Imperial Law

[morgramen]

I'm trying to assemble some sort of "codex" ofancient Imperial Law, and was wondering if anyone else has either done this allready, or if they happen to have a few on hand to add to the pot in hopes of making some sort of definitive list.

I've found that such info is generally popular argument material in PBeMs, and it was from such an instance that the idea struck me. In particular, I am grappling with the Rule of Conquest, and the Right by Might. The basis is that it is a law older than the new Gods, a law that was founded in the ancient days of tribal Aduria. It carried over when the tribes migrated, but was "civlized" once the Empire was beginning to form.

Essentially, the strongest guy makes the rules, and what he has the strength to take, he gets the right to keep, until someone stronger is able to take it away in turn. Once the idea of vassalage and liege lords came into being, the law was altered to permit the Chief the right to judge/monitor such instances of the ancient law, by adding an ammendment to it that basically states that if any heirs remain alive to claim the throne, then the conqueror is not legally able to press his claim of dominion over the lands. This of course, led to the practice of ensuring that all heirs were slain conviently during the initial battles.

The entire hing came to be over the Osoerde background in RoE. Raenech holds the throne (by usurpation), yet William (the supposed heir) yet lives, so by this ancient code, Raenech would be Illegally forcing his hold over the Duchy.

Anyone have anything else to add? Any comments/improvements to the above?

[ConjurerDragon]

morgramen wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1168
>morgramen wrote:
>... or if they happen to have a few on hand to add to the pot in hopes of making some sort of definitive list.
>I`ve found that such info is generally popular argument material in PBeMs, and it was from such an instance that the idea struck me. In particular, I am grappling with the Rule of Conquest, and the Right by Might. The basis is that it is a law older than the new Gods, a law that was founded in the ancient days of tribal Aduria. It carried over when the tribes migrated, but was "civlized" once the Empire was beginning to form.
>Essentially, the strongest guy makes the rules, and what he has the strength to take, he gets the right to keep, until someone stronger is able to take it away in turn. Once the idea of vassalage and liege lords came into being, the law was altered to permit the Chief the right to judge/monitor such instances of the ancient law, by adding an ammendment to it that basically states that if any heirs remain alive to claim the throne, then the conqueror is not legally able to press his claim of dominion over the lands. This of course, led to the practice of ensuring that all heirs were slain conviently during the initial battles.
>The entire hing came to be over the Osoerde background in RoE. Raenech holds the throne (by usurpation), yet William (the supposed heir) yet lives, so by this ancient code, Raenech would be Illegally forcing his hold over the Duchy.
>Anyone have anything else to add? Any comments/improvements to the above?
>
Wasn´t most legal systems, like the famous codex of hammurabbi created
AFTER the realm was established?
Some tribal clans in Aduria certainly could have very different laws and
mostly rural (and uninteresting for role-playing who may lead water into
his field at which time or such...).
I would envision that the first emperor in Cerilia, established a codex
of imperial law like Hammurabi did.

Some minor things, but one that would nicely fit into most campaigns in
Anuire would be rules like:
- only knights are allowed to wear full plate armour,
- only free men are allowed to posses a sword (so normal peasants or
indentured not, and that would be most commoners),
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Michael Romes wrote:

> Anuire would be rules like:
> - only knights are allowed to wear full plate armour,
> - only free men are allowed to posses a sword (so normal peasants or

If D&D had a decent economic model, only free men could *afford* to
possess a sword, and it would take the entire economic surplus of a
fair-sized village to keep the local knight in plate, horse and sword.

That is not to say that rules of this sort didn`t exist IRL or couldn`t in
BR -- other contemporary prohibitions of conspicuous consumption were
common, such as certain kinds (colors, styles, fabrics, etc.) of clothing
being legally restricted to nobles or clergy, to try to prevent rich
merchants from showing off and pretending to high social station.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>Anuire would be rules like:
>- only knights are allowed to wear full plate armour,
>- only free men are allowed to posses a sword (so normal peasants or
>
>
>If D&D had a decent economic model, only free men could *afford* to
>possess a sword, and it would take the entire economic surplus of a
>fair-sized village to keep the local knight in plate, horse and sword.
>
Yes, but in a game of whole realms there are plenty of villages to
support such fighters - and the "old law" would prohibit some mercenary
to wear the same full plate armour the knight is allowed.

