>>Greets
>>
>>(Sorry for the strange reply-fashion, it's just me :-) )
>
>
>No need to apologize...it shows your individuality, and I enjoy
>that! :-)
>>I will not offer a bounty on your turf, I will if I feel I am correct
>appeal
>>to the owner of the territory and ask for an explanation/measures.
>
>That is _your_ option, is it not? You have every right to make that
>determination for yourself. If others don't like it, they can try
>and do something about it. One option is to go to war. There are
>many other options. Not everybody plays by the same "rules". There
>is nothing dishonorable in yours. You have every right to enforce
>them.
This is not only the opinion of myself, it is the opinion of the Lords of
the Crown who have made the rules and edicts that count in our area.
If others want to do some things otherwise, let them do it in their own
area.
>The SuS has every right to make his decision to seek redress through
>whatever means pleases him.
NO, he may make the decision, but the execution is not legal in the area it
is intended in. Thus making it a invalid offer.
>His "pleasure" is in violation of your rules. Anyone seeking that
>reward in your domain should realize that he takes on this "quest"
>at the peril of his own [noble's] life.
I don't think it is his "pleasure", it is just what he thinks is a valid
option.
Exactly, appeal to the Lords is a better option.
>>
>>>>2) Completely illegal, because stahl und stein do not have the rights to
>>>>decree this. They can however contact the ruler of this domain and ask
>for
>>>>an explanation. This has not happened here. The rightful ruler of this
>>>>domain can then consider if this is a valid reason for sanctioning.
>>>
>>>Really? Could you please point out the section in the rules that makes
>>>this an illegal player device?
>>
>>The province the SUS noble got attacked is a LOTC-province, and the LOTC
>>still rule supreme over their lands, not MING, nor you, nor anyone else
>will
>>have anything to say about this area. This is an excempt of our edicts,
you
>>and anybody else will have to respect these rules.
>>
>>/*
>>Edict nr. 6 : As knights of honor we feel it is our duty to protect the
>weak
>>and innocent even outside our borders. If you were attacked, been robbed
>for
>>no good reason you can appeal to the Lords of the Crown. If your cause is
>>just, your words the truth, we will consider help in anyway.
>>*/
>>
>
>Ah. I see. We were getting tied up in symantics.
>You are trying to tell everyone that this bounty/quest does
>not have the sanction of the LotC and therefore anyone pursuing it
>on LotC lands is in violation of your law, subject to your judgement.
>This in noi way conflicts with the _right_ of the SuS to offer it.
>The SuS can make whatever offer they want. The people pursuing
>it are the ones who must first seek authorization from you, or whomever
>controls the regions they pursue the villain into.
The offer is in violation because the execution of it is directly a
violation of our edicts/laws.
You can off course start discussing about this, but you must admit that it
is the execution that counts.
>It is, afterall, possible the attacker is _not_ a LotC noble. The LotC
>could, therefore, collect the fellon and receive the reward. Rather,
>it was. Your post implies that the SuS noble was a trespasser who
>instead of leaving your lands by the route he entered, traveled deeper
>into your territory and was thus branded a target. Certainly you
>would not have asked some one to leave your lands and then refuse safe
>passage. So you have implied that it was the LotC whom attacked the
>SuS. If this is an error, please correct my misreading of your last
message
>promptly lest my surmise plant a false impression on the
>minds of others.
If the Lords of the Crown apprehend the fellon following their own rules
they will punish the violating noble and they will not claim the reward. The
execution of our laws are final and no bounty of others should be a part of
this. We will look into this matter not because SUS offers a bounty, but
because our own laws oblige us to do so.
>>>If we are talking "historical references", many Merchantile Houses
>>>offered rewards for the apprehention of bandits what raided their
>>>factors or trains outside the legal jurisdiction of their "country"
>>>of origin.
>>
>>Exactly, OUTSIDE the legal jurisdiction. Thank you.
>
>You're welcome. We don't disagree on all points. We may only be
>disagreeing on wording. And we'll leave the debate as to whether
>it was the Hapsburgs or the Fuggers who "ruled" the Holy Roman
>Empire of the early Renaissance to historians with more knowledge
>on the subject than I. :-)
Offcourse.
Regards,
Domme.