He's agreeing with a whore. Maybe they shouldn't have been surprised he's a Thrune.

Her Majesty in her wisdom certainly had a reason to appoint this man to an archduchy but right now Jonatan is deeply uncertain what that reason could possibly have been.

Every country in the world has slander law, Blanxart. This is a battle you can't win, whatever cards you play.

Good is all about redemption and forgiveness, so it makes sense there could be a redeemed Thrune…

Even with that, there must be some considerations for politics and appearances.  He must be really redeemed and forgiven for the Queen to accept him as an archduke.  Maybe Fernando should look to him for cues (after the Paladin of course)?

He suppresses the thought, but not fully, that this situation is clearly artificial.  It’s the perfect framing for a loyalty test to catch the people that don’t understand redemption and think family name matters more.

Iomedae, watch over this man who bears your name.

She thought they were supposed to think Thrunes are bad? Are they not supposed to think that? If she just abstains are they going to come after her for not voting twice in the same day?

The longer he knows his liege, the lower his opinion of Blanxart falls. Helping Voshrelka escape justice, speaking for Valia at the trial, and now this. It’s incredibly disappointing, especially from another who knew the glory of Arodenite Cheliax. 

Well. Maybe he will have reason to give that speech about not saying all true things. He'll wait to see where Blanxart is going before getting in line, though.

"The truth? Oh, yes, you may not have known: the name by which I was known at my birth was Alfonso Antoninus Iomedae Thrune i Blanxart d'Egorian. This pamphlet is an accurate representation of my genealogy. Of course, this was seven hundred years ago. There was a time before my name with synonymous with the service of Hell, and I am of it. The pamphlet expects its readers to forget or not to comprehend this fact, and in that—in that its author no doubt intended harm to my person and rebellion against my authority—it is criminal. But we have, already, statutes against incitement and treason. As for the matter at the heart of the scandal—that I am a scion of the House of Thrune—it is true, and I cannot conscionably forbid anyone from saying it."

"Indeed, most of this pamphlet is nothing more than a reproduction of a page from The Great and Ancient Houses of the Empire, a book which may be found on the shelves of any family of note in Cheliax. Would this statute prohibit its publication because it says that some people are Thrunes? Some, indeed, have tried that. Their name, as you may have guessed, was Thrune. The edition from which this pamphlet was copied, which so conveniently omits my devotional name, was not originally prepared by the pamphleteer. It was prepared by the same tyrants whose ignominy is now weaponized against me, because it was embarrassing to them that any member of their house was ever named after the foremost enemy of Hell."

"It is true that I meant to conceal my ancestry. My job will be much more difficult, now that it is known; the people of the Heartlands, who suffered under the rule of my Evil cousins longer than anyone else, may no longer accept my rule. But I can trust only in the gods of Good, and in the simple fact that I have never once served Hell or any power in it, and in my best attempts to be a Good and just ruler of the lands our Queen entrusted to me in spite of my frankly rather spurious association with the tyrants of Hell. I will not try to forbid my people from learning my ancestry; if I did that, I would only become the thing I claim so fervently not to be. To forbid a person from speaking the truth merely because it is inconvenient to the powerful is a deeply Asmodean impulse. Let us not indulge it."

"I propose, therefore, that the exception for true statements apply in public as well as in private."

"I second the amendment, as I did in committee," says Jilia from just behind the podium. Not planned, but good timing nonetheless.

Why is he picking fights he can’t win? And by admitting to being a Thrune and agreeing with whores, no less? It’s not a last ditch defense of something critical, even he admits this law benefits him and standing against it hurts him even if he fails. And everyone knows they need a slander law, even the damned Archduke d’Sirmium acknowledges it. It’s not suicide, not for an archduke, but his sympathies go out to every duke and count trapped under than man.

Acevedo knows better than to blame him for what the usurpers did but he’s really questioning the wisdom of appointing a man who’s only claim to rule is being related to them as an archduke if this is the quality you get from that.

So not redeemed, just not evil in the first place?  Still, he must be a pretty impressive person to be made archduke after being resurrected from the distant past with his family connection.  So worth paying attention to.  Lies are of Asmodeus while Truth is Good and Lawful, so the Archduke’s logic seems sound?