>That is not to say that rules of this sort didn`t exist IRL or couldn`t in
>BR -- other contemporary prohibitions of conspicuous consumption were
>common, such as certain kinds (colors, styles, fabrics, etc.) of clothing
>being legally restricted to nobles or clergy, to try to prevent rich
>merchants from showing off and pretending to high social station.
>Ryan Caveney
>
To the clothing: Am I the only one, who thougt of Talinie as Calvinists
or perhaps english puritans clothed only in black?
The description of their "work to be rewarded", "you shall be rewarded
in the afterlife according to your work" as in the PS of Talinie and the
whole description sounded like that for me.

And the most importat clothing: ermine fur would be reserved for
aristrocracy of course ;-)

Richt Merchants raise another interesting point: In medieval times in
parts of old germany christians actually were not allowed to give loans
and receive interest for their money which lead in some cities to a
monopoly of lenders of jewish religion (who were among other things not
allowed to own land and basically pushed into the role of moneylenders
as one of the few options to make a living). A similar attitude, not
necesarily base on religion, but noble codex could explain why foreign
guilders in Anuire (Kalien, El-Hadid, Storm Holtson) do not find greater
competition and give an IC reason why not every realm is running it´s
own state guild. OOC nearly every landed regent trys to control the
guilds either himself, or as closely as possible by a vassal.
If the work itself would be seen as "unknightly" or against the religion
(Haelyn as the god of nobility would fit into this) it could explain why
in the 1000 years that have passed independent guilds have vanished in
the face of greedy landed rulers.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, morgramen wrote:

> I`m trying to assemble some sort of "codex" of ancient Imperial Law,
> [snip] I`ve found that such info is generally popular argument
> material in PBeMs,

True. It would probably not be a bad plan to state up front, "In this
PBEM, Imperial Law reads as follows..." Of course, then you`ll get people
arguing with that, but at least there`d be a framework for the inevitable
discussion. :}

> In particular, I am grappling with the Rule of Conquest, and the Right
> by Might. The basis is that it is a law older than the new Gods,

This is not so much a "law" as merely a description of what actually
happens -- the basic truth of power that you can only have as much as you
can keep. I suppose the part of it that says "you must obey anyone you
can`t overthrow" could be considered a law, but it`s a pretty self-evident
one, and doesn`t really seem likely to influence behavior much. That is,
it says "rebellion is only illegal if you can`t get away with it," in
which case it would be useless to try anyway.

> Essentially, the strongest guy makes the rules, and what he has the
> strength to take, he gets the right to keep, until someone stronger is
> able to take it away in turn.

We need a law to tell us this? All "Right by Might" says is "thou shalt
expect people to do anything they can get away with," which is hardly
news. I would call this a description of the absence of law.

> by adding an ammendment to it that basically states that if any heirs
> remain alive to claim the throne, then the conqueror is not legally
> able to press his claim of dominion over the lands.

OK, now we`re getting somewhere. This is a law worthy of the name. It
has the proper generic format: "though you might be able to get away with
this act, you really oughtn`t try to do it, because it`s naughty."

> This of course, led to the practice of ensuring that all heirs were
> slain conviently during the initial battles.

Well, quite. It also doesn`t address the issue of legitimate heirs who
start rebellions because they feel their elders are being too slow to
retire or die. Into every law, some loopholes must fall.

> The entire thing came to be over the Osoerde background in RoE.
> Raenech holds the throne (by usurpation), yet William (the supposed
> heir) yet lives, so by this ancient code, Raenech would be Illegally
> forcing his hold over the Duchy.

Another very common ancient theory of government holds that a ruler who is
not acting in his people`s best interest is illegitimate. For example, it
was widely considered that getting to be in charge conferred a duty to
distribute largess -- a kenning for king is "ring-giver", because the
Norse held generosity to be one of the great virtues and responsibilities
of rulership. Any society, even a fantasy one, is going to have some
concept that rulership has inherent duties as well as rights.

