| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Oct 2012 : 18:32:58
|
A bit of a grim topic, but death centensing is a real part of the law in most of the realms' regions. Death sentences for commoners I see as a widespread and common activity in the day to day lives of most faerunians. But are nobles subjected to public executions as well?
First off, is it correct for me to guess they are 'enjoyed' by the (human) people as much as they were in medieval times? They are done in daylight at the market? Is the executioners axe and the noose the most prevalent way of dealing with death sentences, or are grim devices such as the guillotine just as common?
Typical punishments for nobles I see more likely to fall back to ancient laws upheld by nobilty. In severity 'Trial by Combat' would be the equivalent of a death sentence or capital punishment. So how much evidence is needed to allow a Tyrran justicar admitting a 'Trial by Combat'? Can families who have been slighted in their honor call for blood compense in trial by combat? Do those duels have to public? Can they legally hire champions or assassins to get their payment back in blood 'behind the scenes'?
|
My campaign sketches
Druidic Groves
Creature Feature: Giant Spiders |
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4686 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2012 : 19:56:38
|
| I would think it comes down to it depends. Public executions clearly can be held in some cities or regions. I do not see Nobles getting an exception because of rank if crime well known. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
 |
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2012 : 20:19:03
|
| i'd imagine hanging would be a popular option. i could see beheading with a sword being used in frontier areas where rangers are common. Ed's latest book Elminster's Realms had some interesting bits about law and justice in a smaller town if i recall. nobles might be able to buy their way out depending on country, but i do remember Queen Filfaeril ordering a noble woman who refused to support the crown with troops during a crisis to be beheaded. can't remember what novel that was from though. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2012 : 20:34:56
|
I believe it would be best to simply take a look at the alignment of the majority of rulers in a region to see what types of executions may take place.
In my own games I have done the following:
In the Dales area, a death sentence is a rarer thing; and if done at all it is done quickly and without ceremony or public witness...the only exception being that should a murderer or some such be executed, then the victim's family might be present.
Moonsea cities are different.
Hillsfar sends its comdemned to the arena. If they fight and win their freedom there, then the sport of it will make for great distraction from the tyranny of the place.
Zhentil Keep instead either sells a murderer to slavers who then take them south to be sold, use them in mining operations or whatever. However, those murderers who might be seen as valuable might instead be enlisted/conscripted with no choice into the ranks of irregular groups of soldiers/shock troops...or at worst for a one comdemned to death he/she might be given to some wizard for experiment or some temple for sacrifice.
Northern Coast Moonsea cities, being dominated by certain families, have differing punishments depending on the individual. If you are from a powerful family, the individual might only suffer exile after blood-price is paid...but if a commoner, exile into the wilds of Thar as caravan bait (being one who can be thrown to some wild beast to protect the caravan's guards/horses/goods instead) is common in my games. In fact, the city of Thentia has a certain caravan master who has many times bartered for passage with ogres by giving certain numbers of goods and slaves to ogres to pass freely to Glister and back. Execution isn't unheard of in my northern coast Moonsea cities, but much more rare as such an individual has value as a body at least in such a dangerous place.
Phlan is an exception in my games, as the city council instead throws the condemned together as a group and allows them the chance to make it through the ruins of the city to their freedom and then exile...though the worst sorts would most likely be quickly executed if it is thought they would only add to the cities woes by being sent into the ruins where they might join with the humanoids and worse there.
Mulmaster is much like Zhentil Keep with murderers and such of that group...however, the organized wizards of that place more often than not end up with the condemned to use in whatever manner they see fit.
The lands of Sembia have laws that comdemn to death murderers and traitors to the realm...unless there is enough coin to be had. If not publicly executed (usually by hanging in public, followed by dismemberment and burial face down with rocks atop the body to prevent undead rising from such a vile soul), those able to buy their freedom either assume a new identity in a new city, or leave the land all together for the lands of the Moonsea, the Vast or even as a Pirate...though some go as far afield as the lands of Amn where they use their money to once again establish themselves in a similar lifestyle as Sembia.
In Cormyr, after a fair trial where the individual has his chance, if proven guilty the custom is much the same as in The Dales (since both cultures originate from similar lands in the east). The Crown makes public execution for traitors to make example; but lesser individuals (common murderers) are quietly put down in a hanging ceremony if in a smaller place...to be quickly killed by magic if the hanging doesn't take to ensure no suffering by the comdemned if such is available.
That is pretty much the extent of the area of play I've dealt with in my games that involved anything like that. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2012 : 22:19:34
|
Drizzt, Deudermont, and Robillard decried the Prisoner's Carnival in Luskan because, for all of its claims to be about justice, it almost entirely used the poor for its public displays of torture and executions. It entertained the poor . . . by killing the poor. Nobles and the other wealthy elite could easily avoid death by paying off the right magistrates. Thus, the Prisoner's Carnival was not about law and order, or about fairness, but about exacting a heavy toll on the poor, and getting them to like it, all the same.
