Oh they were kind of hoping for a denunciation of Valia Wain before her trial, or an explanation of whether slavery is in fact going to be abolished, or an explanation of whether it's true that Iomedae's trying to destroy them because they're Evil and unworthy.

It’s a solid sermon.  He can see the immediate relevance to himself.  If he hadn’t despaired of ever getting out from his school debt, he wouldn’t have done his whole healing loan scheme thing (he is avoiding thinking of it in any detail).  Well… he still isn’t out from it, but he’s feeling optimistic he can find a way free, without absconding after a reincarnate doing anything Evil or Anarchic, NOT that he was planning anything like that (a detect thoughts would see him clumsily trying to avoid thinking of a plan involving reincarnate.).

Fernando isn’t even a little bit worried that Iomedae wants to destroy him!  He’s clearly one of the helpless despairing victims of the Asmodeans who is going to do much better now that healing is going to climb in price and he can eschew the Evil material components to heal he has hope.

Did you know that some churches will just tell you what they think Good is, without you having to bother random clerics on the street?

despair is a sin

Despair is the loss of hope. Giving up on one approach and trying another, which can be rational; or giving up on life altogether, which might be fine if you like where you're going but not if your enemies are going to shackle your soul to an undead abomination. Pursuing the best available course becomes very hard if you don't expect to succeed, so you should cultivate hope.

Sin is something your god('s clerics) don't want you to do and will punish you for doing. (*) 

Iomedae is saying that, if her men don't do what's best for them anyway, they will not only fail but be additionally punished for the sin of... not trusting their commander's plans? That sounds like a Lawful thing, not a Good one!

A persistent theme in Acts is people telling Iomedae that there's no way to do the thing that needs doing, or no way to do it without great evils. No way to hold this fortress, no way to take that one, no way to conduct interrogations without torture, no way to keep discipline without brutality, no way to have soldiers without whores. Despair, all of it; false, all of it.

If your commander is Iomedae then she's always right, and her impossible-looking plans always work out, and so despair is wrong. You should trust Iomedae's plans more, she was always right even when she was mortal. Also, not trusting her is a sin and you'll punished for it.

Although, many of the actual examples do seem like Good ones? No torture, no brutality, no designated-rape-targets (**). So maybe the take-away is that - Iomedae is about Lawfully commanding people to be Good? 

Huh. That was surprisingly easy to understand! Well-written church sermons are great, she should hear more of those.

(*) Feather knows this word because she learned Chelish from Asmodean peasants.

(**) The Asmodean peasants didn't have any in their village and were probably upset about this.

...but are they supposed to rise up and kill the old nobility, or are they supposed to definitely not rise up and kill the old nobility?

Alexeara finds Chelam in the crowd and approaches Alexandre after the sermon is over.

"Duchess, this is Alexandre Riguez de Luna, a paladin of Iomedae and the scholar I mentioned to you last night. Ser de Luna, this is Carlota Guimar, the duchess of Chelam and one of the leading lights of the convention. She is hoping to reintroduce censorship to Westcrown, and was interested in examples of the more extreme edge of what's permitted in Lastwall."

Oh praise Iomedae someone's working on that I've been tearing my hair out - you can't talk like that in Oppara. 

"Your grace. I'm honored. If I can be of any assistance in your work I would be delighted to do so. In my time here it has struck me that the present situation seems to poorly achieve the aim of peace and the rule of law in Cheliax, and it is a great reassurance to know that the Convention is at work addressing it."

Oh, she wasn't aware the Iomedaens actually had anyone like this. How characteristic, really, to have them, probably have had them stationed in Ustalav wraith-slaying (she's guessing off his magic items) and send them here now. 

"It is our intent to introduce tomorrow, unless the vote for abolition occupies the whole plenary session, a ban on most publication of political, religious and social commentary unless someone is willing to be liable for any crimes that it incites, or unless it is permitted elsewhere. We are hoping that by permitting anything published in Lastwall, Molthune or Osirion - I'll entertain other places, too, if you want to make a case for them - we - avoid being excessively restrictive, and ensure that if there is a reasonable case for the value of a work and little reason to believe it will burn the city down then it will be available. 

Towards that end - I have vague familiarity with some theological texts that contain ideas elsewhere called radical, but that I note have never moved the people of Vellumis to a riot, nor have they been enormously incendiary reprinted elsewhere. My theory of why is frankly that the sort of man who is stirred to murder by his reading is not very clever, and so any reading that requires cleverness is effectively sufficient to avoid moving him. I wanted to, in my presentation of the proposed censorship laws, have some examples to hand. More for Cotonnet's benefit than that of the floor, really, I think the convention is close to united in thinking we need more censorship and I am half endeavoring to get out ahead of the predictable movement to just ban it all."

