[!] A notice is posted beneath Rott's denouncement, Closing Concerns from Councilor Rottjarnsmidar. Handwritten in flowing cursive, but otherwise perfectly legible.

People of the Spire,

For those that do not know I am Konrad Radziwill, Attending Physician at the Spire Hospital. It has come to my attention of a recent denouncement of Councilor Meriel Noctis, by Councilor Rottjarnsmidar Gnarlrack. Based on the things I have witnessed and heard, I saw it fit to make my stance known. The denouncement is nothing more than an excuse by Councilor Rottjarnsmidar to shirk responsibility for his failures on a competent incumbent in order to weaken the unity of the town and its Council before he scarpers off. I will refute each and every single point that Councilor Rott has made as part of his denouncement:

• The supplies promised to the Stonerunner Clans would be just as needed at home to feed its people. Simply because thousands of crowns is invested does not translate to crops of potato and turnip suddenly sprouting from the soil, and certainly does not translate to bountiful results within the span of only a few months. It is delusional to think that investments in crowns amounts to immediate stockpiles of food available to trade away to others. In the end Councilor Noctis was correct, and an alliance with the Stonerunner Clans was not needed for the Battle of the Garden of Aedall. Perhaps this alliance is something that can be revisited in the future now that supply lines are not in peril, but at the time it would have been foolish.
• It is foolish to think because the Fey are simply deprived of a seat on the Council, that the Fey threat would be resolved. There is nothing wrong with imposing term limits upon Councilors, however term limits simply for the sake of limiting the Fey on Council is a lackluster solution to the issue with Fey causing chaos amongst the townsfolk. It has been thus far demonstrated that the Fey are perfectly capable of causing chaos without the need to exercise Councilor Quincy's authority- In fact his absence or disapproval has not stopped the Council from introducing directives regarding dealing with the Fey. This point against Councilor Noctis is entirely moot.
• Councilor Rott has mentioned that Councilor Noctis has introduced legislation without approval of the rest of the Council. Might I remind the Councilman that his imprisonment of Idris and his convenient absence forced Councilor Noctis to act in an effort to clarify the state of the town and the law. If he had issue with the matter he had ample time to bring it up to the Council, and failing that, could bring the dispute up to the public to effect change from outside the Council. However the fact that he has kept his qualms under wraps and only released it now shows behaviour that is deceptive, dishonest, and disorderly.
• The Arcanist Accord, in theory, is an agreement of good conduct. However the actions of Councilor Rott as one of the leaders of the Accord bring doubts as to whether the leadership of the Accord truly care about its own mission. Councilor Rott has abused his power within the Council to arrest the Mage Idris, then failed to bring to light any evidence to support the accusations he made against Idris. In fact Councilor Rott took an extended trip beyond the Spire and left Councilor Noctis to clean up the mess that he has made in a show of irresponsible conduct. His negligence and refusal to either release Idris or provide further proof of Idris' wrongdoing eventually led to his explosive escape from the Guardhouse, resulting in the mutilation of multiple guards, the death of the Guard-Captain, and near fatalities of several townsfolk. If Councilor Rott had the proof or knew someone with proof, he should have acted responsibly to convince the guards the justifications for the arrest so that further restrictions against the powerful mage Idris could be made in good time beyond simple penances.
• Councilor Noctis wished to release Mage Idris on the grounds that the guards did not receive sufficient proof of Idris' crime from Councilor Rott. If Councilor Rott knew of a crime that was committed, then it begs the question where his proof is and why it was not presented to the guards. Councilor Noctis' attempts to secure fair release was in light of Councilor Rott's negligent behaviour to bring forth evidence. Atop of that, I should remind the townsfolk that the location of Veena's corpse was never found by the town. There was never a grave for Veena to begin with to be robbed from nor did anyone know where her body was even dumped.

