Excoriation and the Multiple Canniths [Archive] - Wizards Community

Excoriation and the Multiple Canniths [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Syltorian
02-26-08, 06:50 AM I've recently begone thinking about the excoriation custom in the dragonmarked houses. While I got many questions, most of them are too long to write down now... but one is short enough to be asked.

Essentially: if a dragonmarked heir is excoriated by House Cannith, this will most likely happen in one of the three factions. My questions would be whether this automatically entails excoriation in the two other factions, or whether they would have to ratify it (if the crime was against the house as a whole). If the former, can Jorlanna rescind an excoriation pronounced by Cannith South? For now, this is just a theoretical exercise, without anything specific in mind, though a certain novel did give rise to the question...
RedRider
02-26-08, 07:27 AM I'd probably say that the leadership is fragmented enough that if you get exoriated by one faction another could grab you up, depending on your crime.

If, for example, you killed a whole bunch of people without due cause, then no-one's going to openly want to associate with you. If, however, you just managed to tick off Merrix by disobeying an important command then one of the other factions might take you in, especially if you're more aligned with their particular philosophy.

All just a matter politics really.

Though if you are exoriated from one faction, don't expect the other faction to let you pick up where you left off in theirs. You're going to have to build trust, contacts and influence before they're willing to accept you won't do something that'll get you exoriated from their wing of the house.
Edymnion
02-26-08, 12:23 PM I think it depends entirely on the reason you were excoriated.
I mean, if Cannith South kicked you out for being a spy for one of the other Cannith branches, its entirely reasonable to expect you to still have full standing in that branch.

I'd play it that the branches will tend to respect each other's judgements in excoriation and respond appropriately just to preserve the image of the house as a whole, but like any fractured party, getting outed by one side doesn't mean you're outted by all of them, if you have something the other side needs/wants.
Syltorian
02-27-08, 02:07 PM Thanks for the replies. It mostly assumed that the various branches would work partially independently even on the subject of excoriation, though only in such cases where they either see a benefit to their own faction, or the crime was against the specific interests of a faction, not a house... That seems to be confirmed by your replies. Thanks again!

Also, good thinking in pointing out that an excoriated of Cannith South still accepted into Cannith East does not get to transfer his full status, RedRider.

I think it depends entirely on the reason you were excoriated.

That leads to another question. I am a bit uncertain as to what leads to excoriation, unless it is tagged on to another punishment (for instance, I assume that if you are caught putting poison into the drinks of your council of viceroys, you will be excoriated, but also put into custody)... I'll start a different thread on this to generate some ideas for what gets you excoriated in general, and what happens in specific houses.

I've started a more general thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=15204282#post15204282) on this topic. I hope you can help out there with ideas of what crimes house-members could be up to!
Gurv
02-28-08, 12:28 AM I'm not entirely sure I agree with the opinions so far that say that someone excoriated from one branch of the house would be accepted in the others. I think excoriation is taken more seriously than that. It is more than just being blacklisted. Since excoriation is reserved for the most foul crimes against ones fellowship, it would be rare that such a person would be welcomed into another.

Although it is somewhat seperated Cannith is still a single house. The branches might have different agendas, but they all want to present a united face to the world. Resolving their differences is the hope, however unlikely it may seem at the time. If someone from the house is excoriated, I don't think that anyone in the house has the option of ignoring that fact.

To ignore excoration is to sunder the house. Just as with Phairlan and Thurrani.
Edymnion
03-04-08, 06:46 PM But House Cannith is already sundered, they just haven't admitted it yet.
Considering that the main reason to get excoriated is to do something so terrible that it shames your house, yeah, the other Cannith factions won't take you in.

But, if you got excoriated for helping one of the other factions at the expense of your own (smuggling out schemas, stealing secrets, fostering dissention among the ranks so as to weaken the faction so another can move in, etc), it makes sense that the faction you were aiding would take you in.
Ellorin
03-06-08, 07:59 AM But, if you got excoriated for helping one of the other factions at the expense of your own (smuggling out schemas, stealing secrets, fostering dissention among the ranks so as to weaken the faction so another can move in, etc), it makes sense that the faction you were aiding would take you in.