De Luna doubts this will appease Cotonnet in the slightest, because the thing the man believes in most fundamentally is not in fact 'well-reasoned arguments for a wide range of ideas ought to be available for sensible people to discuss' but that the typical person's pursuit through free means of information will have good results. It is an appealing philosophy that is as far as he can tell completely false and 'the free exchange of ideas will still remain for everyone who doesn't have the attention span of a lantern archon and the impulse control of a dretch' is not responsive to it. 

Nonetheless it's a book recommendation question! He likes those. "Of course, your grace. Lastwall indeed mostly reviews books for publication with the question in mind of whether they will mislead their readers rather than whether the claim they explore is - an awkward one, and I have personally approved for publication texts that would have quite dramatic effects on the world if widely heeded and put into practice. But I hesitate, in this particular moment, with the trial of an Iomedaen Select for incitement to murder and - I hope it's not outrageous to say - implicitly in part for defiance of the Crown - anticipated this afternoon, with any texts that might confirm in the mind of your audience that we are a radically minded faith, as we really are not."

"Indeed, the argument I would like to make is that radicalism is not understood as a product of believing particular arguments but as behaving in a particular manner in response to believing them, but I agree that people will be - sensitive right now to the suggestion that the Church is anti-monarchist, or anti-imperial. But surely you have approved some texts which are not the Church's teachings but merely permissible dissent from them."

It takes embarrassingly long to think of anything. Most people inclined to dissent from Church teachings do not have the temperament to write a long and careful explanation of their reasoning. "...there are some good texts, your grace, critiquing Lastwall's neutrality in the Chelish Civil War and condemning the ongoing decision not to declare war against the Thrune regime?"

" - yes, that'd be perfect. Thank you."

"I am honored to have the opportunity to be of assistance in this. Witnessing the present situation in Westcrown has been - like watching a city full of smouldering piles of coals, petitioning the government for leave to pour some water on them, and being repeatedly told that naturally if any buildings catch fire that will be entirely illegal."

" - I cannot agree more. May I quote you on that, in the floor debate."

Ah ugh he knew he shouldn't have said things. "I did not speak in confidence, your grace, and have no claim on the words I've spoken to you, but it would grieve me to have further injured relations between the Church and Her Majesty's government, and grieve me more to be misunderstood as making any comment on the justice to be done today."

"The Lord Marshal pled with me, eventually, to speak to him plainly, and I dearly desire that no misunderstanding arises because you imagine you lack the same license. If you'd rather I not say it I won't. I am not trying to worsen the catastrophic situation in the assembly or in the city around understanding of the Church of Iomedae, much less to damage relations between Church and Crown, both of which I consider myself to serve. I think the censorship law will help, because people will stop flinging false claims the Church of Iomedae says various things at one another to win unrelated debates, and it'll be clear which publishing houses you need a representative at to prevent nonsense. 

The liberal nobility came to this convention intending, for the most part, to steer a path between the desires of the Church and the Crown, satisfy both, and set Cheliax on a path to be safe, orderly, and paying as little as possible for its safety and order. But the Crown has as a principled matter refused to indicate to us what she'd see us do, and the Church has I think not out of principle but out of incompetence done the same thing. You have allies here. Tell us what you need."

"- have you said this to the Lord Marshal, your grace?"

"Yes! ...possibly not bluntly enough. Is it your recommendation that I try saying it to him more and more bluntly until he looks enlightened."

"In my own work I have often found it helpful, your grace."

"All right. I will attempt that. I probably cannot obtain the books themselves by tomorrow, but if you have specific recommendations for me -"

Sure, he can write down specific books excoriating Lastwall for its handling of the Chelish Civil War.

Has the Lord Marshal raced off to one of his urgent duties already or is he around to be cornered and previous interactions repeated more bluntly until he looks enlightened?

He's around. Trying to have slightly fewer urgent duties.

"Lord Marshal. Thank you for the introduction, it was very helpful. I repeated to your colleague some complaints I understand myself already to have made to you and he suggested I say them again to you more bluntly; may I?"

"Please do."