Outside of the points that Councilor Rott have made, I have several more contentions to bring up:

• Rottjarnsmidar makes grave accusations against Councilor Noctis such as her being in league with Quincy and the Feys, or being in league with Idris. These are baseless assumptions, simply to slander her. Councilor Noctis is not the only person to have previously encountered Idris. In fact Veena, who the Councilor Rott conveniently hides his accusations behind, was one of the many townsfolk that has encountered Idris prior to her return and witnessed the effects of his magic. If he wishes to claim that simply meeting Idris prior is implication of cooperation, then he should first educate himself on prior events of the town.
• I was personally witness to the arrest of Idris, however as I recall the arrest of Idris was conducted upon Idris' refusal to reveal the nature of his magic. Only afterwards were charges made, then proof of said charges neither revealed nor elaborated on. The specific charge of Necromancy was never provided evidence for nor given proof of. The laws regarding the specifics of necromancy were also amended by Councilor Noctis after Idris' escape and since then Councilor Rott has made no fuss about the amendments when there was plenty of time to do so previously. Until now, at least.
• Councilor Rott may not use physical force mages to sign under the Accord, but his repeated disdain for Meriel Noctis despite her achievements and good efforts to rectify his irresponsible conduct, is rather telling. It is not that he uses physical force, but uses social pressures to force mages into compliance.
• Rott has made attempts to contact the Patrons to forcibly have Idris' magic removed from him. This was a clear attempt to skirt the guard's demands for proof, and simply to dispense punishments as he sees fit and without consultation from the townsfolk- Other than those closest to him in the Arcanist Accord.

My dispute is not with the Arcanist Accord, but with the fact that Rott has used the denouncement as a means to excuse his own irresponsible actions, and to simultaneously slander a perfectly competent, and demonstrably dedicated incumbent. If anyone has questions, they may seek me for answers.

Signed,
Dr. K. Radziwill

Doctor Radziwill,

As I know you are a long standing supporter of Noctis I do not fault you for your unwavering loyalty. Though allow me to refute each point which you make here.

• The crowns invested were in no average farmers. The arcane was being implemented under the watchful eye of myself as a member of the Accord. Divine Gardens were the aim, and results were bountiful in having lush fields ripe for harvest. You speak of ourselves having a lack of supplies when I watched harvests boom.
• Noctis is being irresponsible with the Fey in her dealings, I do not fault you for being uninformed in this so allow me to show how Noctis provokes the Fey behind closed doors in the Council of Four's chambers. Either she is purely irresponsible or wishes to give the Fey reason to act out against us.

[!] A Letter from the Fey on Meriel Noctis' proposal to alter set deals is attached below [!]

• The time that I spent away from the Spire was in search of creating a trade deal with the Valkian Smithing Guild to ensure a steady supply of Valkian Steel to our Militia. I would hope that this is not lost upon you how important a material like this is as member of the militia's seniority. Idris' act of reckless magic is just further proof to his criminal nature. As for refuting the passed laws, it is not a matter of my disapproval of them. It is a matter of Noctis' complete disregard for abiding to a set precedent of the law as we have seen previously with her holding the initial trial for Quincy without absolutely no authority to do so as a ruling body.
• You call me deceptive, dishonest, and disorderly; yet as I have made well known I am without fault in the view of the Gauntlet in any of my actions. Deceptive? I share information which is relevant when needed to who needs to hear it; Dishonest? I do not lie when asked or accused, as can clearly be seen with my outward desire to paint the cobbles with Callista's blood yet do not do so for the respect of the request of others; Disorderly? I am many things, but I do not even know where this baseless accusation comes from.
• Abuse of power against the necromancy Idris is an interesting position to take, good doctor. Since you were there, I would hope that you remember Idris admitted to the crimes himself before everyone present. In good faith, I attempted to reason with Idris to tell me his methods of revival so that I could be certain that Necrophages would not come as a result of his methods. When the methods were refused to be revealed, then the laws as penned by Noctis were enforced. I did not wish to imprison the mage and have them sent for trial by the Gauntlet, but no choice was left and the law had to be set.
• If you wish to nitpick at the definition of robbing graves, then perhaps you should petition something more specific on the matter so that we could avoid a similar situation from cropping up in the future. Though laws within the Spire seem quite fluid and bent to the whims of individuals as they want. This is obvious with how Edgard Phonquis was wanted for murder when he killed Veena in an honorable duel. When he did as he wished with her body by nailing her skinned face to the notice board, that seemed to cause an outrage among the masses. Though performing dangerous magic that could result in Necrophages seems to be something we shouldn't concern ourselves with in your eyes.
• I did attempt to seek options to snuff the spark within Idris' being so that he would be rendered without magic. As for asking the permission of the townsfolk as a whole about this line of action? Do you consult the townsfolk when an individual needs surgery, or do you consult with the staff of your hospital? I spoke with the individuals who study and have knowledge on the subject, which has protected the Spire previously from outside forces irresponsible with the arcane.