Although Vosgaard with its worship of Belinik may believe that any law
other than "might makes right" is actually immoral, we should still find
things that kings must do, even if only things like "answer any challenge
to a duel." There the legal system may consist largely of definitions of
what constitutes legitmate challengers, challenges, forms of dueling, time
in which answers are to be given, what happens to the property of duelists
(what goes to the winner, and what stays with the loser`s family -- or do
the loser`s family themselves become property of the winner?), etc., but
there will still be social rituals and proper forms for fulfilling them.

Different regions of Cerilia have different dominant religions, and their
theories of the responsibilites of government ought to follow accordingly.
Brecht rulers may be forbidden (by Sera) to interfere with free trade.
Khinasi rulers may be required (by Avani) to pay pensions to scholars.
Rjurik rulers may have to prove (to Erik) they can still hunt or fish to
symbolically maintain their connection to the people and the land.

Anuirean law, dominated by the religious teachings of Haelyn, should have
immense and highly specific lists of those things a king must do to be
considered legitimate. Raenech probably ignores some of the things he is
supposed to do, but he thinks are foolish or injurious to his pride, power
or treasury. There should be priests of Haelyn preaching against him for
his flouting of these fine points of divine law, as well as priests of
Cuiraecen trying to fight his rule more directly and personally. Or else
he knows all the laws and follows them rigorously in every detail, in an
attempt to convince the temples of Haelyn to support his rule and fight
the rebels for him. Many plots, involving anything from long and complex
philosophical debates to commando raids designed to make the other guy
look bad to the people and the priests, are to be had here.

I think the PS of Tuarhievel is mostly out to lunch, but one thing I think
it gets fairly right about the elven theory of government is the Thorn
Throne -- an artifact used to confer legitimacy upon a sovereign by means
of a test, involving a direct appeal to the Land`s Choice. Such rituals
of asking the land what it thinks "the good of the people" really is ought
to exist in the other cultures, as well -- the duels of Vosgaard may be
part of this thread. I`m pretty sure they`re big believers in trial by
combat as a direct expression of the will of Belinik.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

I´m typing too fast, and making errors:

Michael Romes wrote:

> Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Michael Romes wrote:
>> Anuire would be rules like:
>> - only knights are allowed to wear full plate armour,
>> - only free men are allowed to posses a sword (so normal peasants or
>> If D&D had a decent economic model, only free men could *afford* to
>> possess a sword, and it would take the entire economic surplus of a
>> fair-sized village to keep the local knight in plate, horse and sword.
>>
> Yes, but in a game of whole realms there are plenty of villages to
> support such fighters - and the "old law" would prohibit some mercenary
> to wear the same full plate armour the knight is allowed.
>
>> That is not to say that rules of this sort didn`t exist IRL or
>> couldn`t in
>> BR -- other contemporary prohibitions of conspicuous consumption were
>> common, such as certain kinds (colors, styles, fabrics, etc.) of
>> clothing
>> being legally restricted to nobles or clergy, to try to prevent rich
>> merchants from showing off and pretending to high social station.
>> Ryan Caveney
>>
> To the clothing: Am I the only one, who thougt of Talinie as Calvinists
> or perhaps english puritans clothed only in black?
> The description of their "work to be rewarded", "you shall be rewarded
> in the afterlife according to your work" as in the PS of Talinie and the
> whole description sounded like that for me.
>
> And the most importat clothing: ermine fur would be reserved for
> aristrocracy of course ;-)
>
> Richt Merchants raise another interesting point: In medieval times in
> parts of old germany christians actually were not allowed to give loans
> and receive interest for their money which lead in some cities to a
> monopoly of lenders of jewish religion (who were among other things not
> allowed to own land and basically pushed into the role of moneylenders
> as one of the few options to make a living). A similar attitude, not
> necesarily baseD on religion, but noble codex could explain why foreign
> guilders in Anuire (Kalien, El-Hadid, Storm Holtson) do not find greater
> competition and give an IC reason why not every realm is running it´s
> own state guild. OOC nearly every landed regent trys to control the
> guilds either himself, or as closely as possible by a vassal.
> If the work itself would be seen as "unknightly" or against the religion
> (Haelyn as the god of nobility would fit into this) it could explain why
> in the 1000 years that have passed independent guilds have NOT
> vanished in
> the face of greedy landed rulers.
> bye
> Michael Romes
>
> ************************************************** **************************
>
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives:
> http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Michael Romes wrote:

