[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Folwren

Oh, wow. That was quickly dealt with. I guess it would be...makes sense.

Heh. Let's say it is quickly dealt for the time being.

As Eodwine asked for leave to discuss with Saeryn, Athanar thought it wise to not let the whole bunch just sit and wait - especially as Eodwine's words opened a kind of path that might lead into abandonment of furthering the whole case, or at least a serious reconsideration of it (if Saeryn would come to her senses after speaking with his husband etc.). So he decided just to punish Scyrr from his behaviour a) on forgetting his rank while drunk, and b) how he behaved there at the "court" - and let it open whether there would be added penalties for him; depending on Eodwine's and Saeryn's willingness to demand them (on the insult issue), or how the general public would react to this decision.

So you should probably write a scene between Saeryn and Eodwine as to, well first and foremost about their relation to be sure, but also about would they like to continue the case or let Scyrr off the hook with what he got there.

Originally Posted by lmp

I suppose I could argue further as to how such terms as "libertarian" and "utopia" are meaningless in the context of LOTR in general, and The Mark specifically.

And you would probably win that argument if anyone decided to take the opposite position... But yes, I only used them as shorthand markers referring to our previous discussion about the society in Mark - in which I think you used many phrases I have heard from American libertarians in today's discussion. But yes, labels are secondary things. The more important thing is to get a shared view on how that society "works" so that we have a common ground from where to write our characters and their reactions to different situations. In that vein I find your suggestions good ones in deed.


So yeah, let's say the primary way these three "landlords" have risen to their position at Mid Emnet is their stature as war-heroes, of course, but especially their economic power with which they have managed to turn some independent landholders (aka. farmers) into... being heavily debted to them - which someone else might call serfdom or slavery or peasantry - or whichever words one wishes to use (I'd know some more suitable terms in Finnish but I'm not sure if they mean the same in English so I'm not even trying them here). But yes they are free in some sense but so strongly tied to these wealthier lords by their debt they have no possibility but to obey them and live in poverty (not all should be in that sad situation, of course).

But the idea behind all this would then be, that they charge unfair interests of what they lend etc. So they use the others' plight into their own advantage.


There is one question though I think needs some thinking over.

So how about the power of judgement?

If I've gotten it right, one of the Mead Hall's basic functions is to stand as King's justice at the area. Before there had been none at Mid Emnet but now there would be. But how were disputes, arguments or crimes solved before? Everyone for himself? Mob rule? Surely they wouldn't take every issue to the king far away from their home - and the king wouldn't have time for them if that was a common way of doing things everywhere where there was no mead Hall around?

And even an "Althing"-kind of system where all the free men, or households, gathered to make decisions would require some people having special roles.

Now there are several mentionings in the thread that the lords (the three richest ones) have also being giving the law thus far. We can thus accept that (and come up with an explanation as to how that has happened), take thats as a mistake and go back editing all those parts from the thread, or just ignore that.

I think the best way to approach this is to come up with the best possible solution as to how the legal system of Mid Emnet would have worked and then see how it fits with what we have already written, and then deciding should we do something about what has been already written.

One scenario that comes to my mind would be a kind of a slow emergence of the "judical power" of our three lords (or two, or one of them if we wish).

Let's say that at year zero me and my neighbour have a dispute over whether I can use the pond at the borderline of our farms he uses to water his fields to water my livestock (okay, bad example, but whatever). So how do we determine that question if he thinks I have no right to water my stock from where he waters his fields, but I still think he has no right to deny me the use of the pond? Now it might enter our minds that there lives this great warhero nearby who has stature over us both and probably no personal interest on the matter. Why shouldn't we ask him what to do? And from cases like that, during the years, a decade, and more... it would have kind of become natural that a few people have the authority to judge on that kind of matters... and little by little they would have started to take care they gain from their "work as judges" of sorts?

Well, that's an idea. Other ideas?