Despite all that is said here, I do not fault you Doctor Radziwill. I hold no ill tidings against you for anything you say as I understand you come from a place of true concern and caring for the Spire and its people as a healer of its citizens. I also appreciate that you understand the Arcanist Accord is a force to keep the people of the Spire safe through an agreement of good conduct. So let it be known I accept all your criticisms and concerns. I hope that you reflect on what you have said, given my response.

From one warrior to another,
Councilor Rottjarnsmidar of the Clan Gnarlrack

[!]

Due to Rott's response a sketch was drawn of a politician with a short response anoymously. 

"Preach shield brother."

[!] The mother of all responses... It spans three pages, nailed to the noticeboard side-by-side. Also written in Konrad's flowing handwriting.

The response penned by Councilor Rottjarnsmidar is an excellent demonstration of his deceptive, dishonest, and disorderly behaviour. The most recent release of communications between the Circle of Four helps to corroborate such behaviour, and by the omission of certain relevant facts, Councilor Rott is able to paint himself in a better light and simultaneously blame his failures on Councilor Meriel Noctis.

• Councilor Rottjarnsmidar was right in correcting the fact that thousands invested was in fact in Divine Gardens. However, I remind the people of the original point that Councilor Rott has made; That despite thousands of crowns were invested, that Councilor Noctis "continues to be unconvinced in an alliance with the Stonerunners" (Gnarlrack, 1640a). However the Circle of Four communications recently released dispute that interpretation, where it is stated that Councilor Noctis "will approve the notion so as long as an initial agreed-upon amount of food is reported and traded for set conditions in exchange" (Noctis, Personal Communication, Skybright 8th, 1640). In fact the following statement shows she at least partially approves of the initiative and "suggested to talk of negotiations with them firsthand before initially agreeing to any one thing, to then come back to the council" (Noctis, Personal Communication, Skybright 8th, 1640). These quoted communications reveal two things: After convincing by Councilor Rott, Councilor Noctis was willing to open negotiations- Which is contrary to Councilor Rott's claim that she was unconvinced. The second thing being that, Councilor Rott intentionally exploited the fact that not all communications between Councilors were available at the time and thus exploited the gap in knowledge to paint Councilor Noctis as "untrustworthy" (Gnarlrack, 1640a). This is deceptive practice for Councilor Rott has failed to "share information which is relevant when needed to who needs to hear it" (Gnarlrack, 1640b).
  
  
• The letter from Quince and Thrice (Quincy) that Councilor Rott has attached is genuine, and he has presented it as proof of Councilor Noctis' irresponsibility. However as per the official communications of the Circle of Four, despite what Councilor Rott believes to be action by Councilor Noctis that "provokes the Fey behind closed doors" (Gnarlrack, 1640b), he signed his approval to a decree on "Dealings with the Fey" as proposed by Councilor Noctis. Said decree has three clauses:
  
  "No individual may pledge, trade, or bargain away the life, fate, or defining aspects of another, whether explicitly or by implication. Any agreement involving another person must be made with their direct and knowing consent
  
  Any contract found to be in violation of this principle shall be rendered null and void. Those who attempt to engage in such dealings will be subject to due process under the authority of The Gauntlet.
  
  Existing agreements that have deprived an individual of their autonomy will be reviewed, with efforts made to restore what was unjustly taken."  (Noctis & Gnarlrack, 1640)
  
  The above decree makes mention of "reneging on existing agreements" (Quince and Thrice, Personal Communication, Darkmoon 26th, 1640), which Councilor Rott impresses upon me is purely irresponsible action. I find this most curious, and assume this means Councilor Rott is wholeheartedly in support of provoking the Fey in an irresponsible manner since he signed the decree as Councilor Noctis did.
  
  
• The time that Councilor Rott spent away was voluntary and not at the behest of the leadership of the militia. Let it be clear, that Councilor Rott's absence was his own decision.
  
  
• The trial that Councilor Rott mentions in his response, was in fact not a trial but was instead A Public Inquiry. The public inquiry was meant to act as a platform for the accused rebels to explain their actions, and likewise for Councilor Quincy to make his case. To state that Councilor Noctis has shown "complete disregard for abiding to a set precedent of the law" (Gnarlrack, 1640b) because of the public inquiry is a dishonest portrayal of events. Especially so considering that at the time of the public inquiry no laws were written down to specifically abide by. This is a dishonest portrayal of events where Councilor Rott did in fact "lie when asked or accused" (Gnarlrack, 1640b) when asked to explain on what grounds he accuses Councilor Noctis of "[introducing] legislation without approval of the rest of the Council" (Radziwill, 1640).
  
