Tweet
TL;DR - Suggestion: "Good Races" and "Anderson Act" need clarification. Criminal charges Assault, Murder, Rape, Mayhem, Banditry, and extortion all reference the undefined "Good Races". The "Anderson Act" doesn't actually list that it does anything for the people registered, is this intentional?
/TL;DR
Specifically regarding what protections the Anderson act actually affords. As it stands neither its announcement in the forum or the wiki describe in any depth what function the Anderson Act has other than being something listed races need to carry it... without listing at all why other than public assumption.
Additionally the term "Good Races" is cited multiple-times in the legal body of sundren without defining the term at all. It can be assumed that the "Good Races" are traditionally considered all humans, all dwarves, all elves (other than drow), all halfings, and all gnomes but assumptions are notoriously difficult to defend in coded legal bodies.
Further more combining the two:
An enterprising and cunning lawful character could currently, due to lack of clarification on the part of the laws themselves, happilly slaughter an anderson act holder and harvest their organs in openview with nothing that could stick on him legally. This is not a mere "Loophole" it's a glaring failure in the legal system to provide reference to any wrong doing at all - something Helmites scribes and scholars would be keenly wary of.
Rather than going into a lengthy arguement over it I think a simple example would suffice, I'll use one of my own characters as reference as he's someone who although he acts stupid is without question profit minded, malicious, and canny enough to do this as perhaps the supreme example of lawful evilness in the name of personal enterprise. This scenario is also directly related to why I came up with this in the first place. It's also more amusing than a dry argument.
And so, because I am bored and have time to write it up: A fictional case study in sundren that could actually happen.
------
Citation of State: vs. T. Bladecleaver, Adjudicator Ramalamadingdong of Helm Presided
Day 1:
Recitation of Charges:
Adj: Mister Bladecleaver you stand here before a state appointed and divinely empowered Adjudicator of Helm charged with acts of Murder and Assault with intent to Murder of Jim bob the registered Aasimar, and whatserface the registered Tiefling. How do you plead?
Mr. Bladecleaver: Not guilty.
(...Fast Forward a bit...)
State: So you admit to killing Jim Bob? Would you care to explain to the court why?
Bladecleaver: Well, it's believed in some circles that half-celestial organs are readily transferable to any being they're placed in. Specifically their eyes are valued for curing the blind, their hearts and lungs for respiratory and circulatory issues, and their limbs for the maimed and crippled - among others. Whether or not this is true I don't know, personally I suspect it's entirely nonsense made up along the way to give comfort to the suffering. I'm not a medical expert, however I do have buyers for such things and they are willing to pay a great deal.
State: So you killed him and susequently butchered him for organs? Out of a motivation for personal enterprise by taking advantage of what you openly state is a farfetched superstition?
Bladecleaver: Correct.
State: And your assault on Whatserface, is there any truth in this charge would you care to explain that?
Bladecleaver: I attacked Ms. Whatserface and tried to kill her for much the same reason. Half fiend organs are valued in many magical and religious rituals; specifically their horns are ground and burned as incence in summoning ceremonies, and their livers are read in certain divination practices, finally their tales are favoured collector's items to some.
State: I... see. Your honour, we've no further questions and rest our case for closing arguments.
Adj: You are certain?
State: Yes your honour.
Adj: Do you have anything to add in your... defence, mister Bladecleaver?
Bladecleaver: Nothing.
Adj: ... Very well. This court is in recess until the morrow, whereupon the defendant and then the state will present their closing arguments. Dismissed.
Day 2:
(... Fast forward to Arguments...)
Adj: Commence your argument, Mr. Bladecleaver, if you would for the court.
Bladecleaver: Very well your honour, thank you. Now while it may appear open and shut there is a lingering issue that's failed to be addressed in any of the precedings - the criteria for murder and assault.
Citing specifically - on murder, and I quote the relevant article: Murder is defined as the premeditated taking of the life or lives of a member or members of the Good Races, regardless of origin or citizenship.
And on assault quote - Assault and Battery are defined as crimes of violence against another or others of the Good Races, regardless of origin or citizenship, where Assault is the threat of violence and Battery the infliction thereof.
However, in both cases member's of the good races fail to be defined in legal criteria at all, let alone in cases that need to be registered under the anderson act. It stands then to reason that the individual I killed was no more a member of the "Good Races" than a common orc, or a sentient pig. No wrong doing was done, a product was located neutralized and extracted - in short hunted and butchered for products of and refined from their body. No different from a hunter tacking a deer for its hide to market, or a fisherman taking one of the nation's many hearty river trout to market scrimshaw.