Thea doesn’t personally care too much, she’s not going to be publicly arguing or denouncing people (the convention should count as private), but Irori probably cares about truth, so she won’t vote in favor the law without that amendment.

Should she risk speaking though?

Message to Korva and Carlota: What is your opinion on this amendment? Do you plan to speak in defense of it? He wants to test the waters before making fiery speeches himself.

She is still incredibly confused! He's claiming not to be Evil and he admitted to being a Thrune, but he was trying to get Valia killed until Lluïsa stopped him — maybe it's like the azata said, and he's just incredibly bad at knowing what's Evil, so he doesn't realize it's wrong to kill innocent people???

..."actually, the person trying to murder your friend didn't realize it was Evil" might be the kind of distinction that matters a lot to an azata but she thinks it is not at all the kind that matters to her.

To Joan Pau: "The ideal law probably permits true speech in the public interest but I am not planning to exert myself here. Too strong slander laws won't ruin things the way too strong publishing laws will. The penalties are only harsh for the genuinely abhorrent stuff. If they're embarrassing we can easily amend them in a few weeks without a fight."

To Carlota: Acknowledged, sounds reasonable.

His opinion of the man is further improving. Gods, maybe the Queen actually picked... reasonable, decent people? ...for her archdukes. That's bizarre. Nobody does that.

Thanks Acevedo, yeah it’s upsetting. Here’s hoping “the people of the Heartlands” no longer accept his rule. 

Some good families go evil, he knows that happens. Usually when the elders die and all the young ones spent too long at school. Didn’t know the same thing could happen to archdukes, but it could happen. He doesn’t believe every story he hears though, especially not when it’s someone with a bad name talking. So he’ll have to find someone he trusts who knows history, to ask. 

On the actual bill, if some of the nobles are speaking against, that means there’s probably a chance. He’ll join the line. 

"Honored Archduke, I admit that were it up to me I would prefer to count such statements about your lineage as slanderous, even if they are true, as is the practice of nearly every country on Golarion. You say that for you this was merely a 'moderate expense upon your insurers,' and perhaps that is true for you. But what of your servants, slain in the very same attack that sprung from the pamphlet denouncing you? Slander is a threat not merely to individuals, but to the foundations of the public order.

But if you strongly favor an exception for true claims made in public, I am willing to accept a proposal to allow this floor to vote on such an amendment, after this bill has been passed. I believe it would be a grave error, but I" don't want another protracted fight with an archduke and am very confident it'll fail "would not wish to discount your opinion entirely."

People are asking her????

She does, at least, know how messages work.

"Uh, making fewer things illegal to say is better, but I wasn't planning to fight it. Everyone can already be brought in on something." It seems ridiculous to expect a country where everyone can't be arrested at will and be charged with something, if they're inconvenient, but limitations are still useful because they make it more annoying, and mean you can't arrest people for those specific things.

Damn, shit, is 'everyone can already be brought in on something' slander? Gotta get better at speaking.

"Conde Cerdanya, as the Archduke already said, those acts were criminal, and were punished as such. Also, I believe such a postponement of the vote would leave it as nonbinding, since it passed through no committee. Let us then vote on it as an amendment, as it was proposed."

"Speaking for myself: I think the Committee passed the narrowest slander bill it would accept, and that we do badly need a slander law, and therefore voted to advance it to the floor. The Archduke de Sirmium's concerns are correct, and both Lord Marshal Cansellarion and I spoke for much the same in committee, but the remainder of the noble delegates preferred to punish true statements more broadly; I had reservations, and now have fewer. With the Archduke de Heartlands's amendment I would have none. If there are other specific amendments to put forward, to protect other classes of true but scandalous statements before we pass it, I think we should give them all consideration, and then votes, just as we should for the one the Archduke has put forward."

To Korva: The goal is to prevent that from being the country we build. Did you watch Valia's trial?

"The murder of the Archduke's servants was criminal, Your Highness, and is being punished as such. The publication of his genealogy has not likewise been punished, because it was not criminal. Justice will not restore the Archduke's fallen servants to life, and to my mind it would be better if the slanderous accusations against him had never been permitted in the first place.

...As a procedural matter I am happy to put this matter to the floor in whatever fashion is most appropriate, so long as we hold the vote on this statute — in whatever form we decide to pass it — today."