  
• The Gauntlet that Councilor Rott makes mention of is a cursed Gauntlet that the Guard-Captain uses to issue penances, a curse that is befitting of a criminal's crime. If I recall correctly, Councilor Rott has not been judged by the Gauntlet on a regular basis as he may imply, but exactly once after the mass arrest of several people by Councilor Quincy during the public inquiry mentioned in the point above. It is true that the Gauntlet did not judge Councilor Rott guilty, but the Gauntlet also does not judge the thoughts of the person, instead only the actions committed. Councilor Rott is using that fact and stretching it to portray himself as innocent in the eyes of the Gauntlet up till the present, when in reality he was only judged innocent by the Gauntlet up to the point of the public inquiry. Yet another example of his deceptive behaviour.
  
  
• Councilor Rott mentions that he did not wish to imprison the Mage Idris, yet "no choice was left and the law had to be set" (Gnarlrack, 1640b). Might I remind the people that the specific laws defining necromancy pre-amendment were as such: "Necromancy or raising the dead to be without sentience or free-will" (Noctis, 1640a). Councilor Rott continually brings up Veena as a proof of breaking said law, however all evidence points to Veena having been brought back to life with sentience and free-will, in fact she has made several statements expressing her detestation of the Mage Idris. Simply because "Veena was revived against her will, claiming that she wished to remain dead" (Gnarlrack, Personal Communication, Skybright 27th, 1640), does not mean it fit the law that Councilor Rott seems to refer to as having forced his hand. I will add, that after the guardhouse incident this law was amended to more clearly convey the original intention of the law, having been amended to "Necromancy, specifically the act of raising the dead without free will or sentience" (Noctis, 1640a). That only leaves Councilor Rott's reasoning for the arrest to be that Councilor Rott could not be certain that "there was a chance his method of revival could end in the production of Necrophages" (Gnarlack, 1640a). However nowhere in the Common Law of the Spire does it state that the possibility of magical misuse is grounds for punishment. Curiously though, Rott's actions do fall in line with the third rule of the Arcanists Accord wherein:
  
  "Members of the Accord will determine what knowledge is dangerous for the public to have access to. If there is an information hazard, members of the Accord will attempt to eliminate and contain any information relevant to the dangerous topic" (The Arcanist Accord, No Date).
  
  As per the report regarding the Guardhouse Incident, "The Arcanist’s Accord is not recognized as a governing legal document within the Spire" (Noctis, 1640b). Yet again, Councilor Rott tries to deceive by leaving out the specifics of the law.
  
  
• Councilor Rott uses the wanted man Edgard Phonquis to try and illustrate the fickle nature of the people of the Spire, however what he fails to mention is that the murder of Veena occurred during a period when there was no written law and his status as a wanted man was decreed by Councilor Quincy. Unfortunately there were no laws at the time, and thus no laws to bend to the whims of the people. Deceiving by omission of certain facts needed to understand the context.
  
  
• The reason that I brought up the fact that Councilor Rott attempted to strip Mage Idris of his magic, is not because such a recourse in itself was wrong, but it was done with the intent of circumventing the Circle of Four and the Guards by refusing to submit proper evidence of breaking the law on Idris' part. Instead Councilor Rott attempted to mete out punishments "without an official vote by the Council of Four" (Gnarlrack, 1640a) or through the Guards. I will also remind the people that as far as I recall, Rott's attempts were in consultation with only a few members of the Arcanist Accord, and no involvement from perfectly competent independent mages not signed with the Accord. In addition, Councilor Rott attempts to make equivalency between that of medical procedures, and an attempt sever one's source of magic. Between that of mundane surgeries, and that of extreme extra-judicial measures. Attempting surgery on an unconscious patient need no consultation from the townsfolk, other than with colleagues at the hospital. It is a frequent occurrence and is protected under the Common Law. However severing someone else's magic by convincing the Patrons is a rather extreme measure and I do not believe anyone would call it a frequent occurrence. Something as extreme as that and an action not necessarily covered by law requires extreme scrutiny and by a wider population. This is a demonstration of dishonest behaviour, in trying to establish false equivalency between two completely different actions.