> To the clothing: Am I the only one, who thougt of Talinie as
> Calvinists or perhaps english puritans clothed only in black?

Yeah, the PS does seem to lean very heavily to that interpretation.

> And the most importat clothing: ermine fur would be reserved for
> aristrocracy of course ;-)

The color purple for royalty was another biggie. At various times, the
lengths of the pointy toes on shoes were tightly regulated. Laws about
fashion could get very strange indeed.

> A similar attitude, not necesarily base on religion, but noble codex
> could explain why foreign guilders in Anuire (Kalien, El-Hadid, Storm
> Holtson) do not find greater competition

Or maybe it is religion -- perhaps as you suggest Haelyn is against
commerce somehow, so followers of Avani (neutral) and Sera (very much in
favor) would tend to replace them. Holtson is the odd one -- I think Erik
is much more against big business than Haelyn, but Holtson seems to have
decided life would be better as a Brecht. Actually, it would be
interesting to have this be an ongoing theological debate -- perhaps some
factions of Haelyn`s clergy support trade and engage in it, or at least
don`t fight it, whereas other Haelynite temple regents Contest every guild
that shows up near their holdings.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

Ryan Caveney wrote:
> I think the PS of Tuarhievel is mostly out to lunch, but one thing I think
> it gets fairly right about the elven theory of government is the Thorn
> Throne -- an artifact used to confer legitimacy upon a sovereign by means
> of a test, involving a direct appeal to the Land`s Choice. Such rituals
> of asking the land what it thinks "the good of the people" really is ought
> to exist in the other cultures, as well -- the duels of Vosgaard may be
> part of this thread. I`m pretty sure they`re big believers in trial by
> combat as a direct expression of the will of Belinik.

Just been reading a book on Egyptian religion. Isis is originally the throne
itself. Its the the person who sits on the throne who is king. The throne
makes you king. Later as the Horace mythology developed, Isis was personified
as a mother of Horace, so that she was also the mother of the king, since the
king was the personification of Horace.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Michael Romes wrote:

> Yes, but in a game of whole realms there are plenty of villages to
> support such fighters - and the "old law" would prohibit some mercenary
> to wear the same full plate armour the knight is allowed.

I have a schedule of how many knights a province can support, but its not at
hand. I can re-post it next week. It goes something like this. Every level
of a province supports one minor lord below the provincial count. Each lord
has a number of knights. A province 1 supports something like 4d4 knights (or
housecarls) per lord, for an average of 10 knights. As province level
increases, so does the number of knights per lords, slightly, while the number
of lords is equal to the province level. A province 3 might have 36 knights, a
province 5, maybe 75. Beyond these fellows, the lords and knights, we no
longer find those able to afford plate armor and swords. In my recent posts on
fighting styles, these guys employ other weapons. Mercenaries typicaly don`t
have the ready cash to buy expensive armors and weapons.

Of course the easiest way to fix this problem is to eliminate Heavy Armor
Proficiency for every class except Aristocrat.

> To the clothing: Am I the only one, who thougt of Talinie as Calvinists
> or perhaps english puritans clothed only in black?
> The description of their "work to be rewarded", "you shall be rewarded
> in the afterlife according to your work" as in the PS of Talinie and the
> whole description sounded like that for me.

