tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 17 18:44:34 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Last X and testament?
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 2:11 AM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 1. The actions of a living person survive their death. This has to do with
> the reputation of the House. As I said earlier, we follow Kahless because of
> his deeds, not because of his lineage, and certainly not because he wrote
> his wishes, so now, we are legally required to follow them. We aren't.
Founding a religion and providing an inheritance are two different things.
> 2. The widow is a living person, responsible for maintaining something
> approaching continuity of leadership so that the reputation of the House can
> be maintained, even as the other half of the leadership changes. The widow
> is the only echo of the dead man remaining. If you kill the leader of a
> house, you don't have to deal with the dead man's wishes. You have to deal
> with the dead man's wife. You deal with HER wishes. If you earn her respect,
> perhaps your wishes shall carry more weight than that of the man you
> defeated.
Why do you assume that a man's House automatically passes to his widow
when he dies?
> 3. Again, the widow is the living person who still possesses anything
> relating to the House. A victor over the former leader has no claim to those
> possessions independent of the claims of the living widow. He must join with
> her in owning those possessions. The wishes of the dead live on only if the
> living widow shares those wishes.
That's not how conquest works.
> 4. The High Counsel is dealing once again with honor and reputation. Their
> role as you describe is that of judge within a meritocracy. Do you think
> that a dishonorable leader of a household can write out a list of who he
> wants to get his things when he dies and have his wishes legally protected?
> If he does not earn the respect of the High Counsel, he can't even have his
> LIVING wishes fulfilled in terms of property. His possessions cease to be
> his, based upon the negative judgement of his merit.
But if an *honorable* House leader dies, do you think the High Council
is going to debate which son takes charge of the ancestral home and
which son takes charge of the House fleet? Or would the Council leave
it to the family to make those decisions?
While a son may have a vision of where he wants to lead his House
after his father dies, the father has invested much of his life in the
House, and he will not want his work undone after his death. He will
seek ways to ensure his vision is carried out even when his son takes
charge. This will be a desire shared by every House leader. When the
most powerful men in a society agree that something is good, that
agreement usually becomes law.
If the father was considered an honorable man, and that man leaves a
plan for his House after his death, his son risks his own honor by
ignoring his father's final wishes. During his father's life, the
son's honor is derived, in part, from his obedience to his father.
After his father's death, others will judge the son by how he honors
his father's memory.
A written statement of his father's wishes would be a powerful
document, and given the importance of the great houses to the empire,
the law will not ignore such documents. Empires do not give great
houses the freedom to decide theses matter on their own--that's how
empires fall.
bI'reng
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}