The state even goes so far as to facilitate the activity, which I thank the state for making so easy what with them being mandated to officially and publicly register.
The truth however, is that I'm being wrongfully charged and victimized for nothing short of personal enterprise in the trade of animal product. These accusations border on slander and personal financial damages in that they're not supported at all by the publicly available criminal code.
Moreover the Anderson act lacks any and all detail affording the exception from violent actions taken against them, they are nothing more than tagged and registered humanoid beasts holding documents that say so. There is no basis of defence to be found within them, save the foolish notion perhaps that "all sentient beings are inherently capable of good" and that some document supposedly proves that. That being the case there's literally no reason not to register other beasts collectively and pre-emptively recognizing and defending this "capacity".
Are we to start considering gnolls and goblins members of the Good Races? If so then we've need to charge half a country side of honest hardworking farmers, foresters, and other workers of the land with murder.
No, these charges are patent nonsense in the face of inadequate definition. No criminal wrong doing has been done here, for no law has been broken at all. Regardless of whether the burden of proof would lie on myself to prove against the claims of the state, or the state against me. As an enforcer of the word of law surely the court can see the dangerous implications of flirty with such broad undefined legal wording? Surely the court sees its moral obligation to support the progress of law by throwing these claims out and demanding better definitions.
I have nothing more to say. The floor is yours, prosecutor.
State: Uh... The legal boundaries are left so broad in order to address the value of moral common sense among the uh... good races. And the ...
(Fast forward final judgment)
Adj: We have found, after much consideration that the legal code, and thus the state, inadequately presents clause or example of how T. Bladecleaver's actions violate in any part the criminal code of the land. As immoral and despicable as his acts may be there is no legal grounds for condemnation - nor is "common sense" of the, as such undefined, "Good Races" any justification for the interpretation of this court in favour of the state. Further more it is the duty of this court to inform through court record the demonstrated inadequacies of the system it is deigned to enforce.
The defendant T. Bladecleaver is found not guilty of murder, and not guilty of assault and should be free to carry out his business as it is not in violation of any laws or conditions of the state of Sundren as defined by the body of its criminal code.
-----
/TL;DR
Specifically regarding what protections the Anderson act actually affords. As it stands neither its announcement in the forum or the wiki describe in any depth what function the Anderson Act has other than being something listed races need to carry it... without listing at all why other than public assumption.
Additionally the term "Good Races" is cited multiple-times in the legal body of sundren without defining the term at all. It can be assumed that the "Good Races" are traditionally considered all humans, all dwarves, all elves (other than drow), all halfings, and all gnomes but assumptions are notoriously difficult to defend in coded legal bodies.
Further more combining the two:
An enterprising and cunning lawful character could currently, due to lack of clarification on the part of the laws themselves, happilly slaughter an anderson act holder and harvest their organs in openview with nothing that could stick on him legally. This is not a mere "Loophole" it's a glaring failure in the legal system to provide reference to any wrong doing at all - something Helmites scribes and scholars would be keenly wary of.
Rather than going into a lengthy arguement over it I think a simple example would suffice, I'll use one of my own characters as reference as he's someone who although he acts stupid is without question profit minded, malicious, and canny enough to do this as perhaps the supreme example of lawful evilness in the name of personal enterprise. This scenario is also directly related to why I came up with this in the first place. It's also more amusing than a dry argument.
And so, because I am bored and have time to write it up: A fictional case study in sundren that could actually happen.
------
Citation of State: vs. T. Bladecleaver, Adjudicator Ramalamadingdong of Helm Presided
Day 1:
Recitation of Charges:
Adj: Mister Bladecleaver you stand here before a state appointed and divinely empowered Adjudicator of Helm charged with acts of Murder and Assault with intent to Murder of Jim bob the registered Aasimar, and whatserface the registered Tiefling. How do you plead?
Mr. Bladecleaver: Not guilty.
(...Fast Forward a bit...)
State: So you admit to killing Jim Bob? Would you care to explain to the court why?