I am wondering whether such actions could lead to an excoriation. It is house justice mostly , but Iwould expect that the penalty of excoriation, as the most severe one that a dragonmarked house can inflict one members of its race, would be codified in detail, and the crimes against the house that lead to one would be codified in detail by the Code of Galifar. Furthermore, i would expect a numerus clausus concerning the subject-no more acts can lead to excoriation than those already stated by the law. The question is Does the betraual of a faction's secret to another faction of the same house constitute a crime punished by excoriation? Is favouring e.g. Baron Merrix over Baron Zorlan, to the effect of handing him Zorlan' new schema on a silver plate, a crime against House Cannith? Personally, I don't think so, no matter what the barons might wish.
Sivis lawyers would really look forward to settle that issue in a court...
Syltorian
03-06-08, 09:48 AM I am wondering whether such actions could lead to an excoriation. It is house justice mostly , but Iwould expect that the penalty of excoriation, as the most severe one that a dragonmarked house can inflict one members of its race, would be codified in detail, and the crimes against the house that lead to one would be codified in detail by the Code of Galifar. Furthermore, i would expect a numerus clausus concerning the subject-no more acts can lead to excoriation than those already stated by the law.

I would not think so. I know novels are not canon, but since City of Towers was written by the guy behind the setting, I'll use it to illustrate my case. Do not read if you have not finished the trilogy!

Lei was excoriated by order of Merrix - without being given a reason and without being allowed to defend herself. I am pretty sure the Code of Galifar would forbid such practices, but there was no appeal for Lei. I also doubt that the Code of Galifar includes the clause that 'every member of the house discovered to be a construct will be excoriated', so some leeway must exist.

I thus conclude that excoriation is entirely arbitrary. I'd say that, in theory, Merrix could excoriate you for spilling drink over his favourite coat - if he gets the viceroys to agree. It won't happen because tradition and common sense stand against it, and because the House would rebel against such tyranny and depose the baron. But I do not think any law forbids it. Precedent, perhaps.

The Code of Galifar regulates the interchange between the Houses and the Kingdom, but I do not think it stipulates what happens within the house, except in very specific cases - such as the "No more warforged" clause to Thronehold. But even the latter clause is circumvented if you happen to be out of reach of the Code, such as in Xen'drik. This would not be possible if the House itself was subject to the Code.

The question is Does the betraual of a faction's secret to another faction of the same house constitute a crime punished by excoriation? Is favouring e.g. Baron Merrix over Baron Zorlan, to the effect of handing him Zorlan' new schema on a silver plate, a crime against House Cannith? Personally, I don't think so, no matter what the barons might wish.

It depends how deep you believe the schism is. It could go all the way from active supporters of other factions being de-facto excoriated from the others to 'never mind, the House was not hurt'. Still, is it High Treason in Breland if you support the Parliamentarians against the King, since you still keep the good of the nation in mind? Can a Karrn be blamed for supporting Aurala - it's still the line of Wynarn! Exaggerated ad absurdum, I agree, but it is sort of the same defence.

In my opinion, Merrix considers Zorlan a rebel against his rightful authority. This is not a triumvirate like Tharashk has, but a split which all the barons delude themselves they can mend. Merix cannot do anything against Zorlan or Jorlana, and excoriating the other faction leaders would be disastrous for the House: it would force a complete schism if they refused to obey. That is what happened when Phiarlan excoriated all of Thuranni. It would also be a joke, as it cannot be enforced.

But he can do something against Joe d'Cannith who betrayed Cannith South to Cannith East. Joe will not be welcome in any of the Southern holdings, where he will be treated as excoriate. And once Merrix has won the battle for supremacy in his own House, Joe, as a supporter of the losing faction, will pay for his treason.