Deudermont shut it down during his brief stint as mayor of Luskan (The Pirate King). But it would be interesting to see if the drow-backed high captains have ever revived it, in the century since. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2012 : 22:44:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Drizzt, Deudermont, and Robillard decried the Prisoner's Carnival in Luskan because, for all of its claims to be about justice, it almost entirely used the poor for its public displays of torture and executions. It entertained the poor . . . by killing the poor. Nobles and the other wealthy elite could easily avoid death by paying off the right magistrates. Thus, the Prisoner's Carnival was not about law and order, or about fairness, but about exacting a heavy toll on the poor, and getting them to like it, all the same.
Deudermont shut it down during his brief stint as mayor of Luskan (The Pirate King). But it would be interesting to see if the drow-backed high captains have ever revived it, in the century since.
It's possible it was reinstated during the short term, but I doubt it lasted long. By the 1470s there wasn't even the semblance of law in Luskan. Trials and sentences were carried out with a knife in back allies. |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11701 Posts |
Posted - 30 Oct 2012 : 22:23:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
I would think it comes down to it depends. Public executions clearly can be held in some cities or regions. I do not see Nobles getting an exception because of rank if crime well known.
I can see nobles being given privilege in certain areas. For instance, in Thay if a noble Daeronness killed a commoner... it might be a fine. If the commoner killed a Daeronness, it would be executable. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 30 Oct 2012 : 22:38:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
I would think it comes down to it depends. Public executions clearly can be held in some cities or regions.
Agreed. For a crime that is well known, or involves the death/assassination of a very influential noble or government official, public execution is the way to go. If it's just a commoner's murder, lifetime imprisonment would suffice.
In Thay, it would hanging and not beheading, so the Necromancers can still make use of the corpse intact. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2012 : 12:39:33
|
Many crime were punishable by death in the medieval era and it is the same in the realms even in the more just societies .
Though of course the law enforcement official in the realms often have access to magical or clerical support that our own current day police can only dream off. |
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2012 : 00:00:43
|
In Cormyr the nobility is of decreasing power, but they are still the majority of landowners and form an administrative and legal unit in the kingdom. Therefore in most cases they'll still be responcable for upholding the law in their lands. So is only the elder familyhead able to state the laws and enact punishments, or can a young nobles hotheaded claim for the life of offending adventurers actually lead to their persecution without an investigation? Cormyr could definately be played as a terrifying place for adventurers if thats the case. I see the nobilty or Cormyr also prefering the 'old school' beheading..
Considering the long history of power of most nobilty in Thay I'd say that in more rural areas the ruling nobles manor/wizardtower/garden would be a good place where sentences are given. An old sturdy oak is probably the place where the noose is readily used.
For elves I would hesitate in giving them public capital punishments. It seems elves prefer punishments in the forms of a curse, banishment or transformation over imprisonment, death or slavery. They take certain offences seriously out of proportion, and are quite erratic with the severity of their punishments as well. Sylvan elves care not in the least for laws, and if they want you dead they'd do it themselves. Drow are rife with inventive ways of showing of their power while giving punishments, so dramatic public executions are certainly a tool of securing political gains by silencing dissent publicly. |
My campaign sketches
Druidic Groves
Creature Feature: Giant Spiders |
|
|
|
Garen Thal
Master of Realmslore
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2012 : 01:10:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
In Cormyr the nobility is of decreasing power, but they are still the majority of landowners and form an administrative and legal unit in the kingdom. Therefore in most cases they'll still be responcable for upholding the law in their lands. So is only the elder familyhead able to state the laws and enact punishments, or can a young nobles hotheaded claim for the life of offending adventurers actually lead to their persecution without an investigation? Cormyr could definately be played as a terrifying place for adventurers if thats the case. I see the nobilty or Cormyr also prefering the 'old school' beheading.
The nobles of Cormyr do not have the right to mete justice in the name of the Crown. They can detain suspected or accused criminals while awaiting proper authorities, but no noble of any rank has the right to execute anyone for any crime without the consent of the monarch or his appointed agents.
Trespassers in one's home, killed while armed and with intent to do harm, are one thing. But someone arrested for murder would be tried by the Crown, not the local nobles, who are not responsible for enforcement of the law. |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2012 : 08:45:57
|
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. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11701 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2012 : 14:35:28
|
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.