Bladecleaver: Well, it's believed in some circles that half-celestial organs are readily transferable to any being they're placed in. Specifically their eyes are valued for curing the blind, their hearts and lungs for respiratory and circulatory issues, and their limbs for the maimed and crippled - among others. Whether or not this is true I don't know, personally I suspect it's entirely nonsense made up along the way to give comfort to the suffering. I'm not a medical expert, however I do have buyers for such things and they are willing to pay a great deal.
State: So you killed him and susequently butchered him for organs? Out of a motivation for personal enterprise by taking advantage of what you openly state is a farfetched superstition?
Bladecleaver: Correct.
State: And your assault on Whatserface, is there any truth in this charge would you care to explain that?
Bladecleaver: I attacked Ms. Whatserface and tried to kill her for much the same reason. Half fiend organs are valued in many magical and religious rituals; specifically their horns are ground and burned as incence in summoning ceremonies, and their livers are read in certain divination practices, finally their tales are favoured collector's items to some.
State: I... see. Your honour, we've no further questions and rest our case for closing arguments.
Adj: You are certain?
State: Yes your honour.
Adj: Do you have anything to add in your... defence, mister Bladecleaver?
Bladecleaver: Nothing.
Adj: ... Very well. This court is in recess until the morrow, whereupon the defendant and then the state will present their closing arguments. Dismissed.
Day 2:
(... Fast forward to Arguments...)
Adj: Commence your argument, Mr. Bladecleaver, if you would for the court.
Bladecleaver: Very well your honour, thank you. Now while it may appear open and shut there is a lingering issue that's failed to be addressed in any of the precedings - the criteria for murder and assault.
Citing specifically - on murder, and I quote the relevant article: Murder is defined as the premeditated taking of the life or lives of a member or members of the Good Races, regardless of origin or citizenship.
And on assault quote - Assault and Battery are defined as crimes of violence against another or others of the Good Races, regardless of origin or citizenship, where Assault is the threat of violence and Battery the infliction thereof.
However, in both cases member's of the good races fail to be defined in legal criteria at all, let alone in cases that need to be registered under the anderson act. It stands then to reason that the individual I killed was no more a member of the "Good Races" than a common orc, or a sentient pig. No wrong doing was done, a product was located neutralized and extracted - in short hunted and butchered for products of and refined from their body. No different from a hunter tacking a deer for its hide to market, or a fisherman taking one of the nation's many hearty river trout to market scrimshaw.
The state even goes so far as to facilitate the activity, which I thank the state for making so easy what with them being mandated to officially and publicly register.
The truth however, is that I'm being wrongfully charged and victimized for nothing short of personal enterprise in the trade of animal product. These accusations border on slander and personal financial damages in that they're not supported at all by the publicly available criminal code.
Moreover the Anderson act lacks any and all detail affording the exception from violent actions taken against them, they are nothing more than tagged and registered humanoid beasts holding documents that say so. There is no basis of defence to be found within them, save the foolish notion perhaps that "all sentient beings are inherently capable of good" and that some document supposedly proves that. That being the case there's literally no reason not to register other beasts collectively and pre-emptively recognizing and defending this "capacity".
Are we to start considering gnolls and goblins members of the Good Races? If so then we've need to charge half a country side of honest hardworking farmers, foresters, and other workers of the land with murder.
No, these charges are patent nonsense in the face of inadequate definition. No criminal wrong doing has been done here, for no law has been broken at all. Regardless of whether the burden of proof would lie on myself to prove against the claims of the state, or the state against me. As an enforcer of the word of law surely the court can see the dangerous implications of flirty with such broad undefined legal wording? Surely the court sees its moral obligation to support the progress of law by throwing these claims out and demanding better definitions.
I have nothing more to say. The floor is yours, prosecutor.
State: Uh... The legal boundaries are left so broad in order to address the value of moral common sense among the uh... good races. And the ...
(Fast forward final judgment)
Adj: We have found, after much consideration that the legal code, and thus the state, inadequately presents clause or example of how T. Bladecleaver's actions violate in any part the criminal code of the land. As immoral and despicable as his acts may be there is no legal grounds for condemnation - nor is "common sense" of the, as such undefined, "Good Races" any justification for the interpretation of this court in favour of the state. Further more it is the duty of this court to inform through court record the demonstrated inadequacies of the system it is deigned to enforce.
The defendant T. Bladecleaver is found not guilty of murder, and not guilty of assault and should be free to carry out his business as it is not in violation of any laws or conditions of the state of Sundren as defined by the body of its criminal code.
-----
.
Comment