Naturally, if you chose to regard the schism as less serious, he could just send Joe back to Korth with a letter asking Zorlan to please ask for help next time, rather than try and steal it.
Edymnion
03-06-08, 12:36 PM I am wondering whether such actions could lead to an excoriation. It is house justice mostly , but Iwould expect that the penalty of excoriation, as the most severe one that a dragonmarked house can inflict one members of its race, would be codified in detail, and the crimes against the house that lead to one would be codified in detail by the Code of Galifar.No, the Code of Galifar would be a national legal matter. By law, the government cannot influence the houses, and the houses cannot influence the government (or thats the way its supposed to be).Furthermore, i would expect a numerus clausus concerning the subject-no more acts can lead to excoriation than those already stated by the law. The question is Does the betraual of a faction's secret to another faction of the same house constitute a crime punished by excoriation? Is favouring e.g. Baron Merrix over Baron Zorlan, to the effect of handing him Zorlan' new schema on a silver plate, a crime against House Cannith? Personally, I don't think so, no matter what the barons might wish.
Sivis lawyers would really look forward to settle that issue in a court...Like Syltorian said, we've already had examples of people getting excoriated on the whim of a house leader. Seems fairly certain to me that there are no hard coded rules when it comes to this, and its purely on a case by case basis.
Ellorin
03-16-08, 12:24 PM No, the Code of Galifar would be a national legal matter. By law, the government cannot influence the houses, and the houses cannot influence the government (or thats the way its supposed to be).

Well, it did change the fate of the excoriates(the violent stripping of the mark is no more)so that issue might be dealt too.

Like Syltorian said, we've already had examples of people getting excoriated on the whim of a house leader. Seems fairly certain to me that there are no hard coded rules when it comes to this, and its purely on a case by case basis.

Or nobody dares to call them illegal.

Oh, and sorry for answering after almost 2 weeks(but that's a long, boring story).
Syltorian
03-16-08, 02:20 PM Well, it did change the fate of the excoriates(the violent stripping of the mark is no more)so that issue might be dealt too.

Is that an imposition by the Code of Galifar rather than a decision the Houses took themselves because of the generally more enlightened climate under the Kingdom? Also, the way I read this, the Houses do not skin their heirs any more because it's barbaric... it doesn't seem from the passage in Dragonmarked that doing so would actually be forbidden.

Or nobody dares to call them illegal.

That is of course possible, but if the law is not enforced (or cannot be enforced), it is pretty much superfluous.

I also doubt there ever was such a law simply because it was not worth it for the kings of Galifar to introduce it. What would Galifar gain? Nothing much, really. What would they lose? Potentially the cooperation of the Houses.

As it is, the Code of Galifar, as it pertains to the Houses, is a balanced act that pretends that both sides are equally strong and would benefit from working together, rather than against each other. Each House might be less powerful than the Kingdom, but as a group, the Twelve is not something even the King of United Galifar wants as an enemy. Yet any Royal law that tries to regulate what happens inside a house (rather than how the house interacts with the Kingdom) will be seen as meddling and a challenge.

If the Twelve allow that law to take effect, they have admitted they are subjects to the King. They cannot accept that, and the Kings knew that quite well. They didn't want the Twelve to take up the challenge and really try to find out if they are as strong as this law - understood as: "The King has more authority over the Houses than their patriarch" - pretends. Who suffers most if the two forces decide to sever connections or if the all the guilds declare a general strike (or only serve those who rally to their own cause)? Individual heirs who happen to run afoul of their superiors just aren't worth the trouble of getting an answer to that question.
Ellorin
03-20-08, 06:47 AM Is that an imposition by the Code of Galifar rather than a decision the Houses took themselves because of the generally more enlightened climate under the Kingdom? Also, the way I read this, the Houses do not skin their heirs any more because it's barbaric... it doesn't seem from the passage in Dragonmarked that doing so would actually be forbidden.

That is of course possible, but if the law is not enforced (or cannot be enforced), it is pretty much superfluous.

