I'd really like to hear your views on the recent developments in the Roger Stone case, LegalEagle... I don't get the chain of events happening here, did Trump coerce the Justice dept? What happens when all the prosecutors step down?
In the books he DOES know Pavetta is pregnant before reclaiming the prize (althougth Dunny doesn't) and demands it on purppose... It's a customary practice to pay a Witcher with the Law of Surprise whenever one does not have coin to pay for the monster killing (so usually, only poor people does it, as the old man saved by Geralt tries to do in final episode) as once in a while, this will mean to offer an unborn child as payment... And you see, Witchers, being infertile; it is the only way they have to "enlist" young apprentices for their guild. So, when Geralt finds a way to obtain a free child on the bargain, he just takes it. In the novel; Geralt comes back to reclaim Ciri when she is about 5; but when he discovers she is a girl; she lets her stay with her grandmother... because girls, cannot phisically undergo the alchemist procedure that generates Witchers; and so Geralt could not train her to become one.
@@dhorn4005 Thanks for the extra book information. I've only played the game, so while I knew about the Law of Surprise and Witchers being infertile, but I didn't realize Pavetta was showing her pregnancy there. In the books did they not lose the secrets of the Trial of the Grasses when Kaer Morhen was sacked? How was he planning on turning this Child Surprise into a Witcher without the Trial?
I think the Law of Surprise is less of a legal thing and more that the "Law" refers to the natural order, like the laws of magic are represented in the show. Once you claim the Law of Surprise then "Destiny" dictates what that surprise will be, that's why disaster follows whenever the Surprise is denied by either party.
Which is also the reason Duny and Pavetta conveniently fell in love, the gift by the law of surprise was not Pavetta but the fact that he and Pavetta would fall in love with each other
Its also a real thing. Or it was, many years ago. Originated from Prawo niespodzianki - literally "Right of the Unexpected". Comes from many folklore, such as slavic, polish and even ottoman empire had something similair.
Yeah, it's more of a theme about going your own way vs. forcing your will on others. Your destiny is that which you choose. But if you try to choose someone else's destiny for them, then destiny will work against you in return. If Calanthe had gone along with the Law of Surprise, then Pavetta would have been allowed to decide whether or not she wanted to go with Duny. But by trying to go against destiny and trying to force her to marry someone else, destiny went against Calanthe and made Pavetta want to marry no one but the one she was destined to be with. By going against his own destiny after he had already chosen it by claiming the Law of Surprise, Geralt of Rivia was given Ciri by force. Once your destiny is decided, it's yours.
In the Witcher, one of the big themes is that "Destiny" is truly existent and is a force of nature in the same way that heat and gravity are forces of nature in our world. The "Law" of Surprise isn't really a codified law as far as I understand it. Instead it is the owed saying they will take whatever Destiny gives the debtor to repay them. No one is truly forced to follow this "law" by legal constructs as it is not a law of the political body. I would say it's more akin to casting a spell of a sort. Destiny seems to intervene to make the owned obtain their debt eventually, and more specifically, that they will naturally become metaphysically attached to it in some way, as shown at the "soiree." The two were brought together and were in love quickly, so they were destined to be soulmates in a way. I'd imagine there's also occasions where a debtor finds a surprise harvest, does not give the produce to the owed, and later thieves in the night steal it away only to lose it where the owed stumbles upon it on a walk or similar situations. Additionally the debt must be paid with what someone has but does not know. So you wouldn't be giving away your dog or spouse. In the case of twins, if you thought they were one child, then the second child to come out would be the payment as the couple planned to have one child, so the second child would be the surprise, especially in a medieval level world where often people didn't know they were having twins until they were both birthed. One of the key parts to it is basically the debtor must give the first thing that comes to their mind as being the destined payment. So if your life was saved, the Law of Surprise was claimed, then you came home to both an extra harvest ready and a small pouch of less valuable coins you find that same day, it would likely be assumed the harvest is what Destiny has intended for the owed as it is the closest to the value of the debtor's life. In the case of two similar value surprises, I would expect it is then up to the owed to decide which to take and the debtor to honor that decision. So in summary, as the Law of Surprise pertains more to a facet of Destiny than being a true law, it is up to Destiny to decide what the Law is worth. A bit hard to constrain a god-like force to rules of law, so I'd have to say there's nothing to rule on here.
Witchers often took dogs as payment when the other option was an only child. The law of surprise was very vague to begin with to allow for abiguity in certain cases but the greeted thing was specifically to recruit children into becoming witchers.
So, I don't know if you would have an answer for this but... How would metaphors, subjective traits and abstract concepts play into the law of surprise? Like say after someone asks it of you, another person confesses their feelings of love toward you. You now know you have metaphorical possession of their heart. Does the recipient get the literal heart, the metaphorical heart (their love), or does this not count? If a person owns a pair of shoes that they consider to be beautiful, and after the law of surprise is invoked someone else says their shoes are ugly, does that count? Since they were in possession of "ugly" shoes without realizing it. Also, how does faith affect the law of surprise? If a king is aware one of the fortresses in his kingdom is under attack, and has not received any word back from the people defending it, nor any other evidence pointing to the fort continuing to remain in his possession, yet has absolute faith that the fort will remain his, despite the lack of evidence, would the fort being proven to remain his count toward the law of surprise should someone ask that of him before the fort is proven to remain his? I'm sorry if this is too much. It's just you seem rather knowledgeable on this subject. And I figured it couldn't hurt to ask.
@@katlyncoker8488 Well, I'm not really that knowledgeable, I've just watched the first season, I haven't even played the games or read the books. It's just stuff like this tends to make sense in my mind more for some reason. The Law of Surprise seems to be concrete things, so thoughts and feelings aren't things that you could be directly given. To put it into a more direct way, you wouldn't know they loved you, but they would have been in your life in some form already and they have likely already been giving you their love in their own way. In essence, this is more like something you knew you had but did not notice rather than being something you have but do not know. Despite the show of love at the soiree and the two becoming engaged, it was not the love he was owed, but the girl. The love was a tether to guarantee they would be pulled together, but was otherwise not directly part of what was owed. Once again, you know you have the shoes. You are not surprised to find the shoes there. Perhaps you are surprised by the state of them, but you knew you had shoes. I believe this would also count under "the Law of Surprise only gives concrete things." Since you had shoes, regardless of your view on them, you would likely not be surprised that you have those shoes. I believe one of the big parts of the Law of Surprise is that it must be a surprise to you. Someone would not give away new puppies greeting them at home if they knew their dog was pregnant when they last saw her. Equally if there were some stillborn, you would also not give away the bodies because you would know at the back of your mind it is a possibility. Faith likely does not play a role into the Law of Surprise, at least not in situations like with this fortress. The king knows the possible outcomes, whether the end result is unexpected or not, these are things he knows for a fact he could have. I would say the Law of Surprise would not apply to this fortress even if he was attacking it and was expecting a loss, but instead received a win. I believe it must be something the owner has absolutely no clue they could have prior to the discovery. These are very good questions! I enjoy philosophical and metaphysical topics, so ask away if you have more questions!
@@KotaTheFemboy Thank you for replying. I wasn't sure you would after I finally noticed the date on your comment. And I'm glad you enjoyed them. I tend to be one of those "rules lawyers" who always look for loopholes, and unexpected outcomes. The words "what if" come to mind a lot. I might not always voice them, because people don't tend to like it when I do that. But as someone who is very literal, and can have a hard time understanding stuff do to either imprecise wording or preconceptions (either on my end, their end, or both ends) I can't help desiring clarification. Because it just puts my mind at ease. Anyways, the only other questions I can think of right now are... How would the rule of surprise work if the genuinely unexpected surprise was you accidentally coming into possession of something that belongs to someone else? For example sometimes my neighbor's get my mail and vice versa. If I was asked to abide by the law of surprise, and upon going home found that my neighbor's mail was now in my possession, would I have to give it to the person owed the surprise? It is in my possession, and I genuinely didn't expect it, but it isn't legally mine to give. And would the result be the same if there were no precedent for this kind of outcome (either for me personally, or from some other scale [never happened in the county vs state vs region of country vs region of world vs entire world])? In a similar vein, if your wife is unexpectadly pregnant, but the baby is not of your blood, is it your baby to give? Does the baby need to be agnowledged before being a boon? Basically, how does the law of surprise define possession? And does an improbable but known to be possible surprise count? And if improbability does matter, to what degree (10% chance vs 5% vs 1% and so on)? Also, does the surprise count if the only person surprised was you? For example if someone was gifted a mood ring. And was unaware of the color changing properties the stone possessed, but everyone else did (see the previous list of scales), would it count as a surprise? Lastly, at least for now, can the possession claimed by law of surprise be given away, or shared? A big thing with law of surprise is that if you go against destiny and reject it, bad stuff happens. And also destiny will continue on because destiny gonna do what destiny gonna do. So what all counts as going against destiny? Is it enough to claim it? Or must you keep it? If your boon is an incredible amount of food from an unexpected, large harvest of crops, can you give or sell some of the crops away since you can't possible eat them all by yourself? If you get a huge mansion, can you share it with others? And what of spouses? When people get married they can choose to pool together their resources. Hence why divorces can be messy, and prenup's exist. Would the spouse be allowed to share possession of the boon? If your gifted a child, could you choose to raise it with the parents? Or even have them still be the parents raising said child, and you just being the teacher who lives nearby? Hope you continue enjoying them. 😊
@@katlyncoker8488 I always try to reply to genuine commentary and questions ^_^ In the case of the mail, it is not something you own but do not know. It is something that was mistakenly placed within the confines of your property. As it is not yours to give away, you could not then use it to pay your own debt. The question of the illegitimate child is a pretty tough one. I would say the baby is not the husband's as it is not his blood or genes in the child. Generally speaking, a father will likely not refer to the child as theirs, especially in a medieval time period. This would be in the case that the father knows the child is not his and that he is not contested in thinking they are his. It would be, in a way, a question of perception on the side of the husband. If he does not view the child as his, then he cannot give them away as they are not his. But if the wife and lover successfully keep the tryst a secret, then it could be viewed that they are giving the baby to the husband, who now is the father. At that point, the child might be claimed. Being a metaphysical Law, I don't think I could apply a quantifiable value to how improbable something must be for it to count. In many ways I think it does somewhat rely on the debtor's views of what is or is not a surprise. As I mentioned in my first comment, it would seem to be whatever the first reasonable payment is that comes to mind for things they had when the Law was claimed but did not yet know they had at that time. I don't believe the Law would count unknown qualities as being something you didn't know you had. I would say it must be a totally separate and singular thing that causes the surprise itself rather than a new quality being found. It would appear no one can give away the Law of Surprise or share the burden it gives until the debt is paid. Once it is in the hands of the owed, they may do with it as they want so long as they do not try to dupe Destiny. They could sell the food or share it with people they wish to, but they couldn't simply give it back to the debtor. This would also apply to the mansion. Perhaps you are the one to own it and live in the grand bedroom but you might allow the debtor to live in one of the guest rooms in exchange for labor or something similar. You do not have to be the sole owner at the end, it simply must be as much yours as if you had returned to it instead of them. From what I've seen in the show, in the case of a child, there are many ways it could be interpreted by Destiny. So far the only times the Law has gone poorly in any way is when someone has been directly denied what they are owed. If the owed does not want to raise the child, the parents can in their place, but one way or another the child will find their way to who their fate is intertwined with. We see this with both of the children owed. First, the princess, who is owed to the knight. Things are going well because he decided to stay away for a time. However, they found each other. Then when he went to claim her, and was denied, that is when the Law seemed to almost step in to ensure he was given what he was owed. And then again with Cirella, while Geralt did not want to raise her, the queen also would not let him raise her even if he wanted to. Once again, things only started to go poorly when he tried to claim her and was denied. I think a lot of this comes down to, if you actively attempt to deny someone what you think they should be given, or try to find a loophole, this is not a contract with set in stone rules and wording, it is a metaphorically living, breathing, reasoning force. It will always defeat those who stand in its way. I definitely enjoyed these, don't worry ^_^
I was under the impression that "The Law of Surprise" was more of a way for determining the reward due as the result of a life debt rather than the law governing the owance of the life debt in the first place. In other words, by convention or law, a life debt is owed, and when the debtee approaches the debtor to name the exact price owed, the Law of Surprise allowed the debtor to claim some prize of unknown value rather than name a specific price. It also seemed that the Law of Surprise was defined as something the debtee already possessed, but due to circumstance (such as being away from home) was not aware they possessed it. For example in the case where Geralt claimed the Law of Surprise as the means of settling the life debt owed to him, the thing Duney possessed was his unborn child, but was unaware he possessed it because he didn't know his bride was already pregnant.
yup. plus, he missed historical precedence in that royalty not just could contract a marriage- but actually did more often than not. calling it slavery when the history of nobility marrying purely for contract and treaty is kinda disingenuous.... especially since the two examples are of a lord claiming the right, and a known warrior with royal favor and national fame. i could totally see something like this law of surprise thing literally happening in medieval Europe. hell, it probably has happened in some manner.
Law of surprise sounds like everything every TV lawyer ever tried to pull off. "Surprise!" "Objection your honour, this surprise was not in discovery."
SPOILER ALERT: Here is a fun fact for you guys. Ciri was actually promised to Geralt twice by the law of surprise. The first time and the most obvious one is at the Soiree when Duny promises him something that he owns but does not know which happens to be Ciri. The second time is when Geralt saves the farmer's life during the last episode and the Farmer promises him the law of surprise as well. Geralt deflects this and says just give me ale but I think the moment the farmer brought it up the "law of surprise" became official. Fast forward deeper into the episode and we find out that the lady who is taking care of Ciri is that farmer's wife and she was going to surprise the farmer by telling him that she adopted Ciri.
