I wish to know who voted in favor of the current law banning the animation of undead within Dunwarren if such information is freely available.

Agent Hectra

Agent Hectra,

While I am of the belief it should be common knowledge I will with hold such unless I betray the trust of the other Councilors.

I will inform you however that there were two proposals both favoring towards outlawing Necromancy. My proposal is the one that was passed.

The other, however, outlawed Necromancy but was far more lenient in Punishment (A fine and magic privilages revoked and then exiled after repeat instances) and was also filled with technical loop holes which could be abused by criminals. (Animation was ONLY outlawed when it was used upon a Sanctuary Citizen. Meaning you could animate non-citizens or even animate citizens if there was a way to make it impossible to identify the victim, something all too easy to accomplish.)

I'm unsure why you query about who supported this law, as I think many will agree it is a just and moral law, something that should have been found in our law books long ago.

To answer your question, I obviously supported my own proposal.

Sincerely,

Councilor Reynolt

I am curious who supported laws without the courtesy to bring into context the professional opinion of those called upon to support the new law-the Spellguard. Our lack of input by is yet another blow to your claims to support city wide Unity, demonstrating your desire to enforce law without the aid of law enforcement Councilor. I find myself questioning daily if you have any real desire to see that campaign pledge fulfilled. It is a disappointment, and the law as you currently have it detailed is still full of a number of loopholes we could have closed.

Nor does it contain any provisions to make our job in capturing rogue spellcasters easier. Instead, its a purely reactive law that will be difficult to enforce, and largely prove itself pointless in actualization because of what it is designed to punish. Those animating the undead have far worse goals most often than merely animations, and this law merely forces them deeper underground and harder to discover. Rather than making Sanctuary safer, this cosmetic law merely made the city less safe and open to greater dangers.

Agent Hectra

Agent Hectra,

I don't believe I needed anymore input from the Spellguard than that which I have already gotten in the past. I know enough of Animation of the Dead to know the wretchedness of the act. I don't need biased Spellguard Agents who condone Necromancy to try and speak half-truths into my ear in the hopes of affecting my judgement.

Are all laws not reactive? You claim my law is reactive and thus that is a problem, yet what is a law that opposes murder? Is that also not reactive? Shall we be done away with that law because of that? Laws are reactive for a reason and they shall remain that way. All men are entitled to a free life without the hassle and tyranny of unreasonable laws to restrain them even further simply on the off-chance they might commit crime. You must hold -some- faith that men are responsible and moral.

The only argument I see raised which truly has any weight behind it is your intent to use this action I have now outlawed as a way to lure criminals into broad sight so that you might apprehend them. This then can be shortened into allowing immoral and wretched actions to exist as bait so you might capture the wrong-doers more easily.

I suggest you stop seeking to find a problem where there is none and resume your more worth-while duties as a Spellguard Agent.

Sincerely,

Councilor Reynolt

P.S. If there are any loop holes in the fine print of my Law I would welcome you trying to exploit them, though I assure you I was able to see them far more easily in the other proposal.

I will take you up on the offer Councilor. Please send a copy of the law to the Spellguard. We will be honored to look it over and suggest corrections to seal any loop holes. While I personally disagree with the law as it stands, feeling it leaves us less secure and not more secure-and also deeply oppose the mixing of morality with law-I am wise enough to recognize the needs of the people, our leaders, and our safety must always be upheld beyond personal grudges or petty politics.

The Spellguard will ensure this law works, and that it works as it was intended to work by those who voted for its passage. We also seek to work with the members of the Council who voted against the law, to suggest changes to it that make it more palatable to the entire Council and therefore the city they represent.

This is our duty, one that the largely opaque debate on this law and your own bias Councilor Reynolt has made far more difficult in obtaining and far too late in the offering. Duty often requires putting aside one's petty individual concerns and looking out for the community at large. I'm confident you will understand this as well Councilor once you've had time to grow accostumed to your position and rank.

Agent Hectra

Agent Hectra,

Animation of the Dead within Sanctuary and the surrounding Ruins, also while involving a citizen of Sanctuary as either the victim or the criminal. Punishment: Serious to Capital Charges, Punishment at Discretion of Judge.

That is the law in it's fine print and how it was approved.

Lastly, I rarely bring bias in our relations. At least not until I feel I've reason to be defending myself, which is often something you bring about with your accusations, insultful and disrespectful demeanor towards myself.

I would not be in any way opposed to conducting ourselves in a professional or even polite manner, though I find this hard to do when I am constantly being patronised or disrespected by yourself or other Agents.

In anycase, you have your Law and I will await your response. We may speak personally just as easily.

Sincerely,

Ivandur Reynolt

I prefer our conversations to be recorded Councilor Reynolt. The law certainly lacks some considerations, especially since there is no current definition of just what a "citizen" is. A necromancer may deny citizenship and still practice his arts outside of the city itself, your law does not stop this. Furthermore, this is exactly what a necromancer who intends danger to the city will do and the Spellguard will remain powerless to interfere. I again urge you to re-establish the law granting the Spellguard the authority to arrest non-registered Spellcasters.