I also doubt there ever was such a law simply because it was not worth it for the kings of Galifar to introduce it. What would Galifar gain? Nothing much, really. What would they lose? Potentially the cooperation of the Houses.

As it is, the Code of Galifar, as it pertains to the Houses, is a balanced act that pretends that both sides are equally strong and would benefit from working together, rather than against each other. Each House might be less powerful than the Kingdom, but as a group, the Twelve is not something even the King of United Galifar wants as an enemy. Yet any Royal law that tries to regulate what happens inside a house (rather than how the house interacts with the Kingdom) will be seen as meddling and a challenge.

If the Twelve allow that law to take effect, they have admitted they are subjects to the King. They cannot accept that, and the Kings knew that quite well. They didn't want the Twelve to take up the challenge and really try to find out if they are as strong as this law - understood as: "The King has more authority over the Houses than their patriarch" - pretends. Who suffers most if the two forces decide to sever connections or if the all the guilds declare a general strike (or only serve those who rally to their own cause)? Individual heirs who happen to run afoul of their superiors just aren't worth the trouble of getting an answer to that question.

You are correct, of course. Seems I mistakenly considered that the edicts of Korth dealt with the subject-thanks for correcting me.
TiwazTyrsfist
03-21-08, 10:08 PM I definitely think that it depends on what you were excoriated for, and which branch excoriated you.

For example. Chances are good (in my opinion) that if you became a Renegade Mastermaker, and spent time and resources on unapproved warforged research, Jorlanna d'Canith might consider this reason enough to excoriate you.
But if you show talent, and if your illicit research shows promise, Merrix may well decide to offer you a position in his own branch of the house.
Edymnion
03-22-08, 10:09 PM Well, it did change the fate of the excoriates(the violent stripping of the mark is no more)so that issue might be dealt too.I don't recall that being a government edict, but even if it was, I doubt it was "You Houses can't flay traitors alive anymore" so much as it was a general "Execution of anyone except through government sanctioned court order is illegal" edict.

