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 youll get people arguing with that, but at least thered 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
cant overthrow" could be considered a law, but its a pretty self-evident
one, and doesnt really seem likely to influence behavior much. That is, it says "rebellion is only illegal if you cant 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 were 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 oughtnt 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 losers family -- or do the losers 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 Lands 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. Im 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.