Spoiler Alert 2: The farmer accepted the Law of Surprise because his wife could not carry another child after a miscarriage so he had seemingly nothing to loose through this and just wanted his wagon full of goods be saved by Geralt without paying coin he didn´t have.
Which is an established thing with Witchers as an order. Traditionally, that's how they get new recruits; save someone without a preestablished contract? Claim the law of surprise as payment when offered, and then whenever that yields up a newborn, take the kid to the order.
Objection - Consent in the case of human "surprises" is required: "I declare, Urcheon, that you have no right to the princess as yet. You will win her only when-' 'When what?' 'When the princess herself agrees to leave with you. This is what the Law of Surprise states. It is the child's, not the parent's, consent which confirms the oath, which proves that the child was born under the shadow of destiny."
@@iceberg4240 I actually just went back and watched the scene because you had my second guessing myself. But no, its definitely absent from the Netflix version. The Law of Surprise in the books is much less icky feeling because of that caveat.
Isn't there a story from one of the characters where the law of surprise resulted in a witcher making off with the lover of the rescued husband (yes that was smoothly worded)? I can't imagine an adult willingly consenting to that.
Actually, in the books Geralt repeatedly relinguishes the law of surprise, and only accepts Ciri when all of her relatives are long dead AND she explicitely wishes to go with him.
@@Elite7555 Right because that’s what r*pe is. Adapting a book series to screen, sometimes even directly quoting the books. Also your comparison makes me assume that you don’t have the same issue with the law of surprise as I thought the person you’re replying to did, in that it’s bad to traffic humans. Considering you are comparing actual victims to inanimate stories. And if you don’t care about that, why are you so upset about the change?
In the books Gerald was also a child surprise. "Who are you?" "I am Geralt of Rivia." "Who are you Geralt of Rivia, to claim to be an oracle in matters of law and customs?" "He knows this law better than anyone else", Mousesack said in a hoarse voice, "because it applied to him once. He was taken from his home because he was what his father hadn't expected to find on his return. Because he was destined for other things. And by the power of destiny he became what he is."
It's never actually confirmed whether he was a child of surprise or not. His mother pretty much just abandons him at Kaer Morhen and you never really find out why. Witchers have a reputation as mainly being children of surprise but it's later revealed that most were either abandoned, unwanted, or orphans (with a few exceptions). I always took Mousesack's comments to be a move that served a particular purpose at the time rather than an actual fact about Geralt's past.
@@Erinyes1103 That is true, but one cannot deny that Geralt has a great and important destiny to fulfill. And child surprises are always touched by destiny. So I really think it is very likely. Also the law of surprise is a traditional favorite of Witchers to ask.
@@ZechsMerquise195 Yep. Nobody would volunteer/send their child willingly to be a witcher, and there's a reason why there's a superstition that they steal children. Lambert (one of the other Wolf School Witchers) was taken via law of surprise (in the games at least).
If I'm not mistaken, the Law of Surprise is basically the main way Witchers repopulate. It actually reminds me of the Nauts from Greedfall, who conscript any child born on a Naut ship as a means of keeping their ranks full since being an entire nation of sailors not a ton of Nauts live long enough to reproduce naturally. Not the same sterility of a Witcher, but I bet the Witcher legal customs net more child soldiers than the Nauts' method.
@@dmkatelyn The Witchers are dying out pretty quickly by the time Geralt's adventures start. There are obvious reasons why, but I'd argue that social progress is another main one. It's a demand problem, not just a supply problem. The world is changing, there are fewer monsters about, technology and magics are getting better, so there is less need for Witchers, so fewer people are giving up their children to become them. There are fewer orphanages. The world is progressing and the Witchers aren't needed as much, anymore. Witchers are seen as either a romantic and quaint necessity of the past (like Dandelion's perspective), or modern monsters that swindle people out of their coin and cause more problems than they solve.
Objection! The law of surprise as it pertains to humans is more like a custody grant rather than any indebted servitude. That is just a misinterpretation based on blatant disregard of circumstances.
I'll second this. The child becomes your child, with all legal responsibility that implies. Which I'm that world in not much, considering they send they children off to be eaten by witches. But in this world would mean they are the new legal guardian.
Does Urcheon have custody of Pavetta then... that's still pretty gross! Edit: guys I'm not blaming the show for having medieval values that fit with the setting. I'm expressing discomfort with the fact that those values were once the norm.
Yes you become the guardian or protector of that person and it is just as likely to get a pill of shit or a filed or a puppy or a son or daughter that you are now the legal guardian of
@@theomegajuice8660 He planned on renouncing his right exactly when he ran into Pavetta and they fell in love. So technically he's only really claiming her as part of the law because they didn't let him marry her otherwise.
I felt that in The Witcher's world, "The Law of Surprise," was an honor system thing. It was the person who saved the other person's life saying, "I trust you..." and actually leaving it up to the person who's life was saved to honor it. After all, it is a gamble anyway. ... If the person then said, "Well, this is what surprised me, so this is what I am paying you, or owe you..." After all, there is no way to prove what the surprise was, only the person who was surprised knows what was of most value to them, so it was their honor or living with the guilt that was on the line.
And in the world of the Witcher, not abiding the Law of Surprise is not something you'd do. it's like a magical contract, and if you try to break it... well, you shouldn't try that.
Well sorta but not really. Its literally a migical contract of destiny. You cant stop it. Ask Ciri's grandmother and Geralt, they both tried very hard to ignore it but that obviously didnt work out as Ciri was made his Surprise Child a second time when he saved a farmer's life, who's wife had just adopted Ciri as he invoked the law. Its not really about trust when fate literally forces the people together. Thats also why its kinda dumb to judge it as another law, in the "made up by humans" way, its like trying to determine the ethical value of the laws of physics.
I'd also point out that typically someone who saves a persons life would not be some a moral asshole thus the law of surprise is likely not abused as much as people might think.
True. It's also a way of creating an equal ground. If a poor man saves the life of a rich man, a reward of money would be a rather empty gesture,because the rich person can easily spare it. If it's the other way round, the poor individual doesn't have anything to give the rich person. The law of surprise creates a situation where the person involved always runs the risk of losing something important, thereby showing real gratitude.
Objection: 1. This is obviously treated as a religious duty. Meaning the legal requirements of contract don't apply. We can see the characters accept it as such by the way they talk, you don't tell someone the fates will make them pay if you are planning on forcing them to do something. 2. Even if you count this as secular law, the law of surprise and the requirement to provide compensation for someone saving your life is obviously common law. Plus we do have something similar. In maritime law if someone salvages a ship they are entitled to compensation based off the value of the ship and cargo. Now mostlikely the saver will not know how much value the ship and cargo have when they render aid. ie their compensation is a surprise. 3. You cannot say the law of surprise cannot include people when the society who has the law allows slavery. It would be like you watching 7 years a slave and objecting to the fact the movie showed slavery.
I believe the premise of the video is: "Can we make the law of surprise work in some form within our society as presently constituted?" Therefore, your points #1 and #3 don't apply.
@@KingoftheJuice18 1. Would work. As it is not a legal contract in the show, so if we treated it the same way they do then the courts would simply throw the case out. Just like their courts would. So since our courts and theirs would treat it the same, I call that "working".
@@robertshort9487 Well, ok, but this channel deals with legal constructs, not spiritual and moral ones. (Whether it was a worthy premise for a video in the first place is open to question, I'd say.)
@@KingoftheJuice18 People could still be allowed in it since to call it slavery is wrong even on the witcher world. Basically you would become the legal guardian of said person, which would give you both rights and duties. Also the person in question will have the final say if it will or not go with the one claiming the law (and that is where the religious nature enter in scene as well as it would be the norm to accept in that case, and religious customs have some leeway and even protection as long its not breaking any other law)
@@KingoftheJuice18 true. Which was kinda my point with that. My religion does not allow for divorce. If I wrote a movie and included that part in the movie it would be wrong for him to ding me since divorce is legally allowable.
"This seems like you have no idea what you're contracting for in the first place." Hence the term Law of Surprise. You got a few things wrong with Law of Surprise, though I appreciate you being the first RUclips personality that actually pronounced all the names right. Law of Surprise states that the reward is what you have but don't yet know, it has nothing to do with who or what greets you at home first. This could be the merchant Geralt saves coming home and the wife tells him she bought him a new jacket at the market, the reward would be the jacket, not the wife who greets him. It just so happens in the Witcher universe, destiny is a real thing, and often it leads to a child. The show doesn't go into it, but there was a reason Duny saved the king's life and called for Law of Surprise as his reward, as it dealt with a prophecy. Witchers also used Law of Surprise quite often, as that was how they refilled their ranks of recruits, because it was pretty rare that families would give up their children willingly to mutants who were generally hated. In the books, Geralt knows exactly what he's demanding when he invokes the Law of Surprise. Enforcement was nobody wanting to go against destiny, which again, in this universe is a real thing and very bad to go against, as you see in the episode where everyone at the soiree is almost killed when Pavetta goes crazy and starts speaking a new prophecy. One could argue that everything that happened to Queen Calanthe was due to her going against destiny every chance she could, and it didn't end well for her.
This actually makes the whole thing a religious law not a secular law. Ecclesiastical law is really interesting subject, but probably outside the expertise of the secular lawyer (being that the US has always had very little official recognition of ecclesiastical law). Though I could be wrong...
I think you had a slight misunderstanding to do with Geralt claiming the Law of Surprise. He claimed it not knowing that Pavetta was pregnant with Ciri, he merely claimed it because he didn't know what to ask for. He didn't want Ciri in the first place, which is why he exclaims the infamous expletive after it is revealed Pavetta is pregnant, and why he is in denial about Ciri for a while before manning up to his destiny. At no point did Geralt deliberately claim a child.
In the books however he does know that she is pregnant and claims the child with the implied intention of training them into a new witcher (which he does) because it is established that they get the bulk of witcher recruits through the law of surprise.
Lawyer: explains that the Witcher takes place in a medieval fantasy world. Also lawyer: tries to apply modern American legal systems to a tradition of said fantasy world
His smiles fair as spring, as towards him he draws you His tongue sharp and silvery, as he implores you Your wishes he grants, as he swears to adore you Gold, silver, jewels - , as he lays riches before you Dues need repaid, and he will come for you All to reclaim, no smile to console you He'll snare you in bonds, eyes glowin', afire To gore and torment you, till the stars expire
Heroic Lawyer sees a man about to get hit by a train Man: Help me my leg, it’s stuck. Lawyer: I can save you, but first lets talk about my payment? Man: Are you a monster? Lawyer: No, I’m a lawyer *cue music*
Imagine: (High intense situation where the King is about to be killed) King: "Help! I'm about to be killed!" Urcheon: "I offer my help in exchange for the Law of Surprise." K: "Just help me!" U: "Do you accept the terms?" K: "Yes!! Just HELP!" U: "Do you intend to honor the terms of the agreement?" K: "YES! He's rising his sword! HELP!" U: "Can I have you signature here, here, and..." (shiiiiing) U: "Oh, my......"
Funny thing is, before providing first-aid to someone in need, you must first ask for consent (implied consent is only assumed if the victim is incapacitated and thus incapable of response), otherwise you open yourself up to legal liability.
The implication is that it went like this: King: *is about to be killed* Duni: *saves him* King: "Thank you so much, how can I repay you?" Duni: "That's not necessary" King: "No please, I insist." Duni: "Ok then, how about the Law of Surprise" King: "That seems fair"
This argument is what Calanthe tried to use against Duny to deny his claim.(in the book) Also Netflix removed one aspect of the law in which the object(Pavetta/Ciri) must agree to the claim for it to be valid. So in practice the law of surprise only gives the indebted the right to be the first pick.
Mike Taussig it kinda combines a lot of elements between the games and the books, and then adds a few nice changes to it. Definitely worth a watch, and to be honest I thought it was explained perfectly well in the show.
I know a lot of the words are used incorrectly here and don't really flow like the original, but I'm not a lawyer and it's late :P When a humble bard Graced a ride along With Devin Stone Esq. Along came this song From when the White Wolf fought A silver-tongued DA His army of lawyers At his briefs did they revel They tried to serve me With masterful deceit Broke down my case And they hung the jury While the judge's gavel Rang in our tender ears And so cried the Lawyer He can’t object Toss a coin to your Lawyer O’ Courtroom of Plenty O’ Courtroom of Plenty Toss a coin to your Lawyer O’ Courtroom of Plenty At the edge of the law Fight the mighty firm That bashes and breaks you And brings you to court He thrust every lawyer Far back on the docket Reviewed by The Bar From whence it came He wiped out your savings Got jailed for contempt He’s a friend of legality So give him the rest That’s my epic tale Our legal eagle prevailed Defeated the villain Now pour him some ale Toss a coin to your Lawyer O’ Courtroom of Plenty O’ Courtroom of Plenty Toss a coin to your Lawyer And friend of legality Toss a coin to your Lawyer O’ Courtroom of Plenty O’ Courtroom of Plenty And friend of legality Toss a coin to your Lawyer O’ Courtroom of Plenty O’ Courtroom of Plenty Toss a coin to your Lawyer A friend of legality
It was explained in the show that the "child of surprise" has to agree, otherwise it's null and void. Queen Calanthe was happy for a moment expecting Pavetta to refuse, and Pavetta agreed instead :)
It doesn't seem to just be that though. The Law of Surprise seems to be a way of binding two people's destinies together, in a very old, possibly elven, magical way. As both Pavetta and Ciri end up being led to the person who claimed them in the first place, Duny and Geralt respectively. And one of the key aspects of Destiny, the magical force in The Witcher, not the concept, is that people bound by it will always find each other, and while they can have spats and arguments, they can never come to truly hate each other, nor refuse any opportunity they know will facilitate more time with their "intertwined", see in Episode 6 when Geralt immediately agrees to help Borch once he sees that Yennefer is also on the search, which kind of means that any "child of surprise" will accept fulfilling that role without question. So it may be the case that if the "child" refuses the Law of Surprise, then the Law was never asked for in the first place, and might simply be a verification method by humans to be certain that the Law was in fact claimed, not unlike a written agreement.
