• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Finland is ready to defend our loyal spiritual wannabe-vassals in Polaria!
well not actually but still....;)
 
Finland is ready to defend our loyal spiritual wannabe-vassals in Polaria!
well not actually but still....;)

I mean, you would think they knew what they were getting into when they married into the succession. Its hardly a surprise that assassins may come for him. How many heirs of Cyprus have lived 5 years once they were first in line for the Duchy? Very few I'll bet.
 
having intrigue 6 spymaster and then a 3 year old prince does nasty things for flourishing business...
session or the next (as Im bound to absence in next session) propaply reinstalls my trade...I hope...
 
If you look back lo these many pages, you'll observe that Malhaz was five when the knives first came for him, and he survived that. I think he made it to eleven before the Mad Viking Assassins finally got him. Alexander was two or so, I believe. Wicked deeds, indeed. It is an ill thing when children must suffer for the crime of being born to a particular mother! I feel convinced that even the gentle Christ will have a word or two to say about that, when Afzal comes before his throne. The infidels themselves must surely frown upon such deeds; I suspect that "the Compassionate, the all-Merciful" would have little mercy for such crimes. Rome, meanwhile, rejoices in the knowledge that God favours our cause: Observe that no less than four children have been born to the Cypriot Duke since this struggle began, and every one a daughter! Surely it is a sign of divine favour that we need not sully our souls with the deaths of children, merely for political ambitions.
 
If you look back lo these many pages, you'll observe that Malhaz was five when the knives first came for him, and he survived that. I think he made it to eleven before the Mad Viking Assassins finally got him. Alexander was two or so, I believe. Wicked deeds, indeed. It is an ill thing when children must suffer for the crime of being born to a particular mother! I feel convinced that even the gentle Christ will have a word or two to say about that, when Afzal comes before his throne. The infidels themselves must surely frown upon such deeds; I suspect that "the Compassionate, the all-Merciful" would have little mercy for such crimes. Rome, meanwhile, rejoices in the knowledge that God favours our cause: Observe that no less than four children have been born to the Cypriot Duke since this struggle began, and every one a daughter! Surely it is a sign of divine favour that we need not sully our souls with the deaths of children, merely for political ambitions.

It is a truly ill affair when a father marries his daughter to a man with the foreknowledge that he is putting all his future grandsons at risk merely for political gain!
 
You've got the sexes backwards, there. The duke of Cyprus married his daughter to a Komnenos, thus putting his grandsons at risk for no gain to himself whatever, unless of course you count the gain of having grandsons. However, Thomas the Conqueror did not put any grandson of his into the line of fire; the Komnenos who married Hana Fatimid was Vakhtang, a distant cousin in the Georgian line of Komnenoi.
 
You've got the sexes backwards, there. The duke of Cyprus married his daughter to a Komnenos, thus putting his grandsons at risk for no gain to himself whatever, unless of course you count the gain of having grandsons. However, Thomas the Conqueror did not put any grandson of his into the line of fire; the Komnenos who married Hana Fatimid was Vakhtang, a distant cousin in the Georgian line of Komnenoi.

Fine, still playing politics with children.
 
Well maybe, but lamenting when they fall prey to those same politics you thrust them into seems a little foolhardy and hypocritical.

God decides if they are worthy of survival, otherwise they are there only for the thril of it. =D
 
Maybe, but KoM was decrying the death of the children!


If the kid wasn't there in the first place he wouldn't be in danger!

Then dont kill the child. Simple as that. If you dont kill the child you are not a murderer. But if you do, you are a murderer and you will go to hell.
 
Then dont kill the child. Simple as that. If you dont kill the child you are not a murderer. But if you do, you are a murderer and you will go to hell.

If anything, we are saving the children's souls from your own evil machinations. When children they are innocent, thus upon death they are pure and go to heaven. However if we let the child mature and grow up, particularly in such a contentious duchy, then the would have blood on their hands and have lost their eternal soul forever. You should be thanking us rather than condemning the assassins as they ensure everlasting glory for the child you though to taint. If you hadn't had the avariciousness which the church condemns, then the children would be alive. By putting them into the position of heir, you commit evil, but through death they are redeemed. Our acts are thus good.
 
As GM, I hereby rule that such tortured arguments are not allowed until you have the Jesuits decision, which isn't available until EU3. :nods:

In character, God commands us to multiply and be fruitful; as for bringing children into danger, all men are initiates in the mystery of death. Every child born must eventually die, with the exception of the Wandering Jew Ahasuerus, of whom out Lord was speaking when he said "Some standing here shall not die until I come again in my Kingdom." But I digress. The point is that, although all men die, it is nonetheless a sin to kill them, for then they will not grow into their full potential; but it is no sin to give them birth, for without virth they would have no chance to exercise their free will to the greater glory of God. If God had merely wished to have people in Heaven, he could have created more angels. When an omnipotent being chooses instead to go the long route of creating mortal beings with free will, who can fail to get into Heaven, then obviously there is a reason for that. Whatever God's reason for creating a mortal lifespan, clearly it is interfering with his will to cut short that life, while creating new life is an aid to his plan.

All God's children are in danger, every moment of their mortal lives; the heir to a contested duchy no more and no less than a peasant's child in the meanest hut in Russia. There is no sin in that. The sin lies in sending grown men to kill children. This is not a complex matter.
 
Perhaps, but we are also comanded to confront and fight sin and evil in ourselves and others. You have committed evil not just by giving birth, but by ensuring that their lives would be full of corruption and sin. Not only that, you have by giving them their position forced them to live a life not of their own choosing had they truly been free of your politicking. Thus by exposing them not only to the evils of this world but specific evils of your own creation, you do them great harm

Now it is a sin to kill ones brothers in christ, yet those who have died have not been true believers. When confronting a person who has not the true faith, true christians try and convert the infidel. However that cannot always be done, because of recalcitrance of the subject or due to practical concerns. Thus killing the infidel can not only be sin-free at times it can be your devout duty to perform. Doubly so, as if these children were allowed to growup, they would certainly end up in hell. This is because once grown, it could no longer be said that they were ignorant of Christ. Only those infidels who are ignorant of Christ can even begin to feel his mercy. Had we waited until they were adults, there would be no chance of salvation. At least we offer them a scant hope of life everlasting through their assassination now.

All of god's children do not have the chance to know Christ and accept him. If we can cut short their life before they reject the lord and savior this is a good thing. The laws of god and man are always complex, leave it to a Orthodox to dismiss the truth as though true were a simple matter.
 
specific evils of your own creation

Remind me again who dispatched those assassins? I am not responsible for the evil acts of others.

The rest of your argument is too abstruse for this merely Byzantine reasoner. Ask me about the Trinity and I'll find something to say; ask me to justify the death of children, or somehow make bringing them into the world equivalent to killing them, and I find myself silent. I shall stick to the simple essentials of the matter: In this conflict there has been one side that killed children, and one that did not. A bright dividing line that I'm glad to find myself on the correct side of.