically we would only be caught with a crime afterwords, at which point we would be working on the orders of the rightful tzar. If we are noticed at any point however, that argument is moot, and we would have definitely committed unlawful murder.

I wouldn't be surprised if "yeah grey wizards can assasinate people with sufficient cause" was a law, because honestly that's a big part of their jobs, show up, murder everyone they find out is a traitor, and leave is probably a pretty standard thing for internally focused grey wizards
 
So long as we kill the tzar without him noticing us, technically we would only be caught with a crime afterwords, at which point we would be working on the orders of the rightful tzar. If we are noticed at any point however, that argument is moot, and we would have definitely committed unlawful murder.
But just because he is tzar, does not make killing on his behalf legal. Even the Tzar can not simply order a man killed for no reason.
 
But just because he is tzar, does not make killing on his behalf legal. Even the Tzar can not simply order a man killed for no reason.
Not really? The tzar is the absolute monarch of kislev, if he says somethings legal it is. Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't be allowed, as the boyars and basically anyone of any importance in kislev would protest, but it would be legal, as shown by the fact that Kattarin the bloody killed the much of the population of the capital and faced very little pushback for that in particular, with her being overthrown because the boyars realized an immortal ruler meant none of them could ever take her spot.
 
An Ulgu!Solipsism would definitely need to be pre-cast. In tt games, there's still a player who can make the decision to have something retroactively happen to the character, but when it comes to magic, someone's will needs to direct the energies.
... "I wasn't aware of this attack, so it's not real to me" sounds real close to the Changer's bullshit.
 
It's illegal in the sense that if we asked for permission right now it would be denied. It's legal in the sense that if we ask for forgiveness afterwards it would be granted and become legal retroactively. However ideally Mathilde should pull this off in such a way that makes sure we don't need to ask for permission or forgiveness and leave its legality undefined since there can be no answer to a question that never gets asked.
 
Literally every spell ever cast has been the Warp forcing a less natural outcome to override reality. That's what magic is.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that magic doesn't follow rules. Reality wants to be real - if it didn't, there would be nothing preventing the Warp from unravelling it all, and the Great Vortex would have nothing to preserve.

"Everything magic is magic" is both tautological and sidesteps the fact that magic is really really hard.
 
not murder.

like, this is going to be the first time we will be doing something sneaky that Ranald will not like. no matter the argument.
Ranald is absolutely in favor of getting rid of bad rulers though, even if he'd prefer a more populist replacement than Boris he'd still be in favor of getting rid of Vladimir in favor of Boris since Boris won't neglect the well-being of those he rules like the current Tzar does.
 
not murder.

like, this is going to be the first time we will be doing something sneaky that Ranald will not like. no matter the argument.
Not as much as you'd think, the protector pretty explicitly has allowances carved in for revolution. The protector is the god of "freedom from tyranny, liberation from despots, and the symbol of revolution."

We're overthrowing an old unpopular ruler to install an heir that is more friendly to the people, and wants to guide Kislev into a better life, Ranald wouldn't disapprove. I don't think he'd approve either, but he'd definitely not dislike it
 
Last edited:
Back
Top