I think its intended by design that Talinie is Scottish, so Presbyterians it
is. The selection of names (both place and personal), the colors, and cultural
descriptions make Talinie the home of Scottish culture in Cerilia.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>Of course the easiest way to fix this problem is to eliminate Heavy Armor
>Proficiency for every class except Aristocrat.
>
Which would eliminate the reason for the law - when noone but the nobles
can war heavy armour then a law prohibiting
others than knights from wearing it would be senseless ;-)

>I think its intended by design that Talinie is Scottish, so Presbyterians it
>is. The selection of names (both place and personal), the colors, and cultural
>descriptions make Talinie the home of Scottish culture in Cerilia.
>
Is not Mhoried described as scottish Highlands flavour?
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Michael Romes wrote:

> >Of course the easiest way to fix this problem is to eliminate Heavy Armor
> >Proficiency for every class except Aristocrat.
>
> Which would eliminate the reason for the law - when noone but the nobles
> can war heavy armour then a law prohibiting
> others than knights from wearing it would be senseless ;-)

The purpose of sumptuary laws and some of these similar laws was to prevent
people of alternate means from immitating someone of another social class.
Nobles are due certain respect, and have certain privlidges. One of them is an
array of weapons and armor. Without free and legal access to this, how can
other classes become proficient? Only by taking weapon or armor proficiency
feats. Of course to due so would be to pretend to the noble station, and how
could the rest of us then know that you are not owed any priviledge and
defference when you ride into down on a great warhorse, in plate armor, with
full lance and bastard sword?

> Is not Mhoried described as scottish Highlands flavour?

Maybe. All of Cerilia is covered by a Celtic layer, and with so little on
Mhoried, you`re certainly not wrong to draw Scottish inspiration for Mhoried.
But we have a PS for Talinie, and with the abundance of that information, a
Scottish influence was clearly intended.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Eosin the Red]

>>>>I have a schedule of how many knights a province can support, but its not at hand. I can re-post it next week. It goes something like this. Every level of a province supports one minor lord below the provincial count. Each lord has a number of knights. A province 1 supports something like 4d4 knights (or housecarls) per lord, for an average of 10 knights. As province level increases, so does the number of knights per lords, slightly, while the number of lords is equal to the province level. A province 3 might have 36 knights, a province 5, maybe 75. Beyond these fellows, the lords and knights, we no longer find those able to afford plate armor and swords. >>>>

This I would like to see. I think I understand how it scales but having it at hand would be nice.

How would church knights fit into this scheme?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[imperialtemple]

This is an old e-mail that I received from Andrew Kerr about three years ago when I was playing a "Primate" in Jud Kenney's "Imperium". (The Primate was a weak religious leader who presided over the Imperial City and a loose confederated Imperial Temple.) I ended up running the character like Chancellor Vallorum (unintentionally) and made a real mess, but the Synod (the Primate's religious council) took up a discussion of the conduct of just war . . . . I thought it might be relevant to the this discussion on 'imperial law'.

De Jure Belli ac Pacis

[The header above is the title of a 1625 tract by
Hugo Grotius on just war; it effectively forms the
basis of modern thought on the subject, but is
fairly appopriate to Anuire, as I hope to make
clear.

If nothing else, a fairly "modern" conception is
about all that is likely to be understood by most
players!

Some of what is drawn on below is a slightly
simplified version of late medieval ecclesiastical
concepts of just war.]

[Jud - do you think that this lot looks appropriate
for Imperium?

Nicholas - how's this for a positive proposal to
put before the Synod?]

Though Grotius based his plea upon the Laws of
Nature, we can base ours upon Anuire having been
founded by the brother of the god of Just War, who
also serves as its patron deity. This concept was,
we can claim, at the heart of Anuire and its empire
as few others were.

Grotius was also writing at a time when the gloss
of glorious chivalry had been stripped from war, as
it has been quite recently in the Imperium setting;
again, this fits with what should be a common
desire to limit and contain conflict, quite irrespective
of strategic considerations relevant to Anuire's
awnsheghlien neighbours.

To slightly misquote Grotius:

"I saw prevailing throughout Anuire a license in
making war of which even barbarous nations would
have been ashamed; recouse was had to arms for
slight reasons, or for no reason; and when arms
were once taken up, all reverence for divine or human
law was thrown away; just as if men were
thenceforth authorised to commit all crimes without
restraint."