Regarding not bowing of the head in Cormyr.... I can't see public flogging for it or even a fine. I can see working for the public interest. Now, if the person doesn't show up to perform said work... then they are in defiance of the law. Then fines and flogging might happen. Also, this working for the public interest might vary from sweeping the rather small mayoral office.... to having to break down rocks and pave a roadway through forested terrain. This last would be if say a rebellious noble refused to bow his head to the king or somesuch stoneheadedness. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11701 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2012 : 14:42:06
|
| also, in regards to someone being charged with plotting rebellion. I'd imagine that there are local war wizards to which appeals for such would go... specifically in regards things like rebellion which are a threat to the kingdom. I don't think the local lord would have that much autonomy in such cases, and any local lord that presumed to handle such things themselves would risk that anyone in their domain would report them anonymously to the war wizards. In fact, in any situation where the accuser is also the judge I don't see happening in Cormyr, as ANYONE under them could easily report this to the purple dragons and/or the war wizards (if such don't see it immediately being in the employ of the region). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2012 : 18:31:20
|
I don't know if the Purple Dragons and War Wizards are pervasive enough to be accessable by a tavern owner in a small hamlet somewhere in Cormyr. A baron has the local militia under his control, so any appeal would be easily controlled and manipulated by him as he wishes well before they reach Purple Dragon or War Wizard ears...
Unless the tavern owners extended family or clan has enough clout with or contacts within the royal court or the Purple Dragons, the news of a beheading of a rebellious tavern owners is unlikely to spread very far.
Another interesting case to ponder is what would happen if a baronies noble family just doesn't care enough about the law. Here the apointed sheriff has the room to become a tyrant, with him getting rich of draconian fines he makes up on the spot. On the flipside, he might be so helpless and overwhelmed by criminal behaviour that he can only watch from the sidelines as local clans of commoners mete out the laws as they see fit. A clan would form the unit from wich accusiations or punishments could be claimed; so a destruction of property is done onto the clan as a whole and the offending culprit is seen as a representative of the clan as whole aswell. In such a scenario I see clan laws becoming fertile grounds for old grudges to influence the punishments. This can leed to heated and bloody clan wars or vendetta's. |
My campaign sketches
Druidic Groves
Creature Feature: Giant Spiders |
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2012 : 21:05:18
|
I remember reading that Hoar, the Lord of Three Thunders has become increasingly popular on Faeruns northern lands because its typical commoner respects poetic justice. As a result of this many a commoner has pronounced oaths of vengeance in the heat of the moment. Hoarite vigilantes can become both popular and scary figures if they are to uphold their dogma by accepting just such those pleas and acting on them.
I once played a Luskan rogue/champion of Hoar who accepted request such as those oaths of vengeance and enacted them as a vigilante/assassin for hire. He had interesting relationships to say the least. He was inititated in the church by an elder priest of Hoar in Arabel, made good friends with the high judge of Arabel, but ended up knee deep in conspiracies between two houses in Arabel, their Sharran enemies instigating grief by confusing the poor justice seeking sap by having him fall in love with a commoner Maskarran rogue (probably a Cyricist) who had made a lot of enemies.
The judicators of Tyr are probably too centralized and caught up in cases of more economic or political importance to accept pleas from the common folk. They honestly intent to, but in practise their reach can be readily tied by the nobilty and merchant families (especially if they have motivations to keep the law from nosing into their holdings). |
My campaign sketches
Druidic Groves
Creature Feature: Giant Spiders |
|
|
|
Sandro
Learned Scribe
New Zealand
266 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2012 : 22:34:34
|
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.
<snip, to save space>
How does all of this reconcile with Garen Thal's assertion that nobles don't have the legal right to mandate executions? In that context, it would seem that major crimes, at least, would have to be dealt with in a more centralized location/manner than a basic trial in a noble's hall. |
"Gods, little fishes, and spells to turn the one to the other," Mordenkainen sighed. "It's started already..." |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2012 : 01:49:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandro
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.
<snip, to save space>
How does all of this reconcile with Garen Thal's assertion that nobles don't have the legal right to mandate executions? In that context, it would seem that major crimes, at least, would have to be dealt with in a more centralized location/manner than a basic trial in a noble's hall.
Everything I posted, aside from where I otherwise noted was directly from the 2E Cormyr sourcebook. Unless there has been a retcon, or the lore has changed - the law functions as I noted.
Things are different in 4E, but my base assumption is that we're talking about Cormyr pre-Spellplague.
Anyone who wants to fact check me can do so. All the non-personal conjecture information was taken directly from the 2E Cormyr sourcebook from pages 37 and 38.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Regarding not bowing of the head in Cormyr.... I can't see public flogging for it or even a fine. I can see working for the public interest. Now, if the person doesn't show up to perform said work... then they are in defiance of the law. Then fines and flogging might happen. Also, this working for the public interest might vary from sweeping the rather small mayoral office.... to having to break down rocks and pave a roadway through forested terrain. This last would be if say a rebellious noble refused to bow his head to the king or somesuch stoneheadedness.
My understanding of Cormyrian law is that the penalties and various crimes can differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It is likely that the majority of laws are largely based on custom.