Destiny is a force there. U can call it magic but it is ancient. U hear that even Witcher didint belive in destiny but have honor to it and honored given word.
At the very least, even if it was a written law, it's not exclusive to Cintra. It's clearly a law that everyone in this fantasy world, regardless of province or kingdom, follows and is aware of. I like the phrase 'law of nature' to describe this, but it could also be called common law, or the law of the land. I think calling it a law of nature works better though, because we are dealing with a fantasy world where cosmic forces like destiny and chaos are real tangible things, that can have real world consequences for the characters.
@@ckillgore Law of Surprise feels more on the side of law of nature because destiny bends the story so that the law of Surprise is upheld. It's a fantastical force of nature/magic.
@@xe11d I haven't read the books or played the games, so I would to see a video where someone goes in depth on the concepts of Destiny and Chaos within the context of this story. The show does a fairly good job of communicating how they effect our main characters, but I still don't quite fully understand what the rules are for Destiny and Chaos. I'm curious as to whether or not the magic system in the books is more of soft magic system, where the rules and boundaries are never explicitly stated, just hinted at, or if it's a hard magic system with well explained rules and stipulations, we just don't get that explanation in the show. If anyone has an answer, or a good video to point me to, I would really appreciate it.
I never really interpreted it as "indentured servitude". More that the reciepient becomes responsible for the person given to them in some way. You can "have" a daughter without actually "owning" her. Although I'm sure a certain cultures views on slavery will affect how they interpret the law.
@@Tacklepig I think, because the Law of Surprise is basically evoking the concept of destiny, the parties are then drawn to each other in a more natural seeming manner rather than get home bundling up a child and handing them over.
@@BrainAbsoluteZero Except for the fact that handing over said bundle is exactly how it happens when witchers are involved...that's how new witchers are "recruited." Dad's life is saved, Law of Surprise invoked, son gets handed over, hope he's one of the lucky ones who survives training. (Kid's a daughter? That's destiny, dad's off the hook.)
If only that were the case. In the books, if the Law of Surprise is offered to a witcher and the prize ends up being a boy, at a certain age the witcher does in fact come to claim the boy. The boy is then taken to one of the witcher schools and is trained to himself become a witcher, which doesn't have the best survival rate (e.g. the Trial of Grasses, which begins the mutation process, tends to very painfully kill 70% of the boys, and in Geralt's case turned his hair white) or a great "retirement plan."
@@Sylvershade My brother once bought a house and put my name on it without my permission in order to get first time home buyer privileges. So I can personally attest that something like that can be a surprise.
Objection: "I'll save your live (which loss is imminent), if you..." Seems like such contract wouldn't be binding b/c the offer was accepted under duress, effectively forced to accept (or die).
Re: the offer: couldn’t you consider the offer to be “I wish to give you a reward, please name it.” “I do not wish anything explicitly from you right now, so I choose the law of surprise. I accept your reward, which is now the promise to give me the first thing you already possess but do not know.” “Agreed.”
Late to the party, but for anyone that doesn't know this could mean anything from a free lunch, to a gemstone, to the deed of a house or (in the cases we saw) a child.
@@Luchux177 Right. That's kind of the point though. You might just get a bowl of soup. It took me a bit to wrap my head around the concept when I was watching the show!
@@Danonymous5000 that would be the rational thing to do except basically in the show destiny is kinda like... a king of the world. I mean its still just a concept but it's a concept like gravity. So if you did what you said then destiny would be like nah dude stap trying to cheat me and then something would happen where the law of surprise would get what destiny thinks it should get. So in a normal world, great idea, in the witcher world, that's death destruction blah blah blah
@@Subpar1224 I think the simple out for that is if it becomes something you do every time to avoid the Law, then you may not know exactly what you're receiving, but you KNOW you have a gift on your return and therefore it's no longer a surprise. Also, that gets really expensive when people leave their homes for a dangerous world every day.
One thing you missed: The law in the show was already that the parents could give away their daughter to whomever they chose, so the law of surprise isn't necessarily making the daughter chattel, as he can only take her hand in marriage as that is what is on offer. It's nopt clear that he could simply take her as a slave. The law of surprise doesn't (I don't think) really change her status at all, as much as it constrains the parents' ability to choose to whom she'll be given in marriage. As described in the books, it's not clear that a person given becomes chattel at all (as it mentions the person who greets you possibly being a scolding mother-in-law, which presumably one cannot give away, and the book implies that what you get is merely being the object of her wrath)...so I think the nature of what you get is even more unclear. Also, in Roman law systems (like the German law) no consideration is needed at all if the parties intend to be bound. In Civil law countries, a one sided promise (like giving a gift) is fully enforceable as well if the intent to give the gift was clear even if nothing is given in return or if the consideration was already given (your life already saved). Much more likely one of these two systems would apply in the Witcher, rather than English-style common law of contracts.
I believe it is a form of slavery. Any institution or practice whereby: "A woman, without the right to refuse, is promised or given in marriage on payment of a consideration in money or in kind to her parents, guardian, family or any other person or group". Article 1 - c) of Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/SupplementaryConventionAbolitionOfSlavery.aspx
@@paulatreides413 It gets a little bit tricky with the whole destiny thing because the women that are given away in the law of surprise are always perfectly willing to be with the person they're given away to. For example in the case of the soiree(in the book at least) a question is asked of the daughter if she wants to be with the ugly guy. If she says no then the law of surprise holds no merit. If she says yes then the parents can't do anything. The deal is always done with the women's consent. In every situation in the series. So...it's not slavery. It's just weird destiny love
Yeah the Law of Surprise is basically an invocation of Destiny but also a way for poor people to pay witchers and witchers to make more witchers. I mean with the death rate of even becoming one, let alone of the profession itself, being pretty high part of the idea is that those destined for that life will make it. And as mentioned by Jonas if Pavetta didn't want/love Duny then there would have been no merit to it. However Paul Atreides would be right to say that how women historically have been treated as property to do household labor is slavery. But I don't think that's what he's getting at.
Also come to think of it it'd make a really great short story for a witcher to save a poor person, claim the law of surprise, and when they get to the house the mother in law comes out to scold the saved but it is also oddly relevant to the witcher and some issue he is having or relevant to him as a person. Basically imagine the universe and destiny using the mother in law of some dude you just saved to yell at you over something and you're just like "ouch. Okay. Point taken." So what you get is a lesson on something.
The way I understand it is that the Law of Surprise is not just a legal law, but also a law of physics, so to speak. As in, destiny has a way of balancing the scales, so if you choose to deny the law of surprise, bad things will happen. That's part of the reason why people who are promised to each other are happy to obey the law of surprise, even when their guardians aren't. Destiny works behind the scenes to make sure those people accept each other and eventually find each other, even if it takes a war and the death of many for that destiny to be fulfilled. So by invoking the law of surprise you're not really making a contract with another person. You're actually making a contract with the universe and that other person merely acts as the agent, and the agent is obliged to obey the destiny, or he/she will be held to account.
10:42 "But this also seems like you have no idea what you're contracting for in the first place." YEAH, that's the whole point! It's the Law of SURPRISE! It's a gamble! All you're legal precedents don't work in a universe where Chaos is a literal and REAL force of nature, in the same way electromagnetic fields are a law of nature to us. Declaring the Law of Surprise isn't a barter system, its like "primal magic", doesn't require mage training or skill to use, ANYONE can call on it so long as they meet the conditions. As I understand it only applies when you save someones life and you don't ask for something specific in reward, so you quite literally "roll the dice", calling upon the very real (in that universe) forces of Chaos to be the ultimate arbiter. And as to the matter of consent or slavery. When the Law is invoked, Chaos links them by "fate", like a super magnetic tether. They will always be drawn to each other (whether romantically or paternally in Geralts case), Dunny & Pavetta met before Dunny 'claimed the law of surprise', because they were linked and were bound to eventually meet because Gravity pulls things together, and they were 'destined' to fall in love, because love is not a choice, but a neurological reaction to stimuli. (remember "We don't chose who we love") I agree it's not 'fair' to the one promised, but Chaos, like gravity, electromagnetism, relativity, and all other base forces of nature, don't care about "fair". IE, Law of Surprise is how most new Witchers are claimed.
The matter of consent is briefly referred to in books, in fact in the witcher stories we get a long explanation of the law and it's customary role in society: 'As you command, your Majesty. Noble Calanthe and you, knights! Indeed, Urcheon of Erlenwald made a strange request of King Roegner, a strange reward to demand when the king offered him his wish. But let us not pretend we've never heard of such requests, of the Law of Surprise, as old as humanity itself. Of the price a man who saves another can demand, of the granting of a seemingly impossible wish. "You will give me the first thing that comes to greet you." It might be a dog, you'll say, a halberdier at the gate, even a mother-in-law impatient to holler at her son-in-law when he returns home. Or: "You'll give me what you find at home yet don't expect." After a long journey, honourable gentlemen, and an unexpected return, this could be a lover in the wife's bed. But sometimes it's a child. A child marked out by destiny.' 'Briefly, Coodcoodak,' Calanthe frowned. 'As you command. Sirs! Have you not heard of children marked out by destiny? Was not the legendary hero, Zatret Voruta, given to the dwarves as a child because he was the first person his father met on his return? And Mad Dei, who demanded a traveller give him what he left at home without knowing it? That surprise was the famous Supree, who later liberated Mad Dei from the curse which weighed him down. Remember Zivelena, who became the Queen of Metinna with the help of the gnome Rumplestelt, and in return promised him her first-born? Zivelena didn't keep her promise when Rumplestelt came for his reward and, by using spells, she forced him to run away. Not long after that, both she and the child died of the plague. You do not dice with Destiny with impunity!'" ... "'Everyone heard,' spoke Geralt, 'Baron Tigg tell us about the famous heroes taken from their parents on the strength of the same oath that Urcheon received from King Roegner. But why should anyone want such an oath? You know the answer, Urcheon of Erlenwald. It creates a powerful, indissoluble tie of destiny between the person demanding the oath and its object, the child-surprise. Such a child, marked by blind fate, can be destined for extraordinary things. It can play an incredibly important role in the life of the person to whom fate has tied it. That is why, Urcheon, you demanded the prize you claim today. You don't want the throne of Cintra. You want the princess.' 'It is exactly as you say, knight unknown to me,' Urcheon laughed out loud. 'That is exactly what I claim! Give me the one who is my destiny!' 'That,' said Geralt, 'will have to be proved.' 'You dare doubt it? After the queen confirmed the truth of my words? After what you've just said?' 'Yes. Because you didn't tell us everything. Roegner knew the power of the Law of Surprise and the gravity of the oath he took. And he took it because he knew law and custom have a power which protects such oaths, ensuring they are only fulfilled when the force of destiny confirms them. I declare, Urcheon, that you have no right to the princess as yet. You will win her only when-' 'When what?' 'When the princess herself agrees to leave with you. This is what the Law of Surprise states. It is the child's, not the parent's, consent which confirms the oath, which proves that the child was born under the shadow of destiny."
It isn't strictly paternally. My understanding from wiki reading is that a relationship does, in fact, end up forming between him and her - after she grows up and completes her training.
@@shannonlouden3428 No. That does *not* happen. Geralt is her adoptive father and Yennefer is her adoptive mother. I think you might be referring to Var Emrhys wanting to wed and bed Ciri but ultimately marrying a double.
I know you come at it from a legal perspective but the law is framed a lot more like a sort of trick of fate or philosophical/magical concept, like it's not that you legally own a person it's more like your fate is linked to that person no matter what you do, the books explore that a lot, people linked by fate and invisible connections and so on. A more fun way of applying this to the real world is how a concept of interlinked fates and destiny would have been adapted into the legal code had it existed in the real world. Anyway fun video!
Also technically Duny wanted to renounce his claim, when she ran into Pavetta and they fell in love and only invokes the law of surprise when he is denied her hand in marriage by Calanthe, not Pavetta. So, the law doesn't really guarantee that the person in question will want to marry you....
I personally feel that the law of surprise is a way for both parties to leave fate choose the reward, be it destiny linking 2 individuals or for fate to choose what things you will be rewarded with.
The patient owes the same amount even if the patient dies so not exactly. It's the attempt that the patient is paying for. But yes, you can consent to (and agree to pay for) medical treatment simply by being unconscious.
In all fairness, based on Geralt's reaction in the show he neither seems to know the details of the law of surprise, or simply doesn't care about it (he is basically above the law, after all). The only reason he was even using it to defend Duny was because he was going to fight for Duny either way (actually he had already started fighting). When he left and Duny demanded Geralt ask for a reward the way he said the law of surprise indicates he either had never heard of it or he had zero intentions of ever collecting what he probably expected to be a suit of armour, a small plot of land, or some other random thing. This is backed up by the fact that he did not come to collect Ciri or even ask about her at all (he wasn't even aware his claim was to a princess and not a prince) until the day he realized they were in danger.