I believe Councilor Rottjarnsmidar's deceiving and dishonest behaviour was demonstrated clearly through the lengthy points that I have made above, with a pattern of either omitting crucial details, or dishonestly portraying Councilor Noctis to stain her reputation. His disorderliness comes from the fact that he has nothing to gain from writing a denouncement, yet chose to do so by skewing or obfuscating crucial details. Councilor Rott has nothing to gain, since he chose not to run for a seat at the Circle of Four, but what he does gain is satisfaction in besmirching Councilor Noctis' name and portraying her as a threat. I am certain that Councilor Rott unequivocally believes Councilor Noctis to be a threat stemming from her refusal to sign with the Accord, but failing to find evidence of such, narrated only his version of events so that the reality that the townsfolk see aligns with his delusional perception of Councilor Noctis.

This is not only severe criticism of Councilor Rottjarnsmidar, but a strong condemnation of his character and attempts to bring chaos to the town when there is already more legitimate threats such as the Fey or the remaining Knights Lictor that must be dealt with. Might I remind Councilor Rott, that in the communications between the Circle of Four released I did not see malicious intent by either himself or Councilor Noctis. Both had different opinions and means of dealing with the same issues with varying levels of success, simply professional differences. However what cannot be excused is his attempts to take advantage of a knowledge gap between the Councilors and the people to portray Councilor Noctis as a threat to the public, in what I can only assume is his attempt to cover his failures through chaos.

I believe I must make mention to the people that this is not my attempt to excuse Idris for the results of his escape. Mage Idris' actions still caused damage both to the town, and to the townsfolk. However, the behaviour Councilor Rottjarnsmidar displayed both in incidents prior to Idris and during the incident with Idris is symptomatic of Councilor Rottjarnsmidar's ineffective leadership in the Circle of Four.

The people of the Spire should be wary of Rottjarnsmidar Gnarlrack and to not take his words at face value, and I hope this serves as irrefutable proof of his nature.

Signed,
Dr. K. Radziwill

For Reference:

Arcanist Accord (No Date). The Arcanist Accord.

Gnarlrack, R. (1640, Reflection 5th). Closing Concerns from Councilor Rottjarnsmidar.

Gnarlrack, R. (1640, Reflection 5th). Re: A Rebuttal of Councilor Rottjarnsmidar.

Gnarlrack, R. (1640, Skybright 27th). Public Release of Records.

Noctis, M. G., & Gnarlrack, R. (1640, Reflection 1st). DEALINGS with the FEY, as RULED by CIRCLE OF FOUR.

Noctis, M. G. (1640, Skybright 8th). Common Law of the Spire.

Noctis, M. G. (1640, Frostfall 9th). Guardhouse Incident & Legal Amendments.

Noctis, M. G. (1640, Skybright 8th). Public Release of Records.

Quince and Thrice. (1640, Darkmoon 26th). Public Release of Records.

Radziwill, K. (1640, Reflection 5th). A Rebuttal of Councilor Rottjarnsmidar.

A blonde woman would eventually pass by the notice board, letting out an annoyed huff.

"Fock's sake, tell it to their faces if it's so damned important!" She grumbled, wandering off. "Fockin' actin' like children with calligraphy lessons, it's all ridiculous..."

A large chunk of bark is propped up against the notice board, with writing in what looks and smells like berry juice.

STOP FUCKING WASTING PAPER.

- EREBOS

A note is nailed into the chunk of bark, the writer is anonymous.

"Let me have my drama you wretch."

[!]
What the fuck. The large chunk of bark has been covered over... By a handwritten copy of Konrad's three page long rebuttal. The pages are placed lengthwise to cover all the whole front surface of the bark (including the small note nailed to the bark, being covered over by the pages), each page then nailed in each four corners, then a center nail driven through the middle of each page to fully secure the papers to the large chunk of bark. To top it all off, the chunk of bark itself is then nailed to the bottom of the noticeboard so that it hangs off.

[!]

A distinct chunk appeared to be bitten out of the bark.

[!]

The bark and all the papers upon it have been dragged into the middle of the path and lit ablaze. After a bit, all that remains is ash.

A new, smaller chunk of bark is left in its place, again with writing in berry juice. Room has been left for more bites to be taken, should someone so desire to again.

YOUR HOUSES ARE NEXT.

- EREBOS

[Obsessive Hindrance]