Viking Justice

[Maldur]

The old viking box for Runequest (chaosium) gives a very good , playable , breakdown of viking law.

It contains more really good viking information as well.

 

[Darraketh]

More possibilities!

A system like this can be expanded and tailored to fit my campaign.

*If the killer becomes an outlaw by refusal to pay the weregeld the family may place a bounty on his head and attract a bountyhunter.

*A "judge dredd-style" character can be used to administer justice in the more out of the way areas of the land. "I am the law!"

*Jails are on celled and intended to hold for trial as opposed to imprisonment for long periods.

*When outlawed a person is actually banished and sent off into the wilderness stripped of armor and arms. He is given a staff to defend himself and maybe three days rations. He has the benefit of three days before anyone can legally hunt him down.

*There can be some options such as, can't pay forfeit a body part or indenture ones self.

*Only political prisoners are imprisoned for any great length of time since the state must bare an expense for it.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: More possibilities!

If the killer becomes an outlaw by refusal to pay the weregeld the family may place a bounty on his head and attract a bountyhunter.

Certainly, but most families wouldn't have money to spend on hunting the guy down. They'd gather up the clan and hunt him down personally.

It's only if he's stolen something of value that they can promise a portion of the loot to whoever helps them get it.

A "judge dredd-style" character can be used to administer justice in the more out of the way areas of the land. "I am the law!"

That's quite contrary to the Viking notion of justice. The whole point is that respected members of the community render judgement, but no central authority metes it out.

Jails are on celled and intended to hold for trial as opposed to imprisonment for long periods.

That's how real jails have always been used, isn't it? Only in very recent times have we incarcerated convicted criminals -- especially for decades at a time, at tax-payer expense.

There can be some options such as, can't pay forfeit a body part or indenture ones self.

Forfeiting a bodypart offers no restitution, but selling one's labar (indenture) fits perfectly; the Vikings did that.

Only political prisoners are imprisoned for any great length of time since the state must bare an expense for it.

There has to be a good reason why the political prisoner is in fact a prisoner and not a corpse dumped in the bog.

 

[Maerdwyn]

I love this type of system, and use a version based on the (post viking) Irish laws.

Every person in the society has an honor price based on their enech score (adapted from the 2e Celts Historical reference). When a person in wronged, he or she receives a percentage (based on the crime) of the enech score times a gp constant.

The Welsh also had a very developed system that is similar (and probably derivative, but some argue that it developed concurrently)

If fact, lots of societies used such systems. Medieval Muslim law, for example used a system of monetary compensation for crimes. The "chopping off the hand of the thief caught in the act" thing only came in when in was rule impermissable to enslave a fellow Muslim. A Christian who couldn't pay proper restitution+damages was technically supposed to be enslaved during that time, rather than maimed.

 

[Darraketh]

Re: More possibilities!

A system like this can be expanded and tailored to fit my campaign.

mmadsen, the key words are expanded, tailored and my.

Sometimes I like to take the kernal of an idea and uh... expand it and tailor it to fit my needs. And I just felt like sharing what was on my mind.

I suppose I could have started another thread. I just thought I could share here. By the way your counter points are all valid, just out of place apparently as was my post. Sorry.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: More possibilities!

I suppose I could have started another thread. I just thought I could share here. By the way your counter points are all valid, just out of place apparently as was my post. Sorry.

I wasn't trying to come down on your, Darraketh. I was just pointing out how your ideas differ from Viking justice. Some fit, and some don't.

 

[mmadsen]

The "chopping off the hand of the thief caught in the act" thing only came in when in was rule impermissable to enslave a fellow Muslim.

But it was also impermissable to maim a fellow Muslim. In fact, the Islamic nations for a long time relied on wars against Christian nations to supply eunuch slaves. They also filled their armies with elite units of enslaved Christian orphans.

 

[Patrick-S&S]

And do not forget the "Blood Eagle"...

 

[Maerdwyn]

But it was also impermissable to maim a fellow Muslim. In fact, the Islamic nations for a long time relied on wars against Christian nations to supply eunuch slaves. They also filled their armies with elite units of enslaved Christian orphans.

Mostly right.

Eunuchs were taken from non-Muslim populations because, first and foremost, they were to be enslaved, and Muslims were forbidden from enslaving Muslims, without exception. (doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course, just that it was forbidden.)

The maiming issue was secondary for the eunuchs (well, for the people who wanted the eunuchs at least. For the eunuchs themselves ... )

An ordinary Muslim could not harm another Muslim, nor even a non-Muslim who paid the jizya (poll tax on non-Muslims) and submitted to Muslim rule.(Actual practice varied quite a bit).

However Muslims at the time were permitted to injure a slave if (and only if) there was good cause (ie., justified punishment, meeting the needs of the state [this was how creating eunuchs was justified]). Going beyond this was deemed cruelty, and an person found guilty of cruelty towards a slave could be punished, and have the slave freed.

As for the "cutting off the hand of a thief" penalty, it, and other bodily punishments were allowed, and indeed prescribed, by the Qur'an, for both Muslims and non-Muslims. At first, any Muslim was permitted to carry out the punishment, but as the Islamic judiciary developed in the eighth and ninth centuries, it became for and more common that only a qadi (judge) was allowed to order punishments of any kind, bodily or no.

Enslavement of a Muslim was specifically forbidded under any circumstances, however, (and could not, therefore, be imposed as a punishment) because a Muslim was supposed to be a slave to God alone, not to another human.

 

[Staffan]

Some examples of fines imposed by "Västgötalagen":
21 marks for killing a free man
18 marks for gelding someone
13 1/3 marks for killing a Swede or Smålander (I'm pretty sure "Swede" refers to people from the area north of Västergötland, which is the region of modern-day Sweden this law comes from. Småland is the area south of Västergötland)
9 1/2 marks for cutting someone's thumb off
9 marks for killing a Dane or Norwegian, for causing someone's death by stray arrow or falling tree, or for killing someone at the tavern.
4 marks for killing a really good thrall
3 marks for killing a thrall, for causing someone's death through negligence or for beating your wife.
2 marks for insulting someone
6 öre (1 mark = 8 öre) for beating up a thrall or for sleeping with another man's wife
4 öre for causing the death of another man's cow.
Nothing for killing someone you catch in bed with your wife or who just killed someone else, as long as you do it right there and then.

The total property of the average free farmer was estimated at 22 marks.

Västgötalagen was written down in 1220 so it's technically post-Viking, but at least it might give you some place to start when calculating weregelds.