"The liberal nobility came to this convention with the intent of writing some kind of practical and high-minded compromise between what the Church and the Crown were looking for here. The Queen is abstaining from dropping any hints about what she wants from us. The Church is...also not dropping any hints about what it wants from us, and is frankly treating us neither as resources nor as negotiating partners. During the debate over Molthune I was at work trying to draft a proposal to have Cheliax consult Iomedae and have Her leave for every war she ever fights, because that was what my guess about what you were aiming for, but I would not need to guess if you would tell me, and the proposals would be written in advance."

"Oh. I think almost all aggressive wars are a great evil, and Joan-Pau is trying to justify at least two, and I was aiming to not have Cheliax start any of those. Requiring that Cheliax consult Iomedae before starting any wars sounds even better than just not starting any, since it leaves a way to fight the rare wars that are truly justified without degrading a precedent about not fighting wars...

...To your broader point, yes, I should consult with you more. I'm in agreement with you on the matters of slavery and censorship which seem like they will dominate the floor debates when the convention resumes. Are there other issues that you expect to come up soon, that I should be paying attention to?"

"The Molthuni nobles won't compromise on Molthune and I'm not sure they should. They also have a broad philosophical attachment to reforming the whole Empire but I think that they'll happily make subject to whatever constraints, so long as they're unambiguously allowed to have Molthune. If we live in the convenient world where the Goddess thinks it's a good idea for the Queen to appoint a new archduke of Molthune then I think they'll be all right with the proposal to ask Her before going to war, though possibly only out of undue optimism about which wars She'll permit."

"I'm as Molthuni as any of them, and have no more love for the lord-protector. Wars of conquest are evil and lead to evil, even when they are waged against evil men who rule their countries poorly. If the Lord-Protector can be deposed and Molthune reunited with Cheliax peacefully, I would support that wholeheartedly, but Joan-Pau is calling for union with far fewer reservations as to the means."

"Sure, and he's not going to give it up, nor will the patriots of Nirmathas, nor will the Archduke of Sirmium, so figure out a way to depose the Lord Protector peacefully and be their best friend. Are you telling me the man will fight, should Her Majesty announce she's replaced him as Archduke of Molthune?"

"I think he probably won't, but there have been many wars started out of conviction that the other side will surely back down before it comes to that... And to conduct foreign policy by threatening wars that you would not fight if you were certain that your enemies would not submit is unlawful. Perhaps the queen and archmages would be willing to depose the lord-protector on their own without obliging a real war, should it come to that. If so, I would be happy to support sending an ultimatum. But I think that may have to wait, we've -" he means Iomedans, but also the Convention " - given the Crown more than a few problems this week and it seems unwise to ask for more while those problems are still being cleaned up."

"There I have no disagreement, and I don't expect Molthune to be the question of the moment anyway. I'm anticipating a renewed push to send the peasants home, which is a matter I was mostly planning to stay out of, and ...the rest depends on today's trial, I think. Her Majesty's mind is hard to guess, nor does one often profit by speculating about what can presently be witnessed, but" no, blunter. "I'd have charged treason if I wanted to be sure of a conviction and I noticed that wasn't among the listed charges. If she's acquitted then I expect most of the debate for the next few days to be about correcting those deficiences in our justice system that left her breathing."

Maybe she meant it, about a fair trial and exile.

"Vidal-Espinosa's head wasn't enough, you think? To be clear, I do think the justice system has a lot of room for improvement, and having a clearer and more complete law code would be a great benefit but - approaching those questions from the angle of wanting a specific acquitted person to hang seems likely to be counterproductive. Or, productive only in bad directions."

"Yes, it's going to be spectacularly counterproductive and damaging. It's just going to happen anyway - Alexaera, twice now I've described what people want and intend to go to great lengths to have and you have observed that this is evil and foolish of them, and it's not that you're wrong, it's that very little of it's going to be stopped with a floor speech explaining that it's evil and foolish. You have to give them a way to get what they want which isn't evil and foolish or they'll do the evil and foolish one. Does the Church have a plan for immediate crisis response if Wain is acquitted? Is there someone ready to give a speech, in the arena if they'll let you, saying that while the law did not prohibit Wain's speech it should have, that the Church condemns it in the strongest terms, that the Church is removing her as your delegate assuming it has the authority to do that -"

"No, we don't, and I would appreciate your help in formulating one - and in giving me your arguments for the parts of such a speech I'm unsure of, since I'm the obvious person to give it if I can."