You could be excoriated for something that is not illegal in the kingdom (like marrying the "wrong" type of person), but the law would no longer allow you to kill that person for it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Syltorian 02-26-08, 06:50 AM	I've recently begone thinking about the excoriation custom in the dragonmarked houses. While I got many questions, most of them are too long to write down now... but one is short enough to be asked. Essentially: if a dragonmarked heir is excoriated by House Cannith, this will most likely happen in one of the three factions. My questions would be whether this automatically entails excoriation in the two other factions, or whether they would have to ratify it (if the crime was against the house as a whole). If the former, can Jorlanna rescind an excoriation pronounced by Cannith South? For now, this is just a theoretical exercise, without anything specific in mind, though a certain novel did give rise to the question...
RedRider 02-26-08, 07:27 AM	I'd probably say that the leadership is fragmented enough that if you get exoriated by one faction another could grab you up, depending on your crime. If, for example, you killed a whole bunch of people without due cause, then no-one's going to openly want to associate with you. If, however, you just managed to tick off Merrix by disobeying an important command then one of the other factions might take you in, especially if you're more aligned with their particular philosophy. All just a matter politics really. Though if you are exoriated from one faction, don't expect the other faction to let you pick up where you left off in theirs. You're going to have to build trust, contacts and influence before they're willing to accept you won't do something that'll get you exoriated from their wing of the house.
Edymnion 02-26-08, 12:23 PM	I think it depends entirely on the reason you were excoriated. I mean, if Cannith South kicked you out for being a spy for one of the other Cannith branches, its entirely reasonable to expect you to still have full standing in that branch. I'd play it that the branches will tend to respect each other's judgements in excoriation and respond appropriately just to preserve the image of the house as a whole, but like any fractured party, getting outed by one side doesn't mean you're outted by all of them, if you have something the other side needs/wants.
Syltorian 02-27-08, 02:07 PM	Thanks for the replies. It mostly assumed that the various branches would work partially independently even on the subject of excoriation, though only in such cases where they either see a benefit to their own faction, or the crime was against the specific interests of a faction, not a house... That seems to be confirmed by your replies. Thanks again! Also, good thinking in pointing out that an excoriated of Cannith South still accepted into Cannith East does not get to transfer his full status, RedRider. I think it depends entirely on the reason you were excoriated. That leads to another question. I am a bit uncertain as to what leads to excoriation, unless it is tagged on to another punishment (for instance, I assume that if you are caught putting poison into the drinks of your council of viceroys, you will be excoriated, but also put into custody)... I'll start a different thread on this to generate some ideas for what gets you excoriated in general, and what happens in specific houses. I've started a more general thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=15204282#post15204282) on this topic. I hope you can help out there with ideas of what crimes house-members could be up to!
Gurv 02-28-08, 12:28 AM	I'm not entirely sure I agree with the opinions so far that say that someone excoriated from one branch of the house would be accepted in the others. I think excoriation is taken more seriously than that. It is more than just being blacklisted. Since excoriation is reserved for the most foul crimes against ones fellowship, it would be rare that such a person would be welcomed into another. Although it is somewhat seperated Cannith is still a single house. The branches might have different agendas, but they all want to present a united face to the world. Resolving their differences is the hope, however unlikely it may seem at the time. If someone from the house is excoriated, I don't think that anyone in the house has the option of ignoring that fact. To ignore excoration is to sunder the house. Just as with Phairlan and Thurrani.
Edymnion 03-04-08, 06:46 PM	But House Cannith is already sundered, they just haven't admitted it yet. Considering that the main reason to get excoriated is to do something so terrible that it shames your house, yeah, the other Cannith factions won't take you in. But, if you got excoriated for helping one of the other factions at the expense of your own (smuggling out schemas, stealing secrets, fostering dissention among the ranks so as to weaken the faction so another can move in, etc), it makes sense that the faction you were aiding would take you in.
Ellorin 03-06-08, 07:59 AM	But, if you got excoriated for helping one of the other factions at the expense of your own (smuggling out schemas, stealing secrets, fostering dissention among the ranks so as to weaken the faction so another can move in, etc), it makes sense that the faction you were aiding would take you in. I am wondering whether such actions could lead to an excoriation. It is house justice mostly , but Iwould expect that the penalty of excoriation, as the most severe one that a dragonmarked house can inflict one members of its race, would be codified in detail, and the crimes against the house that lead to one would be codified in detail by the Code of Galifar. Furthermore, i would expect a numerus clausus concerning the subject-no more acts can lead to excoriation than those already stated by the law. The question is Does the betraual of a faction's secret to another faction of the same house constitute a crime punished by excoriation? Is favouring e.g. Baron Merrix over Baron Zorlan, to the effect of handing him Zorlan' new schema on a silver plate, a crime against House Cannith? Personally, I don't think so, no matter what the barons might wish. Sivis lawyers would really look forward to settle that issue in a court...