His proposals can be briefly summarised as follows:

Only a sovereign prince has the right to proclaim
a war; thus, rebellion or unporovoked private wars
carried out by vassals are "unjust".

In Anuire, this grants most landed regents
the right to declare war - but if an Emperor were
to be crowned, only he would retain that right.

To be just, a war must also not only be legitimate,
but must also be waged in a righteous cause.

If a lesser man does engage in violence, and it is
for some reason deemed legitimate (for example
if his superior violently breaks his feudal oaths to
him), his war must be waged with restraint; a man
might kill his adversary on the field of battle, but
should not burn or despoil his property.

[What counts as a legitimate private war could
well be something which could keep the Synod
debating for a considerable time.]

A public war, as waged officially by a prince on
behalf of the realm, is somewhat less restricted.
Prisoners can be taken and held to ransom, the
property of the enemy is lawful booty, and
contributions may be levied on the populace.

In principle, both ecclesiastics and the tillers of
the soil are exempt from pillage or harassment,
but this protection is waived if they "aid or give
countenance" to the war.

Finally, "mortal war" arises when a besieged
fortress refuses a summons to surrender - if it
thereafter falls, the lives as well as the property
of its defenders are at the disposal of the victor.
Responsibility for casualties incurred in this
situation lies firmly with the commander who
unwisely declined the opportunity to save the
lives of those under his command.

[ConjurerDragon]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 02:17:10 +0100, morgramen <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG> wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1168
> morgramen wrote:
> I`m trying to assemble some sort of "codex" ofancient Imperial Law, and
was wondering if anyone else has either done this allready, or if they
happen to have a few on hand to add to the pot in hopes of making some sort
of definitive list.

A late reply to your post, but I remembered two things:
1) The most important law in Anuire could be that only legitimate heirs can
inherit lands and title, not bastard sons - even when no male heir is there.
Reason: To avoid that Prince Raesene could legally claim the Iron Throne as
the only living member of the Roele line.
Problem: In Tuornen exactly that happened in the war of the brothers, that
the bastard brother ascended to a throne - this could be seen as bad omen
for the coming of the gorgon.

2) In one of the Robin Hood Films Richard Plantagenet had to "set foot upon
englands soil" to prevent to lose the right to rule within a certain time,
else Prince John could legally inherit him. In Birthright with the tie to
the land, this could be a real danger - be away from your lands more than a
year and your heir inherits the realm automatically.
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[doom]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:22:29PM -0800, Michael Romes wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 02:17:10 +0100, morgramen <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG> wrote:
>
> A late reply to your post, but I remembered two things:
> 1) The most important law in Anuire could be that only legitimate heirs can
> inherit lands and title, not bastard sons - even when no male heir is there.
> Reason: To avoid that Prince Raesene could legally claim the Iron Throne as
> the only living member of the Roele line.
> Problem: In Tuornen exactly that happened in the war of the brothers, that
> the bastard brother ascended to a throne - this could be seen as bad omen
> for the coming of the gorgon.

This is a very interesting point... and one on which I don`t think the BR
campaign material includes much direction for.

I`m not certain that the rights of primogeniture are strickly held to
the lines of male descent in Cerilia. PS: Roesone, for instance, has
Marlae Roseone inheriting over her younger brother, Danael. There is
certainly a strong rationale for gender equity in the BR campaign
setting.

It would seem to me that a regent could, in theory, invest anyone as
their heir via the appropriate Ceremony of Designation - regardless of
whether or not a more "tradional" heir was apparent. I can see several
circumstances in which a younger child may be a FAR more fit ruler (say,
due to a second mariage with a more powerful scion than one`s first
spouse, or a more "appropriate" class choice in regards to the domain`s
RP collection).

The question is, does law/tradition support this more "effective"
choice? In a world where the strengths of divine bloodlines are
historic recorded facts, it may very well be the case that the
inheritence of bastard children, younger children, or even more distant
relations over the heir apparant may be a very real concern.

________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.