A Question About Legal Immunity

[Kerdied]

I'm doing dozens of researches about the roman legionaries for a military roman game and I found that the soldiers, after making the oath to serve the empire, they were no longer obliged to obey the civil law when in service. Instead, they now submit completely to the commands of their officers, no matter what, on pain of death.

That qualifies at a Level 1 of Legal Immunity?

[starslayer]

Seems more like it would be a level of legal enforcement powers on behalf of the officers (the officer gets to decide how the empire's will is best expressed in this situation, even if it exceeds or breaks the local laws).

Presumably such a setup is just intended to assure continuity of command in situations where law conflicted with orders.

Such setups exist throughout history for military and police forces, but I don't think they have ever qualified for legal immunity (normally reserved for diplomats and aristocracy that can ignore some or all laws).

Quick example: It is illegal to open carry a firearm in most of the united states. All uniformed police must open carry firearms in the performance of their duties. This does not mean that being a police officer comes with legal immunity.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Kerdied

I'm doing dozens of researches about the roman legionaries for a military roman game and I found that the soldiers, after making the oath to serve the empire, they were no longer obliged to obey the civil law when in service. Instead, they now submit completely to the commands of their officers, no matter what, on pain of death.

That qualifies at a Level 1 of Legal Immunity?

It's actually not unusual for military men to not be answerable to civil law. But that's only Legal Immunity when the law they do answer to is no more harsh. I don't think that describes Roman legions.

[Stormcrow]

This sounds exactly like Legal Immunity to me. "Should you break the law, ordinary law enforcers do not have the power to charge you. Only one particular authority — your own church or social class, a special court, perhaps even your ruler — can judge or punish you."

You've got Roman soldiers who cannot be charged by civil law enforcement, but only by their military commanders. Sounds like it matches the advantage exactly. If your commander tells you to go and graffiti that wall, you can't be touched. If you go and steal someone's goat, and your commander doesn't care, you can't be touched. (At least, not until someone else in the military does something about all this stuff you're doing.)

[Kromm]

Legal Immunity comes in three basic flavors that could be summarized as follows:

• Subject to no laws but one: "Don't disrespect the people who granted you this advantage." 15 points.
• Subject to a full set of different but less strict laws. 10 points.
• Subject to a full set of different but equally strict laws. 5 points.

You could imagine a fourth, lower level:

• Subject to a full set of different but more strict laws. 0 points.

That's a common situation for military personnel. It's worth 0 points by itself but helps explain why Duty is a disadvantage.

Put another way, there are really two things at work here:

1. A basic 5 points for being subject to different laws, because that's just about always exploitable by clever adventurers.
   
   
2. An adjustment for the number of constraints on your actions relative to most people:
   • More: -5 points
   • About the same: 0 points
   • Fewer: 5 points
   • Almost none: 10 points

Military people are in the 5 + -5 = 0 situation.

[Kerdied]

Thanks to all answers.

Kromm, from what I researched it was much more than to submit to more strict laws.

Roman soldiers could do the most heinous acts against civilians in the provinces they were garrisoned. They could (and many done) do extortion, pillaging, outright banditry, stealing, smuggling, and even raping, mass murdering and burning entire sections of cities that they will only be punished if their commanders (who was, frequently, much more afraid of their soldiers than the soldiers were afraid of him) ordered to do so.

(Yep, roman soldiers were, sometimes, worse than the barbarians that they fought.)

But if they refused to obey ANY order, even march against Rome (!) and the Emperor (!!) they would be sentence to death without any appeal to defense.

This still qualifies as a Level 0 of Legal Immunity?

[Stormcrow]

It probably depends on how strict their orders are, not on the severity of the punishment. If they're mostly ordered just to hang out over there, okay now hang out over here, okay now fight those barbarians, then they're not strict laws. If soldiers have a long list of things they must constantly be doing or die, that's more strict than civilian laws.

[Tomsdad]

Yep, or how likely the alternate set of laws will either apply in theory let alone in practice.

I.e. even if Military law has the same offence as civil law and in theory the punishment is harsher but if it's not likely to ever be applied then that's irrelevant.

[Kerdied]

Well, their orders were strict and numerous. To a point that a soldier were executed on sight because they were digging without his belt and sword. Other lost his nose because he sitted on the ground while on duty.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Kerdied

Well, their orders were strict and numerous. To a point that a soldier were executed on sight because they were digging without his belt and sword. Other lost his nose because he sitted on the ground while on duty.

That's a good point, I guess I'd have to take a view on whether a harsh set of laws focussed around uniform code and sitting when they should have been standing, vs. de facto freedom to do what you like to the local populus.


(I got a bit caught up in the like for like comparison)