If you wish, I will compile some statistics demonstrating how unregistered Spellcasters are far more likely to commit criminal acts. While a number of criminals who did register, were more easily managed because of the information we already had on file about them. Finally, in an upcoming release of information on the knucklebones, the registration of spellcasters did allow the Spellguard to recover one bone that may have otherwise gone unfound.

I do wish to formally apologize Ivandur if I've hurt your feelings. It was certainly never the intention of an entire institution of wizards sworn to defend the city of Sanctuary to belittle you, least of all my intention.

Agent Hectra

A citizen is a man who is a registered citizen of this city. He often carries a citizen's stone. His name is also in the records of the Herald. It is rather easy to prove a man is a citizen, especially as nearly every man in Sanctuary is.

There is no difference between a registered spell user and one who is not. You'll be quite as likely to find that a criminal is as often registered as he is not and it more than likely depends on how soon he registers based on how quickly a Spellguard agent makes the request of him. A criminal isn't going to refuse something so silly, that has no true use in stopping him or slowing his efforts. Your claim is baseless.

Finally, in an upcoming release of information on the knucklebones, the registration of spellcasters did allow the Spellguard to recover one bone that may have otherwise gone unfound.

This would then imply, as many already think, that the Spellguard is in posession of other Knucklebones and has failed to tell the Council or anyone else. That is something rather serious.

We would appreciate it if you would be turning these Knucklebones back to the Council so we may keep them in care.

Sincerely,

Councilor Reynolt

*Hectra happily bundles up all the letters, makes copies carefully, and files them away in the Spellguard archives and then sends the originals to Herald Jafar to file for the entire Council to look over. While waiting for responses from other Councilors.*

*As with all her letters, this one too goes to the full Council.*

The knucklebones are waiting for the Council to request them should they choose to. Currently Councilor, I may remind you that you are one man. Not the Council itself, when the Council asks for the bones they will be turned over but we're not risking them being lost by your companions and voting contituency once again.

I will also point out, that a "citizen" must buy a citizen stone. This is obvious. So a necromancer living outside our walls, who is a threat to our people, who does not buy a citizen stone, and who cleverly avoids accumulating evidence of his practices can still operate freely. Your law did nothing to make us safer from a citizen who is law abiding enough to register as a citizen, register as a necromancer, and who likely will obey this law as well. Your drive for "morality" in legalism has not stopped the real threat--an unregistered necromancer, dwelling outside the city, amassing large numbers of undead which can be a threat to our city. I am aware of several necromancers, unregistered and outside the city.

Agent Hectra

If such Necromancers, who are not citizens and are actively threatening men outside our gates then there is absolutely -nothing- to stop men who feel the Necromancer is a threat from killing this man and removing the threat.

If a Necromancer wishes to practice his foul arts he may do so, but well away from our city and without bringing harm upon any of our citizens. The moment any creature, whether he be a Necromancer or not begins to harm our citizens then we are perfectly within our rights to remove this threat for our own safety.

Agent Hectra. You are making little to no arguments in favor of your case, and the fact that your best arguments are clearly one sided without any sort of acknowledgement for common sense or our own current laws shows that you are simply looking to start trouble where there is none. Kindly stop hassling me with mail in relation to this unless you have something of true merit to say. I am very tired of reading through your missives, having to deal with you seeking to twist my words, or making sense of your own baseless arguments with little reason behind them.

Lastly. I have questioned Agent Barkely and other agents on whether or not the Spellguard was in posession of any of the Knucklebones aside from those they were given by the Council. They denied that. You might say I didn't fully cooperate with the Spellguard, but I never -lied- to them.

Sincerely,

Ivandur Reynolt

A lie of ommission Councilor Reynolt is still a lie. Especially when you claim to bring your "morals" into politics or are morals only for lesser men and not aspiring kings?

Agent Hectra

___________________________________________________________ *in a seperate but related letter*

Agent Hectra still requests this information from a member of the Council.

*Follows a reposting of her original letter.*

[Reynolt doesn't receive the letter and thus, no response is sent]

Votes on the Prohibition of the Animation of the Dead

Councilor Reynolt's proposal and Councilor Bhast's proposal both had sufficient support to be put up for voting, but conflicted with each other. To prevent conflicting laws from both being passed, procedure dictates that the Council engage in simultaneous voting. Each Councilor chose (1) to support neither law, (2) to support Councilor Reynolt's proposal, or (3) to support Councilor Bhast's proposal.

After the first vote, a second vote was taken with the option receiving the least number of votes eliminated. The winner of the second vote was passed into law. No councilor changed their vote during this period -- the "neither" option was eliminated.

Councilor Gaeseric -- supporting Reynolt's proposal. Councilor Graidan -- supporting Reynolt's proposal. Councilor Reynolt -- supporting Reynolt's proposal. Councilor Starag -- supporting Reynolt's proposal. Councilor Tyrell -- supporting Reynolt's proposal.

No councilors supporting neither.

Councilor Ward -- supporting Bhast's proposal. Councilor Bhast -- supporting Bhast's proposal. Councilor Hastian -- supporting Bhast's proposal. Councilor Lancaster -- supporting Bhast's proposal.

-- Office of the Herald