quote:

---

Originally posted by Aldrick

Let's discuss Cormyrian law. All of what I'm about to post (unless otherwise noted) is from the 2E Cormyr Sourcebook.

There are a few national laws that are universal throughout Cormyr. Their enforcement differs from town to town, and likely from violator to violator as well. Those who break these laws are usually banished or fined.

- Commoners, regardless of gender, are expected to bow their heads to royalty.

- All visitors are expected to bow their heads to the local lord.

- Armed individuals are expected to have their weapons peacebound.

- Everyone is required to submit to a search by the militia upon request.

- Foreign currency is only allowed to be traded by certain pre-approved businesses.

Personal Conjecture: It's likely that commoners are expected to bow their heads whenever they encounter any of the nobility. Refusing to do so likely results in a punishment, which would probably vary depending on the area and the noble. It likely ranges from fines to public flogging. Some nobles may be lax in this regard, however - so I'd judge it based upon the noble in question.

When it comes to members of the nobility, they are likely respected by law to bow their heads when in the domain of other nobles. However, this is likely treated as a sign of respect and proper etiquette. Refusing to do so is likely seen as a sign of disrespect and an insult. It's unlikely that nobles banish or fine each other, as all of this head-bowing is likely heavily tied into politics.

When it comes to the royal family, however, everyone is likely required to bow their head - including other nobles. Refusing to do so may or may not illicit consequences depending on the individual in question. Regardless, as one might imagine openly disrespecting the crown isn't a very wise move.

---

Now, let's talk about the Cormyrian legal system.

It is widely considered one of Cormyr's "greatest achievements", and many people argue that it works the best out of most other legal systems in Faerûn.

- Cormyr, like in most other kingdoms, has local nobles sitting in judgement and sentencing those who violate the law.

- Nobles can demand a trial by either the king or a jury of their peers (other nobles or senior War Wizards), in lieu of trial by a local noble.

- You may appeal a verdict. When this happens the king personally chooses a jury of a dozen commoners. The appeals process is only available to land owners (because they pay taxes to the king).

(Personal Conjecture: Thus, a landless commoner could not appeal a nobles judgement. It's probably a given that all nobles own land, along with pretty much any of the wealthy. Thus, in practice only the wealthy can make an appeal.)

- Cormyr is unique in that those accused of being guilty are considered neither guilty nor innocent until proven otherwise.

- Someone who is accused of a crime is required to "respond" to the charges, and those making the accusation are required to "substantiate" those charges.

- The heads of the local militia often stand as the "accuser" (what we might call a prosecutor).

- In small towns and villages, it's possible that both the accuser and the judge are the same individual. As a result, some places have a bad reputation where you don't want to be charged with a serious crime.

- The individual "responding" to accusations made is provided with no legal counsel, and is expected to make their own case to the judge and persuade him that he is innocent of the crimes he's accused of committing.

Personal Conjecture: This means there is no concept of "innocent until proven guilty." In effect, those accused of a crime are most likely considered guilty until proven innocent. However, this likely varies depending on who the accused is, who they know, their personal influence, and their wealth.

Commoners likely have very little power in this system, which largely seems to be designed to protect the nobility, the politically powerful, and the wealthy.

You can expect a lot of corruption in this system, especially in more remote and rural areas where the person accusing the individual of the crime is also acting as the judge. Even in more populated areas, the heads of local militia are likely appointed by the noble overseeing the area. Thus, there is room there for corruption as well as making it even harder for the accused to prove their innocence.

For most commoners, a trial likely looks something like this: the local militia head appointed by the noble family brings the accused before the noble. They make their charges known, show any evidence (no matter how flimsy). The commoner then likely struggles to make his case, because there are no "lawyers" to defend them (or inform them of the law) in Cormyr, and most of the time the noble likely sides with the individual making the accusation.

However, for the middle class, the politically connected, and the powerful things are a bit more fair in Cormyr. If you own land and pay taxes to the crown, you're allowed to repeal a verdict. This gives you some measure of protection against corruption.

The politically powerful, the nobility, and the wealthy have the easiest time dancing around the law. It's likely hard to punish them without consequences.

Likewise, I think it is safe to assume that non-land owning individuals who have either political power or a lot of wealth likely have a chance to appeal even if they don't own land. (Example: A well-connected, wealthy Sembian merchant is accused of a crime. Even though he doesn't own land in Cormyr, his repeal request may still be granted if he is found guilty by a local lord.)

In more remote and rural areas where local lords likely have much more autonomy, it's possible that less influential people who own land don't have their appeal requests honored. For example, someone who owns a local tavern in a small village is accused of plotting a rebellion against the local noble. He's found guilty. Since he owns the local tavern (and thus the land it sits on) he attempts to repeal the verdict. His repeal request is likely "lost / forgotten" as he's marched over to the gallows. It's unlikely there would be any real consequences for a local lord doing such a thing.

---

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by Aldrick

I'm aware that the crown appoints certain individuals (almost always nobles) to govern certain regions of Cormyr.

Examples of this are Arabel and Tilverton. The crown appointed Myrmeen Lhal to govern Arabel. Myrmeen married into the nobility by marrying Haverstrom Lhal, a cousin of King Azoun IV. The crown appointed Alasalynn Rowanmantle to govern Tilverton. Even though she was a member of the Purple Dragons, she was also a member of the Rowanmantle noble family.

So, yes the Crown does appoint certain individuals to govern certain regions of Cormyr. I didn't mean to imply that any wandering noble could simply act as a judge or accuser.

However, simply because a noble is appointed to govern a certain region does not mean that the individual doing the governing is going to be benevolent, fair, and just. In fact, Cormyr would be a pretty boring place if that were the case.

The 2E Cormyr Sourcebook makes clear that there -are- some places where you don't want to be accused of serious crimes. This would imply that the law can be less-than-fair.

Page 38:

quote:The court system works much like those in other kingdoms. The local lord or noble sits in judgment and sentences violators to punishment.

....

The heads of militia are most often used as accusers. In small towns, this means the accuser is also the judge. Some towns have a reputation as bad places in which to be charged with serious crimes.

The kingdom does not provide the accused with any facilities. The accused is responsible for making his case to the judge and persuading him that he should be found not guilty.



I underlined and made bold the most important sentence.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Garen Thal

Yes, but comments above indicate that the understanding of some scribes here is that it's the nobility--not the local lords--responsible for administering justice. Local lords must be part of the nobility (by marriage or birth or direct grant of peerage), but it's being a local lord--not a member of the nobility--that gives them the power to enact justice. My posts are intended to correct that understanding.

If I live in Arabel, there are lots of local nobles, but only one "local lord." Raynar Marliir is a duke, and outranks Myrmeen, but he cannot order my execution under any circumstances. Even if, in the middle of the street, I stabbed his kinsman in cold blood. His guards might slay me in an attempt to arrest me, but if I surrender, and he or his men kill me, that's not justice; it's murder.

Also, please note that I'm speaking directly, and specifically, about the topic of the thread: executions.

As for the most recent lore regarding the rights of nobility in general, I'll point to Dragon #407's Crowns and Mantles:

quote:Duties and Privileges
Nobility carries with it a number of benefits. Nobles can keep armed retinues (the extent of which is determined by the family, the title, when it was issued, and the relevant royal proclamations), maintain fortified residences, hire mercenary bands, pass heraldic blazons to their children, and serve as de facto officers in the Purple Dragons. They have the power to detain or arrest—but not to put on trial or punish—commoners who commit crimes on their lands or in their presence, as well as the ability to petition and advise the Crown directly, without the need to find an advocate at Court.

---

quote:

---

Emphasis mine.

---