Auto da fe and peasant mobs

[Vellos]

A bit akward... "FAITHFUL, RISE AGAINST THE USURPERS OF PAISLY, RID US OF FLORENCE!" Faithful go to torch her estates, invading forces go all "Noooo! Don't burn Florence's estates! Die crazy mob! Let's arrest that priest and hand him over to the authorities we are trying to destroy!"

I wonder...

Does chance of catching an auto da fe increase if you have soldiers present?

If so... will that include even enemy soldiers?

If so, that SHOULD be changed, as it's clearly not how ti should work. I understand Tom's rationale for still making you be arrested, but troops friendly to you shouldn't IMPROVE the odds of your being captured.

[Stabbity]

I wonder...

Does chance of catching an auto da fe increase if you have soldiers present?

If so... will that include even enemy soldiers?

If so, that SHOULD be changed, as it's clearly not how ti should work. I understand Tom's rationale for still making you be arrested, but troops friendly to you shouldn't IMPROVE the odds of your being captured.

Nonsense, upsetting the natural order and letting peasants run amok is a crime that everyone should stop amd punish. Can't be having those damned priests give peasants ideas now can we?

[Chenier]

Nonsense, upsetting the natural order and letting peasants run amok is a crime that everyone should stop amd punish. Can't be having those damned priests give peasants ideas now can we?

Peasants led by a noble.

In any case, they should throw the priest in their own realm's dungeons, not another's.

[Stabbity]

Peasants led by a noble.

In any case, they should throw the priest in their own realm's dungeons, not another's.

Personally leading a mob of unwashed peasants to disrupt the natural hierarchy isn't noble behaivor. Priests should feel lucky they are recognized as a noble by the arresting unit and imprisoned rather than hung on the spot.

[Daycryn]

Personally leading a mob of unwashed peasants to disrupt the natural hierarchy isn't noble behaivor. Priests should feel lucky they are recognized as a noble by the arresting unit and imprisoned rather than hung on the spot.

Oh? But every army consists of mobs of unwashed peasants led by nobles. And such armies are often used to disrupt the natural hierarchy.

[Stabbity]

Oh? But every army consists of mobs of unwashed peasants led by nobles. And such armies are often used to disrupt the natural hierarchy.

Those are lawfully raised men at arms that were equipped by nobles. Totally different than random.mobs removing people from their estates.

[Daycryn]

Those are lawfully raised men at arms that were equipped by nobles. Totally different than random.mobs removing people from their estates.

Well, following the law of the god(s)/stars is a noble thing to do, and raising peasants against the heathen is thus lawful when the priest who does it is a noble. As for equipment, well, I don't think that matters so much, and plenty of units are just draftees with pitchforks and scythes or hunting bows and stuff.

[Stabbity]

Well, following the law of the god(s)/stars is a noble thing to do, and raising peasants against the heathen is thus lawful when the priest who does it is a noble. As for equipment, well, I don't think that matters so much, and plenty of units are just draftees with pitchforks and scythes or hunting bows and stuff.

If you're a savage and recruit a unit with like 15% maybe they brought their own equipment, otherwise peasants A. Couldn't afford weaponry and B. Weren't allowed to own it.

When you and a peasant mob rise up and oust someone from a position you're committing a seriois offense no religion could get away with endorsing publicly. You're using peasants to defy everything nobility stands for. You oust a Lord and think thats the only effect, he's not a Lord. There are second and third order effects here. You just nullified the authority of the Duke that appointed the Lord and in turn directly usurped a King's authority. Not to mention just insulted a slew of Knights.

[Daycryn]

If you're a savage and recruit a unit with like 15% maybe they brought their own equipment, otherwise peasants A. Couldn't afford weaponry and B. Weren't allowed to own it.

When you and a peasant mob rise up and oust someone from a position you're committing a seriois offense no religion could get away with endorsing publicly. You're using peasants to defy everything nobility stands for. You oust a Lord and think thats the only effect, he's not a Lord. There are second and third order effects here. You just nullified the authority of the Duke that appointed the Lord and in turn directly usurped a King's authority. Not to mention just insulted a slew of Knights.

Peasants not allowed to own weaponry? I'm not sure about that.

As for not being able to afford it, that depends on what you classify as a weapon. This is the middle ages equivalent we're talking about, there are plenty of wooden sticks to sharpen, farm equipment to use, etc. And recruiting a unit with 15% or whatever doesn't make you a savage at all. Just a different sort of common peasant folk the noble is leading.

Knights, lords, and dukes are ousted from their position all the time. Religion merely provides yet another rationale for doing so. (The others are primarily war and justice). And people defy the authority of kings all the time! Hell, that's kind of the main thing we do. Follow one king, kill another. Support one king, betray another (or better yet, the same king!) So it's hardly some sort of universal offense. And there are plenty of religions which would, could, or have in the past endorsed such behavior. 

[Stabbity]

Peasants not allowed to own weaponry? I'm not sure about that.

As for not being able to afford it, that depends on what you classify as a weapon. This is the middle ages equivalent we're talking about, there are plenty of wooden sticks to sharpen, farm equipment to use, etc. And recruiting a unit with 15% or whatever doesn't make you a savage at all. Just a different sort of common peasant folk the noble is leading.