Which is completely wrong on every level. Claiming that by the point of Geralts involvement in Cintra Geralt doesn't know the details of the law of surprise is actually pretty hillarious, seeing that the LOS is the entire reason for him being a Witcher. This is just a fault of the screenplay really.
Even though the constitution is an extremely flawed document, that not even the men who wrote it thought it was a great document? And we need to move past it as a nation because it’s over 200 years old, says slaver is okay. Not to mention that even the most progressive man of 200 years ago, would look like a barbarian by today’s standards.
@@zaczane If you want to see what happens when a nation "goes past" the constitution, just look at the last five years in Poland. Advice from a European: Amend your constitution when necessary but don't throw it away.
Objection re ambiguity: Not knowing the contents of well specified entities does not entail ambiguity. I could say to you "would you like this bag and everything that's in it for £100?" and form a contract with you, even if neither of us know what's in the bag. The goods being bartered for are clearly and well defined, even if not explicitly known. The problem in this case is the second point you made. That "your surprise upon coming home" is ambiguous. One presumes this would have been cashed out in the case law of the world and could quite easily be done so. The life saver is entitled to travel with the person they saved back to their residence. Any capital gains or income generated over the period of 3(or however many) months prior to the date of their arrival belongs to the life saver. My central point is that being unknown and being ambiguously specified are not the same and the law of surprise is plausibly the former, not the latter.
Buying things in advance without knowing their content or value frequently occurs in storage locker auction sales, therefore the concept is indeed legal.
Objection: saying “I will save your life in return for your horse or new born pup or whatever”, doesn’t that raise a duress issue that would void the contract?
@@KingoftheJuice18 right, but I'm saying gerald's universe, you can't claim the agreement was made during duress. And actually a child of surprise can refuse the claim
@@IONE_the_Enby Thank you. But the comment by Vic G is not against what's going on in the Witcher universe. It's raising a legal question specifically about Devin's suggestion that in our world maybe you could make an oral contract with someone before saving their life.
@@KingoftheJuice18 and as others have made mention the "law of surprise" is no man made law, it's a literal force of nature, like gravity, electromagnetism, motion and energy. It is no more debatable and redefinable by mans design than a legal court could redefine or annul gravity, and immediately have everything and everyone proceed to float
2:15 It's not a French neologism, it's a Beauclairoise neologism. And in Witcher lore, humans are from another dimension- likely ours. Elves and many of the monsters are from different dimensions as well. Apparently only gnomes are indigenous. 4:21 Also, the reason why witchers use the law of surprise so often has less to do with ensnaring female captives, but male captives they can turn into witchers, as males are easier to mutate. The mutations witchers undergo don't react well with female hormones. Sometimes it's invoked when someone obviously doesn't have the means to pay for witchering services. Most of the time, the Law of Surprise doesn't result in captives at all, but in something of far less value.
Ok which is bad lol. Just kidnapping children to torture them in the hopes of turning them into powerful beings? Don’t get me wrong, I understand in the context, it’s done out of desperation etc. But this doesn’t really correct him in terms of it having the same consequences? And in that episode we see two people being contracted and they’re both women, so I see why he focused on that, even if that’s not often the case. On top of all this, if the law of surprise doesn’t usually result in getting a human (which I agree with, that’s the primary purpose it seems, to get something else that isn’t human), then why do Witchers do often invoke it with the hopes of getting a human? They must assume they have a pretty good chance then right? Based exclusively on what you said. Also I had to look up neologism: “a newly coined word or expression.” So… in this case it’s a new phrased based on something that’s based on French… but it’s NOT a French neologism? So the word is gnomish? Which happens to sound like French?
For clarification (at 5:15 on the video) in the books it explains that that one of the ways that you can tell that the law of surprise is present is that both parties will agree with the terms of the law. Which is one of the reasons WHY Pavetta fell on love with Duny. Cause destiny doesn't like non-consensual slavery I suppose.
OBJECTION: Requiring an Offer and Acceptance to occur prior to saving someone's life would mean that the party being saved would be under duress and could possibly be considered extortion.
@@martinsriber7760 Ok, but Andrew's point itself is a response to Devin's legal arguments, so if you are not referring to Devin's comment, then you are not actually replying to Andrew's objection.
• 13:05 - Moreover, there's nothing that says he has to wait until she's grown up and then marry her, he could have adopted her as a baby and raised her, or kept her as a servant. ¬_¬ In fact, there isn't (?) anything that says he's _obligated_ to take her at all. • 13:44 - The ambiguity is the whole point (that's why it's called the law of _surprise_ ), it's about leaving it to fate to decide. • 14:21 - It's rarely plausible to make a deal to save someone's life, time is usually of the essence. Hence the social contract.
It's been awhile since I read the books so I might be forgetting something, but to add to your last point, as far as I can recall, the LoS was never _demanded_, it was always voluntarily offered. Duny does come to claim Pavetta, but he's only fundamentally demanding that the late king's prior offer be honored rather than pressing a novel claim. It seems to be less that blood debts were considered legally binding (Geralt saves plenty of people who never offer him anything at all in return, and there seems to be no legal obligation or recourse in such situations), but rather that in cases where someone wishes of their own volition to show gratitude to another for saving their life the LoS was traditionally recognized as an appropriate form of compensation.
I always felt, especially from the books, that the Law of Surprise was enforced by destiny itself, rather than having its basis in any human law - as in "If you don´t follow the Law of surprise and try to cheat it, then destiny literary will hurt you until you conform". This is what happens to Calanthe (and its even clearer in the book) - she tries to cheat this and as a result her country is conquered and she and everyone she loves, sans Ciri, dies. So its basically a divine enforcement on the level of Egypts 10 plagues and because of its (very real) teeth, people have decided to accept it as a law, because the consequences clearly do exist, and like gravity - some things are just a fact of life, regardless of what humans think. So why not work it in your legal code as well?
That even makes less sense then as to why there wouldn't be human laws to enforce it. Breaking it causes such widespread ramifications that I couldn't imagine laws wouldn't be in place so that if you invoke the Law of Surprise you could not break it.
@@nixalot9065 Everyone would agree not to invoke it in the first place though. Like with Duni, who gained a wife, but lost a daughter. If it is enforced with such prejudice, it would have been stricken from records and word of mouth by all. Before it could become a respected, ancient tradition.
"No one ever talked to their lawyer and was like 'I love talking to my lawyer. They let me do whatever I want!'" I guess you've never spoken to any of Rudy Giuliani's clients.
We know Duny and Pavetta already met before, in my understanding they had sex, otherwise if Pavetta was a virgin, she would have easily dismissed puking as a stomachache, plausibly induced by the previous very stressful situation, when Calathe asks her "are you... (pregnant) ?" My guess is Pavetta already knew/suspected she was pregnant but kept it to herself, and the puking was just destiny forcing the revelation at the right moment, just after the call for the law of surprise, sealing the deal. I can't be certain, but other factors i will not mention as they are spoilers, gave me the impression Duny considered himself the real father, not just a step father to Ciri. I haven't read all the books so I may be wrong, this is just my interpretation based on the show, the games, and some of the books.
Depends - in the books, he knew full well that she was pregnant (Witcher senses) and invoked the law of surprise knowing that this would be the thing Duny didn't know about. The series does do it differently though
OBJECTION: There’s fully a region in this world called Touissante (spelling error probable) that is straight up just an idyllic France. “Soirée” absolutely has precedent
"Bill of Rights Schmill of Rights, let's think beyond the Consitution" sounds like something a dictator would say as he sends his ex in-laws to the gulag
OBJECTION! Entering into a contract in exchange for life saving help would be considered contract coercion, and the contract would not be legally enforceable.
This may be tricky. He's mentioned in the past there are no laws forcing a person to act in a manner to save anyone's life. Which means if the recipient wants to be saved, he may actually have to enter a contract with the performer in order to guarantee at least an attempted life-save. Now, if the person saving his life *is the one threatening it to begin with*, then I think you may have a case so you can't legally enforce a contract done under threat.
He's already saved the life and the 'victim' offered anything he wanted in payment. He refuses any payment at all for doing the right thing, but when pushed with insistence he must get something, it is a king insisting he must have something, he goes for the law of surprise, expecting it to be nothing serious. That's why Geralt jokingly asks for the same thing, it's expected to be something minor.
@@andysutcliffe3915 well that's like me promising to buy you pizza because you are a good person at a later date. If a couple of days pass and i still haven't delivered on my promise then in that case it is not valid because you didn't give up anything to warrant that pizza. That's what this situation is about.
Doesn't matter because he's explicitly stating what he wants to give up. Which in this case would be the service of saving someone's life in exchange for something of value at a later date.
@@mrdaniel511 i don't know if this would count as legal advice because this is my factual opinion on this but anyways as I was saying right now the fact of matter is that this is all theoretical. But if we were trying to make it into an actual contract it would apply because the person is giving up a service in exchange for something else that the other guy is going to give up at a later date but even then it wouldn't be considered an actual contract due to the fact that by nature he did something good. There was a court case that involved this woman losing her dog and had asked a person to be a private investigator for looking for her dog and the person had agreed to it and began doing all the work to track down the dog and eventually found it. Well while the investigator was doing his thing and looking for the dog, the woman was walking around town and posting flyers that had said if her dog was found she would give the person a reward. So the investigator had found out about this while he was looking for her dog and when he found the dog. He had asked for the reward and the woman had said no. So the investigator sued for breach of contract and the holding of the case was that because of the good nature of the investigator that had been demonstrated. The law says that things of good nature can't be claimed as a contract because your doing something for someone because of the fact that it was the right thing to do and the service that was given was for respect of the woman.
rjtheripper931 wait so if I get this right the law didn’t accept his claim? Also, what you’re saying then is that because of the good nature principle the contract wouldn’t be valid anyway right? But he clearly set conditions for saving the life of the other person in this scenario therefore it is a contract and not an act of good nature.
@@mrdaniel511 well yeah that's kinda how it is. Unless it's implied which gets into more hairy territory because that's hard to tell what's going on. It's the equivalent of asking the question of is this a gift or is it something that I would have to have consideration for, thus making it a valid contract.
The fact that they "conveniently" already met and fell in love offscreen is consistent with the destiny theme that they were going for with the law of surprise. It's not a case of contrived coincidence. Much like Geralt himself was also trying to avoid his surprise for over a decade but fate kept leading him back to Ciri.
4:20 you gloss over the most important aspect of tue law of surprise. The one even the games forgot. The promised person can reject the claim and make ot null and void
Mhm. In the world depicted, while the Law of Surprise may look like a contract, it's more akin to a law of nature (i.e. destiny being a VERY real thing and not just 'woo') than something that can be interrogated and challenged by legal experts or adjudicated by a judge. Destiny doesn't care about lawmakers or lawyers. It's also not enslavement (if admittedly too close for comfort sometimes) despite forming a powerful, magical link. Pavetta fell in love and Duny appears to feel that he is entitled to her hand in marriage, but that (according to Geralt, in the short story the episode in based on) only works out if Pavetta consents. In fairness, the show is not clear on how Ciri->Geralt is different from Pavetta->Duny. Some are understandably confused and wondering if Geralt got himself a very young wife, but that's not it.
@@CybFrog Yeah, I kinda checked out of this video five minutes in because it seemed like Stone was so off the mark. As for Geralt and Ciri, I think the show did a good job conveying the relationship, but I also found the time-jumping well-done and easy to follow, soo... *Shrug*
Well, the "law" seems more cultural than legal. Opposing it seems more taboo than anything else. Not counting the enforcement from "destiny" that is. Also, Ciri is not his slave, but his daughter, it'd be like calling adoption, slavery, lol ("owning" is seemingly used very loosely in the law of surprise). He also only did it because he didn't plan to ever come back to claim the law of surprise. It wasn't really his fault that right then and there they found out. More strictly if you want to point at this, the show, and I assume the books too, treat the child as belonging to the father. Otherwise, the child would not be included in the LOS as it wouldn't be the father's surprise. Like, it's not like someone bought you a puppy, or a new car, because in both those cases, you are the sole owner, but in most cases, custody is shared. In Geralt's case, you could argue that both parents are in debt to him, and therefore, Ciri can still be his child through the LOS, but it wouldn't have been the case for Ciri's father's claim on her mother, because he only saved the father of Ciri's mother. In short, it is unreasonable that you'd get a child through the LOS unless you saved both parents of that child (unless only the mother is alive and you save her, but that's sort of an exception as then she'd be the only one with custody to give away).
Well - "taboo" does not cover it... if you violate that thing - something really really bad happens to you. In fact... Dunny - or Emhyr Var Emreis - would have little reason to sack Cintra if Ciri was not there and was with Geralt. the world has all encompusing Magic field... one that interacts with everything. This creates a magical bond between people... and if you dont adhere to this bond - one noone knows how to dispell - there is a serious backlash against you. Law of surprise - is more akin to Law of Physics rather then something "legal". The only one who actually knew about stuff - Mousack (or Ermion) knew that messing up with this magic tendency is BAD BAD thing.
@@Paerigos, well, I did say "not counting the enforcement from 'destiny' that is." Destiny in that universe is as you say, like a law of physics, and Geralt disrespected it by abandoning his custody of Ciri, so destiny forced them together. Like the violent tornado that ensued when the queen tried to kill the guy to break the LOS.