My reading of the Cormyrian nobility has them largely divided into two major camps. The first is the traditionalists and the second are the populists. The traditionalists seem to favor a highly segmented society with clear lines between the nobility and the common folk. The populists - and it should be noted that the Obarskyr clearly fall into this group - favor more equal treatment of the nobility and the common people (particularly when it came to the law). In short the populists, while not going as far as to advocate the abolishment of the nobility, do favor a more "enlightened" stance.
My guess is that if the populists were to ever become the majority in Cormyr, and get their way, you'd see Cormyr begin evolving into some type of constitutional monarchy.
However, I think the traditionalists outnumber the populists by at least a two to one margin - if not more. The populists simply have a lot of power and clout because the Obarskyr family are populists. I think this shift took place as a result of the influence (and meddling!) of Vangerdahast over King Azoun IV. The Steel Regent and certainly Azoun V carried on the populist tradition.
Indeed, if you go by 4E lore this seems to be largely what happened. Here is a direct quote from the article, Backdrop: Cormyr.
quote:
Near the end of his reign, Azoun V signed the Suzail Writ, in which the King agreed to be bound by law, and which gave “free citizens” inviolable rights; notably trial by jury of peers. The Writ restricted the nobility and elevated the common folk. Most nobles have accepted the new status quo, but a few still scheme to gain enough influence over the throne (or gain the throne itself) so that they could then return the noble houses to their “rightful prominence.” King Foril remains a staunch defender of the Writ.
This is echoed by the FRCG, pg 104:
quote:
Near the end of his reign, Azoun V signed the Suzail Writ, which bound the king by law and gave free folk inalienable rights—notably trial by jury of peers. The Writ restricted the nobility and elevated the common people. Most nobles have accepted the new status quo, but a few still scheme to gain influence over the throne (or to gain the throne itself ) and thereby return the noble houses to prominence. King Foril remains a strong proponent of the Writ.
It should be noted that King Azoun V spent a long time working on making this happen. He attempted to do this at the beginning of his reign, but faced heavy opposition from the nobility. This is noted in the Grand History of the Realms, Page 159:
quote:
1384 DR Year of Three Streams Blooded
The newly installed king of Cormyr, Azoun V, attempts to make official a Royal Decree that would give “freemen” the right to a hearing before other “freemen” in the face of accusations of wrongdoing, even if that accusation were to come from a noble. In the face of stiff resistance from every aristocrat in Cormyr, Azoun V does not follow through with the decree. However, he puts the nobles of his kingdom on notice that someday he will successfully enact just such a decree, no matter the resistance they offer.
As a result, I think it's safe to say prior to this (pre-Spellplague), that traditionalists outnumbered populists by a significant margin. Thus, under the jurisdiction of at least some of the traditionalists, a price would be paid for a commoner refusing to show respect "to his betters."
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
also, in regards to someone being charged with plotting rebellion. I'd imagine that there are local war wizards to which appeals for such would go... specifically in regards things like rebellion which are a threat to the kingdom. I don't think the local lord would have that much autonomy in such cases, and any local lord that presumed to handle such things themselves would risk that anyone in their domain would report them anonymously to the war wizards. In fact, in any situation where the accuser is also the judge I don't see happening in Cormyr, as ANYONE under them could easily report this to the purple dragons and/or the war wizards (if such don't see it immediately being in the employ of the region).
This is likely true within more urbanized areas. The War Wizards and Purple Dragons, which serve the Crown, would be looking out for the interests of the Crown. It becomes much more difficult to be a shady noble when you have them breathing down your neck. However, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that War Wizards and Purple Dragons are stationed within every village throughout Cormyr.
The 2E Cormyr sourcebook stated clearly:
quote:
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.
Using that statement as evidence, my personal conjecture leads me to think that you're more likely to get a fair(er) trial in more urbanized areas than in small towns and rural communities. |
Edited by - Aldrick on 02 Nov 2012 01:51:07 |
|
|
|
Garen Thal
Master of Realmslore
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2012 : 02:03:33
|
Aldrick, remember that "local lord" does not mean "noble in nearest proximity," but rather "individual appointed by the Crown as representative and enforcer of laws." Cormyr is not a feudal society divided into fiefdoms, with each noble having the power to administer justice as he sees fit. That job is left to the local lords and the Purple Dragons under their command.
The lore hasn't changed one bit in this regard. I think, however, that you may be reading something into the published material that isn't there. |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2012 : 03:10:22
|
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. |
|
|
|
Garen Thal
Master of Realmslore
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2012 : 14:18:41
|
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.
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.
Emphasis mine.
I think this thread is already on the road to derailment, so I'd suggest any broader conversation about Cormyrean legal systems be brought to a separate thread. Questions for me specifically can be posted to my thread, here. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Public executions
