[Discuss] On adventurers and their "noble relatives"

[Talita CS]

On Nov 8, 2007 2:22 PM, Timothy Collett <danaris at mac.com> wrote:
> You wouldn't even have a noble against a peasant in such a case.  It
> would be the noble who harmed the peasant against the "owner" of that
> peasant.  If they were his own peasants, no one could touch him.
>
> But word would get around, and peasants with a choice (not that there
> were many, but there were some) would be more likely to want to live
> under the ruler of Lord Enlightened who treats his peasants like
> prize plough-horses than Lord Cruel who treats them like the dog that
> just bit your leg.

Hm, yes I think so, if they have the option.

But many people submit to rulings based on fear, so there must be
something that counts towards Lord Cruel. Maybe his police is very
good, maybe he has a wall to prevent people from escaping, maybe he
threatens family if the peasant vanishes. Maybe he goes to the judge
and say Lord Enlightened stole his peasant and must give it back or
pay fine.

Anyway, I think this derived from the original intent...

The point was: we have a huge majority of nobles being friendly to
human-rights. That should actually be a minority, for livestock don't
have any rights... and if we could have more nobles treating them like
livestock would be nice.

I thought we agreed on this?

Anyway2, I think people got tired of this discussion and I'm only
sending because I had the message in drafts. :P