From witcher books: "'Everyone heard,' spoke Geralt, 'Baron Tigg tell us about the famous heroes taken from their parents on the strength of the same oath that Urcheon received from King Roegner. But why should anyone want such an oath? You know the answer, Urcheon of Erlenwald. It creates a powerful, indissoluble tie of destiny between the person demanding the oath and its object, the child-surprise. Such a child, marked by blind fate, can be destined for extraordinary things. It can play an incredibly important role in the life of the person to whom fate has tied it. That is why, Urcheon, you demanded the prize you claim today. You don't want the throne of Cintra. You want the princess.' 'It is exactly as you say, knight unknown to me,' Urcheon laughed out loud. 'That is exactly what I claim! Give me the one who is my destiny!' 'That,' said Geralt, 'will have to be proved.' 'You dare doubt it? After the queen confirmed the truth of my words? After what you've just said?' 'Yes. Because you didn't tell us everything. Roegner knew the power of the Law of Surprise and the gravity of the oath he took. And he took it because he knew law and custom have a power which protects such oaths, ensuring they are only fulfilled when the force of destiny confirms them. I declare, Urcheon, that you have no right to the princess as yet. You will win her only when-' 'When what?' 'When the princess herself agrees to leave with you. This is what the Law of Surprise states. It is the child's, not the parent's, consent which confirms the oath, which proves that the child was born under the shadow of destiny."
It's not actually like an adoption, though. Ciri's only his "daughter" because he chooses to treat her as such, but Duny & Pavetta's (very uncomfortable, and I'm told much more uncomfortable in the books) relationship proves that the child of surprise isn't actually guaranteed a "child" role in the relationship. They belong to the other person, in whatever way the other person chooses, and just because Geralt's a kind "owner" doesn't cancel out the worrisome implications.
@@rachelr4126, more specifically, I'd argue that the LoS contracts the child of surprise to either become adopted or for there to be an arranged marriage. In Geralt's case, it is the former, but in Duny's case, it was the latter (the circumstances that makes it one or the other seems unclear though?). However, I mentioned adoption because it is the most closely related thing I could think of which is legal. There will also always be issues translating what is essentially a metaphysical contract into real law. Like, under what falls signing a contract with destiny as a witness for the CoS to be bound to the claimant? I also don't believe what others mentioned above to be relevant. By the mere fact that the CoS is bound to the claimant by destiny, there is no choice, no free will. If I don't misremember, Geralt does the same to Yennefer through the genie (bind them by destiny), something she yells at him for. This is sort of pointed out here in fantasywind's comment: 'It is the child's, not the parent's, consent which confirms the oath, which proves that the child was born under the shadow of destiny." Implying that by destiny, the CoS will always consent to the claim (is it really consent if you're bound by destiny to consent and therefore had no real free will?). An example of how it is not a choice is the sacking of Cintra, despite Geralt making it clear he had no interest in knowing Ciri, and Ciri not even being aware of his existence (can't answer for the books as I haven't read them). I wouldn't call it "ownership" though, he doesn't "own" Ciri anymore than he "owns" Yennefer, but they are bound by destiny (also isn't specified exactly what that means?). By signing those contracts, he essentially cuffed himself to Ciri and Yennefer and then threw away the keys. I can also imagine that the Witcher universe has quite the issue with pedophiles and scammers trying to create fake life or death situations to claim the LoS for a chance of something of high value or a CoS, and in the case of Pavetta, there's a question to be had about grooming.
Oh! I have an idea for one. "Selling your soul to the devil" has a lot of cultural context. Go large, go theological, take that one on. "Can you sell your soul to the devil? And how to get out of it?"
In Geralts defense and defense of The Law of Surprise Cintra is not part of the United States of America which means it not subject to any of the laws mentioned in the video.
Objection: (I'll stick to the show here too, as the books have more details I'm told) We're overlooking a lot of facts here that go into the law of surprise. 1) To invoke the law of surprise before saving a life, if someone is truly in mortal peril, wouldn't that borderline on manslaughter if you then chose not to help because they wouldn't agree? I think there is some type of issue there worth investigating further. 2) So let's assume the initial formation of law of surprise is after saving the life, as it is in the show. In all the examples we have, the law of surprise is invoked ONLY after someone having their life saved OFFERED payment. This is key here, the potential victim is offering up 'I owe you a debt, name your price'. There's our meeting of the minds. It hasn't ever been demanded or invoked against someones will. 3) When it comes to dealing with people, ambiguity presents some issues, agreed, but marriage is never indicated to be a requirement. In the case of Pavetta marriage is on the table because they've already been together, conveniently (and agreed, probably in Canada). But it's never required that they be married, so we're making assumptions on ambiguity. It could just mean if you've got a new baby, I'm now adopting it. Which is perfectly legal and there's ton of adoption law and contracts already, so I think the idea that it's only related to servitude represents one specific case. Since we don't see much slavery anywhere in the show, I'm going to make the mental jump it's not a thing allowed in society, the same as ours. And at that point, we also need to start making some other considerations to the times, such as dowry, inheritances and things that are all legal and still happen today, that could be mutually beneficial in the case of the transfer of a child. 4) The other thing we see is that everyone here, fortunately, is applying real logic to the law of surprise. Our first knight opted to forgo his payment of the child. Geralt also insisted he would not collect payment in that manner. There's definitely some more nuance going on here so I want to say we've been a little reductionist.
But we have also seen that those who refuse the reward given to them by fate suffer and are forced towards their reward/person linked to them by fate itself. Geralt was pushed towards Ciry and towards Yen after he linked the 2 of them by fate with the last wish to save her life, it is explicitly shown that no matter how much we try to avoid fate in the Witcher's universe fate will always finda way.
GhostOutlaw you have no legal responsibility to rescue anyone. Someone could drown in front of you while you watched, and you’d still be legally in the clear unless you were the direct cause. - if you do choose to help, Good Samaritan laws will protect you from legal retaliation that might result from that (you can’t be sued for breaking someone’s rib while attempting life-saving cpr for instance) but you have no active obligation to help in any scenario. The reason for this is obvious, if we make it a requirement to help then every time there is a fire tons of untrained unprepared civilians would need to rush in, endangering more people. Every time someone was injured people would need to try and fix it, regardless of their lack of medical experience, potentially resulting in damages. Every time there was a robbery, all the civilians would need to interfere, getting everybody else killed. And anyone who didn’t do those things would be open to legal damages, obviously a terrible system, we have professionals for a reason. So you don’t have a responsibility to save the dying. - you could argue that the contract was made under duress, and thus can’t be enforced if he did, but you couldn’t get him for manslaughter because he wasn’t acting negligently, just using his right as a free citizen to do absolutely nothing.
@@ilo3456 So outright refusal and refusal of certain specificity are different! Geralt said he won't marry/rape/take the girl. It doesn't mean he can't accept her into her life and basically be a godfather. The context of the gift is vague enough to leave people a lot of room to not piss off fate, but follow through on all the terms agreed upon. It was the Queen who feared Geralt way more, Geralt had no ill intentions, and that's a sub point of contracts as well. Things need to be negotiated in good faith. Hence my previous point, if someone is hanging off a cliff and you tell them you'll help them up if they give you $1,000,000, they're going to say yes whether they have it or not. That's not a good faith negotiation.
@Technobarb technically you should refer to the original polish text then I think The different phrasing might otherwise be the result of the translations. Polish and english are very different after all
@@peythe as an educated speculation. The grammatical rules of both languages are quite different. Also the translation might have differnt implications. Maybe I'll actually look into it, though my polish isn't the best
There was a court case which is common in Europe where you sell the rights for cheap, and if it becomes a huge deal they owe you more money. It allows IPs to possibly grow, and still allows fair compensation to both parties afterwards. Its basically written into the law, that surprise of something becoming a thing doesn't leave you selling a golden goose for a few acorns.
Can you imagine LegalEagle in the house of court....His mighty defense of his client, who she was wrongfully wronged by the assaulter! And a bard gracefully dances and sings around him, as he pleads the case.
I think the books say "something you dont expect when you get home..." or something One important thing. The witcher guilds use this law to recruit. And its I think its perfectly valid to not take something.
Something you already have but don't yet know. This is useful for kids because pregnancy lasts a while before anyone knows about it, but that little crotch goblin is something they have.
I know this is a year old...but in the case of a Suprise Child, they are claimed no younger than 6ish, and the child has to give final consent to go with the Claimer.
Objection! In the case of human beings being claimed as reward for the law of surprise, the Witcher clearly states that the person being claimed must agree to the claim to confirm their destinies and, therefore, for the law to apply. That does not mean one can give themselves into slavery, however anyone can accept a marriage proposal (hold the jokes, boomers). The cases in which a child is adopted are shakier, since the will of the child might still not be enough (idk). (this is my second objection to this video, btw)
Actually, Geralt only give this as an explanation to make it easier for the nobles of Cintra to let their crown princess marry a lowly ranked noble. It's not a part of the law of suprise
A different yet related objection. There is no need for the "wokeness" the law of surprise apply to boys as well as girls. In fact that is how witchers are created.
📺What TV show deserves to get ruined?
📚Get 2 months of unlimited learning on Skillshare for FREE: skl.sh/legaleagle23
First! Awesome. Black Mirror Season 3 episode 3! Im still persisting!
Please Lawyer Body Of Evidence 1993 movie.
There is presedent in the Talmud. I'll leave it at that as homework for you ;)
How can we convince you to finally do Legally Blonde? I'd die for that episode, ngl
I'd really like to hear your views on the recent developments in the Roger Stone case, LegalEagle... I don't get the chain of events happening here, did Trump coerce the Justice dept? What happens when all the prosecutors step down?
In Geralt's defense, he probably thought he was going to get one of the wedding gifts.
A puppy or something.
@@michalgrugel2326 hell, maybe a nicely embroidered rug or blanket he can use on the road, or better yet, for Roach.
He was probably like. *grunt* surprise me.
In the books he DOES know Pavetta is pregnant before reclaiming the prize (althougth Dunny doesn't) and demands it on purppose...
It's a customary practice to pay a Witcher with the Law of Surprise whenever one does not have coin to pay for the monster killing (so usually, only poor people does it, as the old man saved by Geralt tries to do in final episode) as once in a while, this will mean to offer an unborn child as payment... And you see, Witchers, being infertile; it is the only way they have to "enlist" young apprentices for their guild.
So, when Geralt finds a way to obtain a free child on the bargain, he just takes it. In the novel; Geralt comes back to reclaim Ciri when she is about 5; but when he discovers she is a girl; she lets her stay with her grandmother... because girls, cannot phisically undergo the alchemist procedure that generates Witchers; and so Geralt could not train her to become one.
@@dhorn4005 Thanks for the extra book information. I've only played the game, so while I knew about the Law of Surprise and Witchers being infertile, but I didn't realize Pavetta was showing her pregnancy there.
In the books did they not lose the secrets of the Trial of the Grasses when Kaer Morhen was sacked? How was he planning on turning this Child Surprise into a Witcher without the Trial?
I think the Law of Surprise is less of a legal thing and more that the "Law" refers to the natural order, like the laws of magic are represented in the show. Once you claim the Law of Surprise then "Destiny" dictates what that surprise will be, that's why disaster follows whenever the Surprise is denied by either party.
This is what I came here to say. Because it’s all about “Destiny,” people kind of *know* what the Law of Surprise is intending them to give.
Which is also the reason Duny and Pavetta conveniently fell in love, the gift by the law of surprise was not Pavetta but the fact that he and Pavetta would fall in love with each other
Its also a real thing. Or it was, many years ago. Originated from Prawo niespodzianki - literally "Right of the Unexpected". Comes from many folklore, such as slavic, polish and even ottoman empire had something similair.
@@abpanda1596 that’s really cool actually
Yeah, it's more of a theme about going your own way vs. forcing your will on others. Your destiny is that which you choose. But if you try to choose someone else's destiny for them, then destiny will work against you in return. If Calanthe had gone along with the Law of Surprise, then Pavetta would have been allowed to decide whether or not she wanted to go with Duny. But by trying to go against destiny and trying to force her to marry someone else, destiny went against Calanthe and made Pavetta want to marry no one but the one she was destined to be with. By going against his own destiny after he had already chosen it by claiming the Law of Surprise, Geralt of Rivia was given Ciri by force.
Once your destiny is decided, it's yours.
In the Witcher, one of the big themes is that "Destiny" is truly existent and is a force of nature in the same way that heat and gravity are forces of nature in our world. The "Law" of Surprise isn't really a codified law as far as I understand it. Instead it is the owed saying they will take whatever Destiny gives the debtor to repay them. No one is truly forced to follow this "law" by legal constructs as it is not a law of the political body. I would say it's more akin to casting a spell of a sort. Destiny seems to intervene to make the owned obtain their debt eventually, and more specifically, that they will naturally become metaphysically attached to it in some way, as shown at the "soiree." The two were brought together and were in love quickly, so they were destined to be soulmates in a way. I'd imagine there's also occasions where a debtor finds a surprise harvest, does not give the produce to the owed, and later thieves in the night steal it away only to lose it where the owed stumbles upon it on a walk or similar situations.
Additionally the debt must be paid with what someone has but does not know. So you wouldn't be giving away your dog or spouse. In the case of twins, if you thought they were one child, then the second child to come out would be the payment as the couple planned to have one child, so the second child would be the surprise, especially in a medieval level world where often people didn't know they were having twins until they were both birthed. One of the key parts to it is basically the debtor must give the first thing that comes to their mind as being the destined payment. So if your life was saved, the Law of Surprise was claimed, then you came home to both an extra harvest ready and a small pouch of less valuable coins you find that same day, it would likely be assumed the harvest is what Destiny has intended for the owed as it is the closest to the value of the debtor's life. In the case of two similar value surprises, I would expect it is then up to the owed to decide which to take and the debtor to honor that decision.