Syltorian 03-06-08, 09:48 AM	I am wondering whether such actions could lead to an excoriation. It is house justice mostly , but Iwould expect that the penalty of excoriation, as the most severe one that a dragonmarked house can inflict one members of its race, would be codified in detail, and the crimes against the house that lead to one would be codified in detail by the Code of Galifar. Furthermore, i would expect a numerus clausus concerning the subject-no more acts can lead to excoriation than those already stated by the law. I would not think so. I know novels are not canon, but since City of Towers was written by the guy behind the setting, I'll use it to illustrate my case. Do not read if you have not finished the trilogy! Lei was excoriated by order of Merrix - without being given a reason and without being allowed to defend herself. I am pretty sure the Code of Galifar would forbid such practices, but there was no appeal for Lei. I also doubt that the Code of Galifar includes the clause that 'every member of the house discovered to be a construct will be excoriated', so some leeway must exist. I thus conclude that excoriation is entirely arbitrary. I'd say that, in theory, Merrix could excoriate you for spilling drink over his favourite coat - if he gets the viceroys to agree. It won't happen because tradition and common sense stand against it, and because the House would rebel against such tyranny and depose the baron. But I do not think any law forbids it. Precedent, perhaps. The Code of Galifar regulates the interchange between the Houses and the Kingdom, but I do not think it stipulates what happens within the house, except in very specific cases - such as the "No more warforged" clause to Thronehold. But even the latter clause is circumvented if you happen to be out of reach of the Code, such as in Xen'drik. This would not be possible if the House itself was subject to the Code. The question is Does the betraual of a faction's secret to another faction of the same house constitute a crime punished by excoriation? Is favouring e.g. Baron Merrix over Baron Zorlan, to the effect of handing him Zorlan' new schema on a silver plate, a crime against House Cannith? Personally, I don't think so, no matter what the barons might wish. It depends how deep you believe the schism is. It could go all the way from active supporters of other factions being de-facto excoriated from the others to 'never mind, the House was not hurt'. Still, is it High Treason in Breland if you support the Parliamentarians against the King, since you still keep the good of the nation in mind? Can a Karrn be blamed for supporting Aurala - it's still the line of Wynarn! Exaggerated ad absurdum, I agree, but it is sort of the same defence. In my opinion, Merrix considers Zorlan a rebel against his rightful authority. This is not a triumvirate like Tharashk has, but a split which all the barons delude themselves they can mend. Merix cannot do anything against Zorlan or Jorlana, and excoriating the other faction leaders would be disastrous for the House: it would force a complete schism if they refused to obey. That is what happened when Phiarlan excoriated all of Thuranni. It would also be a joke, as it cannot be enforced. But he can do something against Joe d'Cannith who betrayed Cannith South to Cannith East. Joe will not be welcome in any of the Southern holdings, where he will be treated as excoriate. And once Merrix has won the battle for supremacy in his own House, Joe, as a supporter of the losing faction, will pay for his treason. Naturally, if you chose to regard the schism as less serious, he could just send Joe back to Korth with a letter asking Zorlan to please ask for help next time, rather than try and steal it.
Edymnion 03-06-08, 12:36 PM	I am wondering whether such actions could lead to an excoriation. It is house justice mostly , but Iwould expect that the penalty of excoriation, as the most severe one that a dragonmarked house can inflict one members of its race, would be codified in detail, and the crimes against the house that lead to one would be codified in detail by the Code of Galifar.No, the Code of Galifar would be a national legal matter. By law, the government cannot influence the houses, and the houses cannot influence the government (or thats the way its supposed to be).Furthermore, i would expect a numerus clausus concerning the subject-no more acts can lead to excoriation than those already stated by the law. The question is Does the betraual of a faction's secret to another faction of the same house constitute a crime punished by excoriation? Is favouring e.g. Baron Merrix over Baron Zorlan, to the effect of handing him Zorlan' new schema on a silver plate, a crime against House Cannith? Personally, I don't think so, no matter what the barons might wish. Sivis lawyers would really look forward to settle that issue in a court...Like Syltorian said, we've already had examples of people getting excoriated on the whim of a house leader. Seems fairly certain to me that there are no hard coded rules when it comes to this, and its purely on a case by case basis.