"Of course. We'll also want to release some pamphlets. Different ones, of course, if she's found guilty or if she's found innocent, and they can't be fully prewritten in advance because the most effective ones will position themselves as true reporting from the trial. But laying out the Church doctrine, and why the riots were such a great evil, and that we're all grateful to Her Majesty to see justice done.

For the speech if she's acquitted I think I'd say - actually, we ought to go somewhere more private," and then she can work from a previously-written draft and offer him:

Every murderer in Westcrown will, if caught, be put to death, and they should be caught and they should be put to death. This was not a trial about whether murder is Evil. It is. It was not a trial about whether murder is unlawful. It is. 

This trial concerned what should be done when evil, but legal, words were spoken, and then misspoken, and then twisted, and then inspired great evil and greatly illegal deeds. The doers of the evil deeds will meet justice, should meet justice, but what of the speaker of the legal words? 

Many unwise and evil words are permitted by law, and if a word is permitted by law no one should be put to death for it. That was the matter this case concerned. The Queen has made it clear that no one will be put to death for words they spoke that weren't illegal, no matter how others further twist those words, no matter how much harm ultimately unfolds from them.

 In this she is entirely right: for what do Her Majesty's decrees mean, if no one can rely on them, and be safe having relied on them? 

But that does not mean that those words were not evil. It certainly does not mean that those words were not foolish. Valia Wain's speech was evil and foolish both. It should never have been spoken. It certainly should never have been spoken by a person who would be understood to speak for the Church of Iomedae. The Church of Iomedae condemns riots and arson and murder as enormous evils. The Church of Iomedae knows many of the men targeted by the riots to have been faithful and decent men who Valia Wain denounced wrongly in her ignorance. Had Valia Wain been trained in the teachings of the Church, she would never have given such a speech.

And so the Church of Iomedae has removed her as a delegate from the Constitutional Convention, and requested her release into our custody, that she may be removed to Lastwall for the Church's own ongoing investigation into how such evil words could be spoken in Iomedae's name. 

We are grateful for the noble and important work of the Queen's magistrates in identifying and convicting the guilty in the riots. We will have many senior men in Iomedae's priesthood at the temple tonight, to discuss the verdict and dispel any remaining confusion. And the army of the Glorious Reclamation will remain vigilant in the streets of Westcrown, that all Her Majesty's citizens may go about their business safety, and that any man who strives to do his neighbor violence will die for it.

"I think Valia's speech was foolish, and led to evil consequences, but was not in itself evil. So we will need to edit that part, unless you can convince me otherwise."

Ah, paladins. "I think that denouncing men wrongly as unrepentant Asmodeans is evil, if you could have found out easily enough it was untrue, or if the - effort you put into checking if it was untrue was grossly disproportionate to the audience of your denunciations. Perhaps not having checked much is not evil for a private conversation. But for a speech before a body of a thousand?"

"By Valia's account - in the speech and later - her intent was not to denounce any specific people as Asmodean, merely as evil and as having been granted titles by the infernal regime. And even that was secondary to the purpose of reassuring the bulk of the convention that they were not the targets of the Diabolism committee... Foolish, mistaken, and reckless, but not evil. I think. Do you think if I speak after the trial and condemn Valia's speech as foolish, reckless, and in error that will be sufficient? Or is there some formulation of that that would be sufficient?"

"I think that if you say it was foolish, reckless, and in error, that will probably be enough."

"Then I think with that change I can give the rest of this speech - What else do you think needs to be done?"

"Getting her to Lastwall's not just important because it sounds vaguely like a punishment and gets her out of swords range of a hundred angry people, it'll stop the convention from spending the next week proposing variants on "fire that magistrate, get a reasonable one, try her again.' Beyond that - there should be pamphlets explaining how people should understand what happened. I know people who can work on those. And probably you should ask the Queen if there is anything else the Church can do today in support of her trial and in response to whatever verdict she anticipates, and you should plan to have lots of people at the temple tonight to do a sermon backing up the Queen, answer questions.... I understand that if the Queen decides to put her to death it will be difficult to have a sermon backing her up so possibly you should plan that one in advance too."

"I will ask de Luna to prepare something for that eventuality... And maybe borrow a couple more priests for the day from Vellumis... And then talk to the queen, again, if she'll see me."

"I think that's wise. I'll see about having an entrant into the pamphlet-games that appear to have replaced gladiatorial games in Westcrown, which I do fear are so popular precisely because they're the closest anyone can come to watching other people flirt with death. And - I'll see you at the trial, I suppose. Goddess go with you."

"And with you."