So in summary, as the Law of Surprise pertains more to a facet of Destiny than being a true law, it is up to Destiny to decide what the Law is worth. A bit hard to constrain a god-like force to rules of law, so I'd have to say there's nothing to rule on here.
Witchers often took dogs as payment when the other option was an only child. The law of surprise was very vague to begin with to allow for abiguity in certain cases but the greeted thing was specifically to recruit children into becoming witchers.
So, I don't know if you would have an answer for this but... How would metaphors, subjective traits and abstract concepts play into the law of surprise? Like say after someone asks it of you, another person confesses their feelings of love toward you. You now know you have metaphorical possession of their heart. Does the recipient get the literal heart, the metaphorical heart (their love), or does this not count?
If a person owns a pair of shoes that they consider to be beautiful, and after the law of surprise is invoked someone else says their shoes are ugly, does that count? Since they were in possession of "ugly" shoes without realizing it.
Also, how does faith affect the law of surprise? If a king is aware one of the fortresses in his kingdom is under attack, and has not received any word back from the people defending it, nor any other evidence pointing to the fort continuing to remain in his possession, yet has absolute faith that the fort will remain his, despite the lack of evidence, would the fort being proven to remain his count toward the law of surprise should someone ask that of him before the fort is proven to remain his?
I'm sorry if this is too much. It's just you seem rather knowledgeable on this subject. And I figured it couldn't hurt to ask.
@@katlyncoker8488 Well, I'm not really that knowledgeable, I've just watched the first season, I haven't even played the games or read the books. It's just stuff like this tends to make sense in my mind more for some reason.
The Law of Surprise seems to be concrete things, so thoughts and feelings aren't things that you could be directly given. To put it into a more direct way, you wouldn't know they loved you, but they would have been in your life in some form already and they have likely already been giving you their love in their own way. In essence, this is more like something you knew you had but did not notice rather than being something you have but do not know. Despite the show of love at the soiree and the two becoming engaged, it was not the love he was owed, but the girl. The love was a tether to guarantee they would be pulled together, but was otherwise not directly part of what was owed.
Once again, you know you have the shoes. You are not surprised to find the shoes there. Perhaps you are surprised by the state of them, but you knew you had shoes. I believe this would also count under "the Law of Surprise only gives concrete things." Since you had shoes, regardless of your view on them, you would likely not be surprised that you have those shoes.
I believe one of the big parts of the Law of Surprise is that it must be a surprise to you. Someone would not give away new puppies greeting them at home if they knew their dog was pregnant when they last saw her. Equally if there were some stillborn, you would also not give away the bodies because you would know at the back of your mind it is a possibility.
Faith likely does not play a role into the Law of Surprise, at least not in situations like with this fortress. The king knows the possible outcomes, whether the end result is unexpected or not, these are things he knows for a fact he could have. I would say the Law of Surprise would not apply to this fortress even if he was attacking it and was expecting a loss, but instead received a win. I believe it must be something the owner has absolutely no clue they could have prior to the discovery.
These are very good questions! I enjoy philosophical and metaphysical topics, so ask away if you have more questions!
@@KotaTheFemboy Thank you for replying. I wasn't sure you would after I finally noticed the date on your comment. And I'm glad you enjoyed them. I tend to be one of those "rules lawyers" who always look for loopholes, and unexpected outcomes. The words "what if" come to mind a lot. I might not always voice them, because people don't tend to like it when I do that. But as someone who is very literal, and can have a hard time understanding stuff do to either imprecise wording or preconceptions (either on my end, their end, or both ends) I can't help desiring clarification. Because it just puts my mind at ease.
Anyways, the only other questions I can think of right now are...
How would the rule of surprise work if the genuinely unexpected surprise was you accidentally coming into possession of something that belongs to someone else? For example sometimes my neighbor's get my mail and vice versa. If I was asked to abide by the law of surprise, and upon going home found that my neighbor's mail was now in my possession, would I have to give it to the person owed the surprise? It is in my possession, and I genuinely didn't expect it, but it isn't legally mine to give. And would the result be the same if there were no precedent for this kind of outcome (either for me personally, or from some other scale [never happened in the county vs state vs region of country vs region of world vs entire world])? In a similar vein, if your wife is unexpectadly pregnant, but the baby is not of your blood, is it your baby to give? Does the baby need to be agnowledged before being a boon? Basically, how does the law of surprise define possession? And does an improbable but known to be possible surprise count? And if improbability does matter, to what degree (10% chance vs 5% vs 1% and so on)?
Also, does the surprise count if the only person surprised was you? For example if someone was gifted a mood ring. And was unaware of the color changing properties the stone possessed, but everyone else did (see the previous list of scales), would it count as a surprise?
Lastly, at least for now, can the possession claimed by law of surprise be given away, or shared? A big thing with law of surprise is that if you go against destiny and reject it, bad stuff happens. And also destiny will continue on because destiny gonna do what destiny gonna do. So what all counts as going against destiny? Is it enough to claim it? Or must you keep it? If your boon is an incredible amount of food from an unexpected, large harvest of crops, can you give or sell some of the crops away since you can't possible eat them all by yourself? If you get a huge mansion, can you share it with others? And what of spouses? When people get married they can choose to pool together their resources. Hence why divorces can be messy, and prenup's exist. Would the spouse be allowed to share possession of the boon? If your gifted a child, could you choose to raise it with the parents? Or even have them still be the parents raising said child, and you just being the teacher who lives nearby?
Hope you continue enjoying them. 😊
@@katlyncoker8488 I always try to reply to genuine commentary and questions ^_^
In the case of the mail, it is not something you own but do not know. It is something that was mistakenly placed within the confines of your property. As it is not yours to give away, you could not then use it to pay your own debt.
The question of the illegitimate child is a pretty tough one. I would say the baby is not the husband's as it is not his blood or genes in the child. Generally speaking, a father will likely not refer to the child as theirs, especially in a medieval time period. This would be in the case that the father knows the child is not his and that he is not contested in thinking they are his. It would be, in a way, a question of perception on the side of the husband. If he does not view the child as his, then he cannot give them away as they are not his. But if the wife and lover successfully keep the tryst a secret, then it could be viewed that they are giving the baby to the husband, who now is the father. At that point, the child might be claimed.
Being a metaphysical Law, I don't think I could apply a quantifiable value to how improbable something must be for it to count. In many ways I think it does somewhat rely on the debtor's views of what is or is not a surprise. As I mentioned in my first comment, it would seem to be whatever the first reasonable payment is that comes to mind for things they had when the Law was claimed but did not yet know they had at that time.
I don't believe the Law would count unknown qualities as being something you didn't know you had. I would say it must be a totally separate and singular thing that causes the surprise itself rather than a new quality being found.
It would appear no one can give away the Law of Surprise or share the burden it gives until the debt is paid. Once it is in the hands of the owed, they may do with it as they want so long as they do not try to dupe Destiny. They could sell the food or share it with people they wish to, but they couldn't simply give it back to the debtor. This would also apply to the mansion. Perhaps you are the one to own it and live in the grand bedroom but you might allow the debtor to live in one of the guest rooms in exchange for labor or something similar. You do not have to be the sole owner at the end, it simply must be as much yours as if you had returned to it instead of them.
From what I've seen in the show, in the case of a child, there are many ways it could be interpreted by Destiny. So far the only times the Law has gone poorly in any way is when someone has been directly denied what they are owed. If the owed does not want to raise the child, the parents can in their place, but one way or another the child will find their way to who their fate is intertwined with. We see this with both of the children owed. First, the princess, who is owed to the knight. Things are going well because he decided to stay away for a time. However, they found each other. Then when he went to claim her, and was denied, that is when the Law seemed to almost step in to ensure he was given what he was owed. And then again with Cirella, while Geralt did not want to raise her, the queen also would not let him raise her even if he wanted to. Once again, things only started to go poorly when he tried to claim her and was denied.
I think a lot of this comes down to, if you actively attempt to deny someone what you think they should be given, or try to find a loophole, this is not a contract with set in stone rules and wording, it is a metaphorically living, breathing, reasoning force. It will always defeat those who stand in its way.
I definitely enjoyed these, don't worry ^_^
I was under the impression that "The Law of Surprise" was more of a way for determining the reward due as the result of a life debt rather than the law governing the owance of the life debt in the first place. In other words, by convention or law, a life debt is owed, and when the debtee approaches the debtor to name the exact price owed, the Law of Surprise allowed the debtor to claim some prize of unknown value rather than name a specific price. It also seemed that the Law of Surprise was defined as something the debtee already possessed, but due to circumstance (such as being away from home) was not aware they possessed it. For example in the case where Geralt claimed the Law of Surprise as the means of settling the life debt owed to him, the thing Duney possessed was his unborn child, but was unaware he possessed it because he didn't know his bride was already pregnant.
yup. plus, he missed historical precedence in that royalty not just could contract a marriage- but actually did more often than not. calling it slavery when the history of nobility marrying purely for contract and treaty is kinda disingenuous.... especially since the two examples are of a lord claiming the right, and a known warrior with royal favor and national fame. i could totally see something like this law of surprise thing literally happening in medieval Europe. hell, it probably has happened in some manner.
@@vinnie666 Really shows you how young the US is as a country imho.
This channel often takes things out of context and relates to modern times or sometimes worse to just regional law, usually California.
Fronic yeah I never understood why he always picks California since he’s based in Washington DC.
@@froniccruxis1049 Even by modern times, this would be neither slavery, nor indentured servitude. The closest to it would be arranged marriage.
Law of surprise sounds like everything every TV lawyer ever tried to pull off.
"Surprise!"
"Objection your honour, this surprise was not in discovery."
“I’ll allow it”
Wertsir zX
Law of Surprise was Matlock's specialization.
Sounds like a good April Fools skit: TV Lawyer Reacts to Real Trials.
EA games tried to pull it off
SPOILER ALERT: Here is a fun fact for you guys. Ciri was actually promised to Geralt twice by the law of surprise. The first time and the most obvious one is at the Soiree when Duny promises him something that he owns but does not know which happens to be Ciri.
The second time is when Geralt saves the farmer's life during the last episode and the Farmer promises him the law of surprise as well. Geralt deflects this and says just give me ale but I think the moment the farmer brought it up the "law of surprise" became official. Fast forward deeper into the episode and we find out that the lady who is taking care of Ciri is that farmer's wife and she was going to surprise the farmer by telling him that she adopted Ciri.
Spoiler Alert 2:
The farmer accepted the Law of Surprise because his wife could not carry another child after a miscarriage so he had seemingly nothing to loose through this and just wanted his wagon full of goods be saved by Geralt without paying coin he didn´t have.
@@o0ara0o77 The farmer was actually offering off any one of his boys to the witcher as far as i can remember
@@StuntsHrs Yes he infact offered one of his sons to become a witcher.
Which is an established thing with Witchers as an order. Traditionally, that's how they get new recruits; save someone without a preestablished contract? Claim the law of surprise as payment when offered, and then whenever that yields up a newborn, take the kid to the order.
3 times in the book I believe
"Yeah i went to my lawyer, but he just played his guitar and sang at me..."
Did he sang...
"TOSS A COIN TO YOUR WITCHER.. "??
Objection - Consent in the case of human "surprises" is required: "I declare, Urcheon, that you have no right to the princess as yet. You will win her only when-' 'When what?' 'When the princess herself agrees to leave with you. This is what the Law of Surprise states. It is the child's, not the parent's, consent which confirms the oath, which proves that the child was born under the shadow of destiny."
To anyone confused, this is a line from the short story in the book. It is not mentioned in the show.
@@Bahruchnik not gonna lie, I thought they said that in the TV show, but maybe that was just my brain filling in the hole
@@iceberg4240 I actually just went back and watched the scene because you had my second guessing myself. But no, its definitely absent from the Netflix version. The Law of Surprise in the books is much less icky feeling because of that caveat.
Isn't there a story from one of the characters where the law of surprise resulted in a witcher making off with the lover of the rescued husband (yes that was smoothly worded)? I can't imagine an adult willingly consenting to that.
crackedjabber they consent because destiny demands it
Actually, in the books Geralt repeatedly relinguishes the law of surprise, and only accepts Ciri when all of her relatives are long dead AND she explicitely wishes to go with him.
The series basically rapes all of Sapkowski's stories.
Well, she was also fully willing to go with him the first time (in the forest). When they met the second one she was like: "Told you!"
@@Elite7555 Right because that’s what r*pe is. Adapting a book series to screen, sometimes even directly quoting the books.
Also your comparison makes me assume that you don’t have the same issue with the law of surprise as I thought the person you’re replying to did, in that it’s bad to traffic humans. Considering you are comparing actual victims to inanimate stories. And if you don’t care about that, why are you so upset about the change?
In the books Gerald was also a child surprise.
"Who are you?"
"I am Geralt of Rivia."
"Who are you Geralt of Rivia, to claim to be an oracle in matters of law and customs?"
"He knows this law better than anyone else", Mousesack said in a hoarse voice, "because it applied to him once. He was taken from his home because he was what his father hadn't expected to find on his return. Because he was destined for other things. And by the power of destiny he became what he is."
It's never actually confirmed whether he was a child of surprise or not. His mother pretty much just abandons him at Kaer Morhen and you never really find out why. Witchers have a reputation as mainly being children of surprise but it's later revealed that most were either abandoned, unwanted, or orphans (with a few exceptions).
I always took Mousesack's comments to be a move that served a particular purpose at the time rather than an actual fact about Geralt's past.
@@Erinyes1103 That is true, but one cannot deny that Geralt has a great and important destiny to fulfill. And child surprises are always touched by destiny. So I really think it is very likely. Also the law of surprise is a traditional favorite of Witchers to ask.
