Y'know, Nerukou, if you're going to quote me in-game to support your positions OOC, I'd appreciate it if you'd not quote selectively so as to destroy the meaning of what I said.
I reiterate here: it is at best putting you on very shaky SMA ground to suggest that commoners, of any stripe, have any
rights.
However, that does not mean that one should attack them wantonly, nor that it is wrong to codify protections for them into law. One of the other Fissoans, I believe, mentioned something about the difference between "that which is inalienable and that which is granted." She's on the right track.
When I say that commoners do not have rights under SMA, I mean those that are inalienable.
Anyone may have rights granted them by law; I just find that it is simpler to define rights as those that are inalienable, and those that are granted as simply protections under law, so that I don't have to say the whole thing out each time
Some protections under law would still not be reasonable under SMA (for instance, a law that says if a commoner and a noble disagree, the commoner's word is to be believed), but simple things like "don't arrest or attack them without a very good reason" are fine.