Ellorin 03-16-08, 12:24 PM	No, the Code of Galifar would be a national legal matter. By law, the government cannot influence the houses, and the houses cannot influence the government (or thats the way its supposed to be). Well, it did change the fate of the excoriates(the violent stripping of the mark is no more)so that issue might be dealt too. Like Syltorian said, we've already had examples of people getting excoriated on the whim of a house leader. Seems fairly certain to me that there are no hard coded rules when it comes to this, and its purely on a case by case basis. Or nobody dares to call them illegal. Oh, and sorry for answering after almost 2 weeks(but that's a long, boring story).
Syltorian 03-16-08, 02:20 PM	Well, it did change the fate of the excoriates(the violent stripping of the mark is no more)so that issue might be dealt too. Is that an imposition by the Code of Galifar rather than a decision the Houses took themselves because of the generally more enlightened climate under the Kingdom? Also, the way I read this, the Houses do not skin their heirs any more because it's barbaric... it doesn't seem from the passage in Dragonmarked that doing so would actually be forbidden. Or nobody dares to call them illegal. That is of course possible, but if the law is not enforced (or cannot be enforced), it is pretty much superfluous. I also doubt there ever was such a law simply because it was not worth it for the kings of Galifar to introduce it. What would Galifar gain? Nothing much, really. What would they lose? Potentially the cooperation of the Houses. As it is, the Code of Galifar, as it pertains to the Houses, is a balanced act that pretends that both sides are equally strong and would benefit from working together, rather than against each other. Each House might be less powerful than the Kingdom, but as a group, the Twelve is not something even the King of United Galifar wants as an enemy. Yet any Royal law that tries to regulate what happens inside a house (rather than how the house interacts with the Kingdom) will be seen as meddling and a challenge. If the Twelve allow that law to take effect, they have admitted they are subjects to the King. They cannot accept that, and the Kings knew that quite well. They didn't want the Twelve to take up the challenge and really try to find out if they are as strong as this law - understood as: "The King has more authority over the Houses than their patriarch" - pretends. Who suffers most if the two forces decide to sever connections or if the all the guilds declare a general strike (or only serve those who rally to their own cause)? Individual heirs who happen to run afoul of their superiors just aren't worth the trouble of getting an answer to that question.
Ellorin 03-20-08, 06:47 AM	Is that an imposition by the Code of Galifar rather than a decision the Houses took themselves because of the generally more enlightened climate under the Kingdom? Also, the way I read this, the Houses do not skin their heirs any more because it's barbaric... it doesn't seem from the passage in Dragonmarked that doing so would actually be forbidden. That is of course possible, but if the law is not enforced (or cannot be enforced), it is pretty much superfluous. I also doubt there ever was such a law simply because it was not worth it for the kings of Galifar to introduce it. What would Galifar gain? Nothing much, really. What would they lose? Potentially the cooperation of the Houses. As it is, the Code of Galifar, as it pertains to the Houses, is a balanced act that pretends that both sides are equally strong and would benefit from working together, rather than against each other. Each House might be less powerful than the Kingdom, but as a group, the Twelve is not something even the King of United Galifar wants as an enemy. Yet any Royal law that tries to regulate what happens inside a house (rather than how the house interacts with the Kingdom) will be seen as meddling and a challenge. If the Twelve allow that law to take effect, they have admitted they are subjects to the King. They cannot accept that, and the Kings knew that quite well. They didn't want the Twelve to take up the challenge and really try to find out if they are as strong as this law - understood as: "The King has more authority over the Houses than their patriarch" - pretends. Who suffers most if the two forces decide to sever connections or if the all the guilds declare a general strike (or only serve those who rally to their own cause)? Individual heirs who happen to run afoul of their superiors just aren't worth the trouble of getting an answer to that question. You are correct, of course. Seems I mistakenly considered that the edicts of Korth dealt with the subject-thanks for correcting me.
TiwazTyrsfist 03-21-08, 10:08 PM	I definitely think that it depends on what you were excoriated for, and which branch excoriated you. For example. Chances are good (in my opinion) that if you became a Renegade Mastermaker, and spent time and resources on unapproved warforged research, Jorlanna d'Canith might consider this reason enough to excoriate you. But if you show talent, and if your illicit research shows promise, Merrix may well decide to offer you a position in his own branch of the house.
Edymnion 03-22-08, 10:09 PM	Well, it did change the fate of the excoriates(the violent stripping of the mark is no more)so that issue might be dealt too.I don't recall that being a government edict, but even if it was, I doubt it was "You Houses can't flay traitors alive anymore" so much as it was a general "Execution of anyone except through government sanctioned court order is illegal" edict. You could be excoriated for something that is not illegal in the kingdom (like marrying the "wrong" type of person), but the law would no longer allow you to kill that person for it.