@@ZechsMerquise195 Yep. Nobody would volunteer/send their child willingly to be a witcher, and there's a reason why there's a superstition that they steal children.
Lambert (one of the other Wolf School Witchers) was taken via law of surprise (in the games at least).
If I'm not mistaken, the Law of Surprise is basically the main way Witchers repopulate.
It actually reminds me of the Nauts from Greedfall, who conscript any child born on a Naut ship as a means of keeping their ranks full since being an entire nation of sailors not a ton of Nauts live long enough to reproduce naturally. Not the same sterility of a Witcher, but I bet the Witcher legal customs net more child soldiers than the Nauts' method.
@@dmkatelyn The Witchers are dying out pretty quickly by the time Geralt's adventures start. There are obvious reasons why, but I'd argue that social progress is another main one.
It's a demand problem, not just a supply problem. The world is changing, there are fewer monsters about, technology and magics are getting better, so there is less need for Witchers, so fewer people are giving up their children to become them. There are fewer orphanages. The world is progressing and the Witchers aren't needed as much, anymore. Witchers are seen as either a romantic and quaint necessity of the past (like Dandelion's perspective), or modern monsters that swindle people out of their coin and cause more problems than they solve.
Objection!
The law of surprise as it pertains to humans is more like a custody grant rather than any indebted servitude. That is just a misinterpretation based on blatant disregard of circumstances.
I'll second this. The child becomes your child, with all legal responsibility that implies. Which I'm that world in not much, considering they send they children off to be eaten by witches. But in this world would mean they are the new legal guardian.
Does Urcheon have custody of Pavetta then... that's still pretty gross!
Edit: guys I'm not blaming the show for having medieval values that fit with the setting.
I'm expressing discomfort with the fact that those values were once the norm.
Also the child can refuse to go with the person invoking the law of surprise if they choose to, only the parent is obligated to not object.
Yes you become the guardian or protector of that person and it is just as likely to get a pill of shit or a filed or a puppy or a son or daughter that you are now the legal guardian of
@@theomegajuice8660 He planned on renouncing his right exactly when he ran into Pavetta and they fell in love. So technically he's only really claiming her as part of the law because they didn't let him marry her otherwise.
Me: *tosses a coin to my Lawyer*
Lawyer: ...
Me: *tosses several more coins*
Lawyer: Alright, let's lawyer this shit.
*Grunts* this wont be a valley of plenty for much longer if this proceeding is longdrawn
I'll give my lawyer as many coins as he wants, as long as he doesn't sing. Sounds like a winning contract to me.
OBJECTION: By removing the ambiguity, you remove the "Surprise" part. That would make it the "Law of".
"Law Of Selection"?
@@zzman7305 no, it would be "The Law of"
There is no longer a suprise
Law of Ueki?? God I havent seen that manga/anime mentioned anywhere tese days
also the law is already enforced my magic, so there is no need to make it work, its just works, like the laws of physics
Tuche
Toss a like to your Eagle.
O' youtube of plenty
Lol
@@mariopalenciagutierrez4318 Whoa-oh-oh
@@lettylunasical4766 When a humble fan
came to watch along
Lega-al Eagle...
this is so meta hahaah
I felt that in The Witcher's world, "The Law of Surprise," was an honor system thing. It was the person who saved the other person's life saying, "I trust you..." and actually leaving it up to the person who's life was saved to honor it. After all, it is a gamble anyway. ... If the person then said, "Well, this is what surprised me, so this is what I am paying you, or owe you..."
After all, there is no way to prove what the surprise was, only the person who was surprised knows what was of most value to them, so it was their honor or living with the guilt that was on the line.
And in the world of the Witcher, not abiding the Law of Surprise is not something you'd do. it's like a magical contract, and if you try to break it... well, you shouldn't try that.
Well sorta but not really. Its literally a migical contract of destiny. You cant stop it. Ask Ciri's grandmother and Geralt, they both tried very hard to ignore it but that obviously didnt work out as Ciri was made his Surprise Child a second time when he saved a farmer's life, who's wife had just adopted Ciri as he invoked the law. Its not really about trust when fate literally forces the people together. Thats also why its kinda dumb to judge it as another law, in the "made up by humans" way, its like trying to determine the ethical value of the laws of physics.
I'd also point out that typically someone who saves a persons life would not be some a moral asshole thus the law of surprise is likely not abused as much as people might think.
ShadowAraun it literally can’t be abused
True. It's also a way of creating an equal ground. If a poor man saves the life of a rich man, a reward of money would be a rather empty gesture,because the rich person can easily spare it. If it's the other way round, the poor individual doesn't have anything to give the rich person. The law of surprise creates a situation where the person involved always runs the risk of losing something important, thereby showing real gratitude.
Objection:
1. This is obviously treated as a religious duty. Meaning the legal requirements of contract don't apply. We can see the characters accept it as such by the way they talk, you don't tell someone the fates will make them pay if you are planning on forcing them to do something.
2. Even if you count this as secular law, the law of surprise and the requirement to provide compensation for someone saving your life is obviously common law. Plus we do have something similar. In maritime law if someone salvages a ship they are entitled to compensation based off the value of the ship and cargo. Now mostlikely the saver will not know how much value the ship and cargo have when they render aid. ie their compensation is a surprise.
3. You cannot say the law of surprise cannot include people when the society who has the law allows slavery. It would be like you watching 7 years a slave and objecting to the fact the movie showed slavery.
I believe the premise of the video is: "Can we make the law of surprise work in some form within our society as presently constituted?" Therefore, your points #1 and #3 don't apply.
@@KingoftheJuice18 1. Would work. As it is not a legal contract in the show, so if we treated it the same way they do then the courts would simply throw the case out. Just like their courts would.
So since our courts and theirs would treat it the same, I call that "working".
@@robertshort9487 Well, ok, but this channel deals with legal constructs, not spiritual and moral ones. (Whether it was a worthy premise for a video in the first place is open to question, I'd say.)
@@KingoftheJuice18 People could still be allowed in it since to call it slavery is wrong even on the witcher world. Basically you would become the legal guardian of said person, which would give you both rights and duties. Also the person in question will have the final say if it will or not go with the one claiming the law (and that is where the religious nature enter in scene as well as it would be the norm to accept in that case, and religious customs have some leeway and even protection as long its not breaking any other law)
@@KingoftheJuice18 true. Which was kinda my point with that.
My religion does not allow for divorce. If I wrote a movie and included that part in the movie it would be wrong for him to ding me since divorce is legally allowable.
"This seems like you have no idea what you're contracting for in the first place." Hence the term Law of Surprise.
You got a few things wrong with Law of Surprise, though I appreciate you being the first RUclips personality that actually pronounced all the names right. Law of Surprise states that the reward is what you have but don't yet know, it has nothing to do with who or what greets you at home first. This could be the merchant Geralt saves coming home and the wife tells him she bought him a new jacket at the market, the reward would be the jacket, not the wife who greets him.
It just so happens in the Witcher universe, destiny is a real thing, and often it leads to a child. The show doesn't go into it, but there was a reason Duny saved the king's life and called for Law of Surprise as his reward, as it dealt with a prophecy.
Witchers also used Law of Surprise quite often, as that was how they refilled their ranks of recruits, because it was pretty rare that families would give up their children willingly to mutants who were generally hated. In the books, Geralt knows exactly what he's demanding when he invokes the Law of Surprise.
Enforcement was nobody wanting to go against destiny, which again, in this universe is a real thing and very bad to go against, as you see in the episode where everyone at the soiree is almost killed when Pavetta goes crazy and starts speaking a new prophecy.
One could argue that everything that happened to Queen Calanthe was due to her going against destiny every chance she could, and it didn't end well for her.
I believe that Geralt (or somebody) gave an example where someone got a pie as reward.
This comment needs more attention. Everyone taking about the Law of Surprise seems to not have paid attention to the actual explanation of it
Someone clearly went to Rivia Law School.
*Mic Drop*
This actually makes the whole thing a religious law not a secular law.
Ecclesiastical law is really interesting subject, but probably outside the expertise of the secular lawyer (being that the US has always had very little official recognition of ecclesiastical law).
Though I could be wrong...
5:57 "Contract law probably doesn't make for great fantasy fiction"
tell it to the sovereign citizens
Faust.
Ain't fantasy or fiction to them. ;D Fringed tassels means they ain't gotta answer to that judge, fool! XD
I think you had a slight misunderstanding to do with Geralt claiming the Law of Surprise. He claimed it not knowing that Pavetta was pregnant with Ciri, he merely claimed it because he didn't know what to ask for. He didn't want Ciri in the first place, which is why he exclaims the infamous expletive after it is revealed Pavetta is pregnant, and why he is in denial about Ciri for a while before manning up to his destiny. At no point did Geralt deliberately claim a child.
In the books however he does know that she is pregnant and claims the child with the implied intention of training them into a new witcher (which he does) because it is established that they get the bulk of witcher recruits through the law of surprise.
@@TheZombiecam True, but that is one of several areas where the show deviates from the books, and it's the show being talked about in the video
So Ciri could be described as an 'unexpected child'? Sorry way too many hours playing that bloody game.fair point, well made.
@@TheZombiecam That's not true. The majority of children to be trained as Witchers come from poor families and orphans.
@@sulphuric_glue4468 I know, I'm just mentioning it because I find it interesting, not trying to be elitist or anything.😁
Lawyer: explains that the Witcher takes place in a medieval fantasy world.
Also lawyer: tries to apply modern American legal systems to a tradition of said fantasy world
Let's just let him have his moment😂💀
its not even a real law, just a highly respected custom called the "law of surprise" because people always follow it as if it were law
#femanisum
Why else would he be reviewing it, genius?
Also medieval countries didn't have constitutions.
"You can't contract for people."
Gaunter O'Dimm: Say what now?
While looking in the mirror
His smiles fair as spring, as towards him he draws you
His tongue sharp and silvery, as he implores you
Your wishes he grants, as he swears to adore you
Gold, silver, jewels - , as he lays riches before you
Dues need repaid, and he will come for you
All to reclaim, no smile to console you
He'll snare you in bonds, eyes glowin', afire
To gore and torment you, till the stars expire
But are Souls and People really the same thing?
"Is it legal?"
He asks, as Geralt murders an entire party
"Is THIS legal?" he glares threateningly at the lawyer while murdering an entire party.
I mean the autocratic ruler did say he could kill some people if he wanted to...
"I will make it legal"
Lol
I feel like one could make a self defense argument for that.
It's not a party, it's a soiree.
Heroic Lawyer sees a man about to get hit by a train
Man: Help me my leg, it’s stuck.
Lawyer: I can save you, but first lets talk about my payment?
Man: Are you a monster?
Lawyer: No, I’m a lawyer
*cue music*
Fixed a small typo:
Man: Are you a monster?
Lawyer: Yes, I'm a lawyer.
David Pement I didn’t think lawyers were that honest.
Man: Are you a witcher?
Laywer: Worse, I'm a lawyer.
Call the witcher!
Witcher will kill lawyer. He is killing monsters.
Imagine:
(High intense situation where the King is about to be killed)
King: "Help! I'm about to be killed!"
Urcheon: "I offer my help in exchange for the Law of Surprise."
K: "Just help me!"
U: "Do you accept the terms?"
K: "Yes!! Just HELP!"
U: "Do you intend to honor the terms of the agreement?"
K: "YES! He's rising his sword! HELP!"
U: "Can I have you signature here, here, and..."
(shiiiiing)
U: "Oh, my......"
Funny thing is, before providing first-aid to someone in need, you must first ask for consent (implied consent is only assumed if the victim is incapacitated and thus incapable of response), otherwise you open yourself up to legal liability.
The implication is that it went like this:
King: *is about to be killed*
Duni: *saves him*
King: "Thank you so much, how can I repay you?"
Duni: "That's not necessary"
King: "No please, I insist."
Duni: "Ok then, how about the Law of Surprise"
King: "That seems fair"
This argument is what Calanthe tried to use against Duny to deny his claim.(in the book)
Also Netflix removed one aspect of the law in which the object(Pavetta/Ciri) must agree to the claim for it to be valid. So in practice the law of surprise only gives the indebted the right to be the first pick.
Read the books omg it's all in there!
It’s explained better in the books and games then the show
duddly02 usually is better that way since lore tends to be rushed in tv
@@HOTD108_ They need to dance the fine line of being similar enough whilst also distinctive enough for it to work well.
Yeah thats not surprising you have less time to explain things
*than
Mike Taussig it kinda combines a lot of elements between the games and the books, and then adds a few nice changes to it. Definitely worth a watch, and to be honest I thought it was explained perfectly well in the show.
I need full version of "Toss A Coin To Your Lawyer"
A friend of legality was my favourite line
I know a lot of the words are used incorrectly here and don't really flow like the original, but I'm not a lawyer and it's late :P
When a humble bard
Graced a ride along
With Devin Stone Esq.
Along came this song
From when the White Wolf fought
A silver-tongued DA
His army of lawyers
At his briefs did they revel
They tried to serve me
With masterful deceit
Broke down my case
And they hung the jury
While the judge's gavel
Rang in our tender ears
And so cried the Lawyer
He can’t object
Toss a coin to your Lawyer
O’ Courtroom of Plenty
O’ Courtroom of Plenty
Toss a coin to your Lawyer
O’ Courtroom of Plenty
At the edge of the law
Fight the mighty firm
That bashes and breaks you
And brings you to court
He thrust every lawyer
Far back on the docket
Reviewed by The Bar
From whence it came
He wiped out your savings
Got jailed for contempt
He’s a friend of legality
So give him the rest
That’s my epic tale
Our legal eagle prevailed
Defeated the villain
Now pour him some ale
Toss a coin to your Lawyer
O’ Courtroom of Plenty
O’ Courtroom of Plenty
Toss a coin to your Lawyer
And friend of legality
Toss a coin to your Lawyer
O’ Courtroom of Plenty
O’ Courtroom of Plenty
And friend of legality
Toss a coin to your Lawyer
O’ Courtroom of Plenty
O’ Courtroom of Plenty
Toss a coin to your Lawyer
A friend of legality
"In daylights? In sunsets? In midnights? In cups of coffee?"