Knights, lords, and dukes are ousted from their position all the time. Religion merely provides yet another rationale for doing so. (The others are primarily war and justice). And people defy the authority of kings all the time! Hell, that's kind of the main thing we do. Follow one king, kill another. Support one king, betray another (or better yet, the same king!) So it's hardly some sort of universal offense. And there are plenty of religions which would, could, or have in the past endorsed such behavior.

Farm implements and sharpened sticks are as to weapons as a super soaker is to a rifle. They are called "improvised" weapons for a reason. No one can simply outlaw anything that could ever be used as a weapon, because everything would be illegal. Swords, pikes, ACTUAL weapons were illegal for the peasantry to own unless they were actually serving in a capacity where they needed them such as being in the town guard.

Losing a title due to war or being convicted of an offense such as treason is ENTIRELY different than an unruly peasant mob lead by a priest with no legal authority forcing someone from their estate. People do not defy Kings all the time, and those who do usually lead short lives.

It stands simply that a priest conducting an auto da fae is violating a very principle law. Kings and Dukes give titles, no one else does. Titles aren't arbitrary things that come and go, and the only means to remove one is by force. When a priest forces a noble from his post, his is openly defying Kingly or Duchal authority, and would be arrested on the spot.

[Chenier]

Farm implements and sharpened sticks are as to weapons as a super soaker is to a rifle. They are called "improvised" weapons for a reason. No one can simply outlaw anything that could ever be used as a weapon, because everything would be illegal. Swords, pikes, ACTUAL weapons were illegal for the peasantry to own unless they were actually serving in a capacity where they needed them such as being in the town guard.

Losing a title due to war or being convicted of an offense such as treason is ENTIRELY different than an unruly peasant mob lead by a priest with no legal authority forcing someone from their estate. People do not defy Kings all the time, and those who do usually lead short lives.

It stands simply that a priest conducting an auto da fae is violating a very principle law. Kings and Dukes give titles, no one else does. Titles aren't arbitrary things that come and go, and the only means to remove one is by force. When a priest forces a noble from his post, his is openly defying Kingly or Duchal authority, and would be arrested on the spot.

Kings... by their divine right? Granted by God? Represented on earth by his priests?

As for defying feudal authority... what on earth is a takeover, if not that?

And soldiers, who are they? When Britain went to war, they had a whole lot of peasants in their forces. Military equipment, back in the ages, was quite often farming tools modified for warfare.

This isn't some peasant revolt that wants self-rule. This is a high-noble (royal) elder priest using the authority vested in him by the Church to expel a non-believer.

[Stabbity]

Kings... by their divine right? Granted by God? Represented on earth by his priests?

As for defying feudal authority... what on earth is a takeover, if not that?

And soldiers, who are they? When Britain went to war, they had a whole lot of peasants in their forces. Military equipment, back in the ages, was quite often farming tools modified for warfare.

This isn't some peasant revolt that wants self-rule. This is a high-noble (royal) elder priest using the authority vested in him by the Church to expel a non-believer.

Divine right is a concept that came later than the time period BM is based in, and even then secular and ecclesiastical were two very different things. Some random Bishop couldn't just walk into Essex and proclaim that the Earl was no longer Earl, even with a mob. He would have been arrested and executed.

A takeover is a very moot point. Its a King imposing his will on another King. Peasants lawfully raised to constitute an army are totally different than a priest whipping up a mob to oust someone. Its illegal. Hence why you get arrested.

[Vellos]

A takeover is a very moot point. Its a King imposing his will on another King. Peasants lawfully raised to constitute an army are totally different than a priest whipping up a mob to oust someone. Its illegal. Hence why you get arrested.

But nobles trying to destroy the controlling regime should not arrest allied nobles helping them and ship them off to an enemy dungeon.

I'm fine with them not reducing the chance. But the presence of allied troops should not increase the chance of capture.

[Marlboro]

But nobles trying to destroy the controlling regime should not arrest allied nobles helping them and ship them off to an enemy dungeon.

I'm fine with them not reducing the chance. But the presence of allied troops should not increase the chance of capture.

Try arguing that with a bunch of illiterate peasants trying to abide by noble law that they don't really get. They can be summarily executed basically at any time, for strange and archaic reasons or none at all, so in their desperation to do the right thing they sometimes cock it up.

[Chenier]

Divine right is a concept that came later than the time period BM is based in, and even then secular and ecclesiastical were two very different things. Some random Bishop couldn't just walk into Essex and proclaim that the Earl was no longer Earl, even with a mob. He would have been arrested and executed.

A takeover is a very moot point. Its a King imposing his will on another King. Peasants lawfully raised to constitute an army are totally different than a priest whipping up a mob to oust someone. Its illegal. Hence why you get arrested.

It's not just some random bishop. It's one of the leaders of the faith, who also happens to be a royal of the realm the city used to belong to, not to mention the city's lord and duke himself.

BM priests are not random bishops, especially not elders. They represent the top class of the nobility, like the rest of BM characters.

The comparison to a TO is not moot. In both cases, it's a foreign power using armed commoners to oust the government in place.

I don't really mind the argument that in the chaos of things, the nobles' unit step in to prevent the mob from getting out of control (though I disagree with it anyways), but at the very least, they would never send the person responsible to the dungeons of the government they are trying to utterly destroy.