I love that Devin has a little bit of theatre geek in him.
It was explained in the show that the "child of surprise" has to agree, otherwise it's null and void. Queen Calanthe was happy for a moment expecting Pavetta to refuse, and Pavetta agreed instead :)
This (even though that was in the book, not in the show)
It doesn't seem to just be that though. The Law of Surprise seems to be a way of binding two people's destinies together, in a very old, possibly elven, magical way. As both Pavetta and Ciri end up being led to the person who claimed them in the first place, Duny and Geralt respectively. And one of the key aspects of Destiny, the magical force in The Witcher, not the concept, is that people bound by it will always find each other, and while they can have spats and arguments, they can never come to truly hate each other, nor refuse any opportunity they know will facilitate more time with their "intertwined", see in Episode 6 when Geralt immediately agrees to help Borch once he sees that Yennefer is also on the search, which kind of means that any "child of surprise" will accept fulfilling that role without question. So it may be the case that if the "child" refuses the Law of Surprise, then the Law was never asked for in the first place, and might simply be a verification method by humans to be certain that the Law was in fact claimed, not unlike a written agreement.
Destiny is a force there. U can call it magic but it is ancient. U hear that even Witcher didint belive in destiny but have honor to it and honored given word.
Always considered "Law of surprise" more of a law of nature than a judicial law.
At the very least, even if it was a written law, it's not exclusive to Cintra. It's clearly a law that everyone in this fantasy world, regardless of province or kingdom, follows and is aware of. I like the phrase 'law of nature' to describe this, but it could also be called common law, or the law of the land.
I think calling it a law of nature works better though, because we are dealing with a fantasy world where cosmic forces like destiny and chaos are real tangible things, that can have real world consequences for the characters.
@@ckillgore when you know that if magic was real, it would still be called science .
More of a contract
@@ckillgore Law of Surprise feels more on the side of law of nature because destiny bends the story so that the law of Surprise is upheld. It's a fantastical force of nature/magic.
@@xe11d I haven't read the books or played the games, so I would to see a video where someone goes in depth on the concepts of Destiny and Chaos within the context of this story. The show does a fairly good job of communicating how they effect our main characters, but I still don't quite fully understand what the rules are for Destiny and Chaos.
I'm curious as to whether or not the magic system in the books is more of soft magic system, where the rules and boundaries are never explicitly stated, just hinted at, or if it's a hard magic system with well explained rules and stipulations, we just don't get that explanation in the show.
If anyone has an answer, or a good video to point me to, I would really appreciate it.
I never really interpreted it as "indentured servitude". More that the reciepient becomes responsible for the person given to them in some way. You can "have" a daughter without actually "owning" her. Although I'm sure a certain cultures views on slavery will affect how they interpret the law.
Same thing with marriage honestly, like congrats you have to love and care for and support this person until one of you dies
Neither the show nor the books ever actually portray it as slavery.
@@Tacklepig I think, because the Law of Surprise is basically evoking the concept of destiny, the parties are then drawn to each other in a more natural seeming manner rather than get home bundling up a child and handing them over.
@@BrainAbsoluteZero Except for the fact that handing over said bundle is exactly how it happens when witchers are involved...that's how new witchers are "recruited." Dad's life is saved, Law of Surprise invoked, son gets handed over, hope he's one of the lucky ones who survives training. (Kid's a daughter? That's destiny, dad's off the hook.)
If only that were the case. In the books, if the Law of Surprise is offered to a witcher and the prize ends up being a boy, at a certain age the witcher does in fact come to claim the boy. The boy is then taken to one of the witcher schools and is trained to himself become a witcher, which doesn't have the best survival rate (e.g. the Trial of Grasses, which begins the mutation process, tends to very painfully kill 70% of the boys, and in Geralt's case turned his hair white) or a great "retirement plan."
*Toss a coin to your lawyer, he's taking it anyway*
😂💀
Oh, he's taking a lot more than one.
Oh valley of legality!
@@blackphoenix32 lmao
@Hans Hanzo That coin you have to toss him is actually a 25 lb pure gold coin. That's just for him to consult. Lol.
“Welcome to my home, Geralt of Rivia- wait, what’s THIS? My *unpaid mortgage bill*?? ...Surprise!”
That wouldn't work being you knew you had a mortgage payment when you borrowed money for your house. You already knew, therefore not a surprise.
But would he own the envelope and paper, or would he own the debt?
Sylvershade, Shade Of Tides
Oh nonono, it was a ‘surprise’ *Wink, Wink*
Doesn’t that mean he will own the house?
@@Sylvershade My brother once bought a house and put my name on it without my permission in order to get first time home buyer privileges. So I can personally attest that something like that can be a surprise.
Objection: "I'll save your live (which loss is imminent), if you..."
Seems like such contract wouldn't be binding b/c the offer was accepted under duress, effectively forced to accept (or die).
Re: the offer: couldn’t you consider the offer to be “I wish to give you a reward, please name it.” “I do not wish anything explicitly from you right now, so I choose the law of surprise. I accept your reward, which is now the promise to give me the first thing you already possess but do not know.” “Agreed.”
Late to the party, but for anyone that doesn't know this could mean anything from a free lunch, to a gemstone, to the deed of a house or (in the cases we saw) a child.
@@Luchux177 Right. That's kind of the point though. You might just get a bowl of soup. It took me a bit to wrap my head around the concept when I was watching the show!
You'd think people would learn to give small trinkets to their loved ones before springing any important news (like a pregnancy) on them.
@@Danonymous5000 that would be the rational thing to do except basically in the show destiny is kinda like... a king of the world. I mean its still just a concept but it's a concept like gravity. So if you did what you said then destiny would be like nah dude stap trying to cheat me and then something would happen where the law of surprise would get what destiny thinks it should get. So in a normal world, great idea, in the witcher world, that's death destruction blah blah blah
@@Subpar1224 I think the simple out for that is if it becomes something you do every time to avoid the Law, then you may not know exactly what you're receiving, but you KNOW you have a gift on your return and therefore it's no longer a surprise. Also, that gets really expensive when people leave their homes for a dangerous world every day.
Devin singing "Toss A Coin To Your Lawyer" was the highlight of my day.
Also quoting Seasons of Love
One thing you missed: The law in the show was already that the parents could give away their daughter to whomever they chose, so the law of surprise isn't necessarily making the daughter chattel, as he can only take her hand in marriage as that is what is on offer. It's nopt clear that he could simply take her as a slave. The law of surprise doesn't (I don't think) really change her status at all, as much as it constrains the parents' ability to choose to whom she'll be given in marriage. As described in the books, it's not clear that a person given becomes chattel at all (as it mentions the person who greets you possibly being a scolding mother-in-law, which presumably one cannot give away, and the book implies that what you get is merely being the object of her wrath)...so I think the nature of what you get is even more unclear.
Also, in Roman law systems (like the German law) no consideration is needed at all if the parties intend to be bound. In Civil law countries, a one sided promise (like giving a gift) is fully enforceable as well if the intent to give the gift was clear even if nothing is given in return or if the consideration was already given (your life already saved). Much more likely one of these two systems would apply in the Witcher, rather than English-style common law of contracts.
I believe it is a form of slavery.
Any institution or practice whereby: "A woman, without the right to refuse, is promised or given in marriage on payment of a consideration in money or in kind to her parents, guardian, family or any other person or group". Article 1 - c) of Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery
www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/SupplementaryConventionAbolitionOfSlavery.aspx
@@paulatreides413 It gets a little bit tricky with the whole destiny thing because the women that are given away in the law of surprise are always perfectly willing to be with the person they're given away to.
For example in the case of the soiree(in the book at least) a question is asked of the daughter if she wants to be with the ugly guy. If she says no then the law of surprise holds no merit. If she says yes then the parents can't do anything. The deal is always done with the women's consent. In every situation in the series. So...it's not slavery. It's just weird destiny love
Yeah the Law of Surprise is basically an invocation of Destiny but also a way for poor people to pay witchers and witchers to make more witchers. I mean with the death rate of even becoming one, let alone of the profession itself, being pretty high part of the idea is that those destined for that life will make it.
And as mentioned by Jonas if Pavetta didn't want/love Duny then there would have been no merit to it.
However Paul Atreides would be right to say that how women historically have been treated as property to do household labor is slavery. But I don't think that's what he's getting at.
Also come to think of it it'd make a really great short story for a witcher to save a poor person, claim the law of surprise, and when they get to the house the mother in law comes out to scold the saved but it is also oddly relevant to the witcher and some issue he is having or relevant to him as a person.
Basically imagine the universe and destiny using the mother in law of some dude you just saved to yell at you over something and you're just like "ouch. Okay. Point taken." So what you get is a lesson on something.
The way I understand it is that the Law of Surprise is not just a legal law, but also a law of physics, so to speak. As in, destiny has a way of balancing the scales, so if you choose to deny the law of surprise, bad things will happen. That's part of the reason why people who are promised to each other are happy to obey the law of surprise, even when their guardians aren't. Destiny works behind the scenes to make sure those people accept each other and eventually find each other, even if it takes a war and the death of many for that destiny to be fulfilled. So by invoking the law of surprise you're not really making a contract with another person. You're actually making a contract with the universe and that other person merely acts as the agent, and the agent is obliged to obey the destiny, or he/she will be held to account.
10:42 "But this also seems like you have no idea what you're contracting for in the first place." YEAH, that's the whole point! It's the Law of SURPRISE! It's a gamble!
All you're legal precedents don't work in a universe where Chaos is a literal and REAL force of nature, in the same way electromagnetic fields are a law of nature to us. Declaring the Law of Surprise isn't a barter system, its like "primal magic", doesn't require mage training or skill to use, ANYONE can call on it so long as they meet the conditions. As I understand it only applies when you save someones life and you don't ask for something specific in reward, so you quite literally "roll the dice", calling upon the very real (in that universe) forces of Chaos to be the ultimate arbiter.
And as to the matter of consent or slavery. When the Law is invoked, Chaos links them by "fate", like a super magnetic tether. They will always be drawn to each other (whether romantically or paternally in Geralts case), Dunny & Pavetta met before Dunny 'claimed the law of surprise', because they were linked and were bound to eventually meet because Gravity pulls things together, and they were 'destined' to fall in love, because love is not a choice, but a neurological reaction to stimuli. (remember "We don't chose who we love")
I agree it's not 'fair' to the one promised, but Chaos, like gravity, electromagnetism, relativity, and all other base forces of nature, don't care about "fair". IE, Law of Surprise is how most new Witchers are claimed.
The matter of consent is briefly referred to in books, in fact in the witcher stories we get a long explanation of the law and it's customary role in society:
'As you command, your Majesty. Noble Calanthe and you, knights! Indeed, Urcheon of
Erlenwald made a strange request of King Roegner, a strange reward to demand when the king offered him his wish. But let us not pretend we've never heard of such requests, of the Law of Surprise, as old as humanity itself. Of the price a man who saves another can demand, of the granting of a seemingly impossible wish. "You will give me the first thing that comes to greet you." It might be a dog, you'll say, a halberdier at the gate, even a mother-in-law impatient to holler at her son-in-law when he returns home. Or: "You'll give me what you find at home yet don't expect." After a long journey, honourable gentlemen, and an unexpected return, this could be a lover in the wife's bed. But sometimes it's a child. A child marked out by destiny.'
'Briefly, Coodcoodak,' Calanthe frowned.
'As you command. Sirs! Have you not heard of children marked out by destiny? Was not the
legendary hero, Zatret Voruta, given to the dwarves as a child because he was the first person his father met on his return? And Mad Dei, who demanded a traveller give him what he left at home without knowing it? That surprise was the famous Supree, who later liberated Mad Dei from the curse which weighed him down. Remember Zivelena, who became the Queen of Metinna with the help of the gnome Rumplestelt, and in return promised him her first-born? Zivelena didn't keep her promise when Rumplestelt came for his reward and, by using spells, she forced him to run away. Not long after that, both she and the child died of the plague. You do not dice with Destiny with impunity!'"
...
"'Everyone heard,' spoke Geralt, 'Baron Tigg tell us about the famous heroes taken from their
parents on the strength of the same oath that Urcheon received from King Roegner. But why should anyone want such an oath? You know the answer, Urcheon of Erlenwald. It creates a
powerful, indissoluble tie of destiny between the person demanding the oath and its object,
the child-surprise. Such a child, marked by blind fate, can be destined for extraordinary things. It can play an incredibly important role in the life of the person to whom fate has tied it. That is why, Urcheon, you demanded the prize you claim today. You don't want the throne of Cintra. You want the princess.'
'It is exactly as you say, knight unknown to me,' Urcheon laughed out loud. 'That is exactly
what I claim! Give me the one who is my destiny!'
'That,' said Geralt, 'will have to be proved.'
'You dare doubt it? After the queen confirmed the truth of my words? After what you've just
said?'
'Yes. Because you didn't tell us everything. Roegner knew the power of the Law of Surprise
and the gravity of the oath he took. And he took it because he knew law and custom have a power which protects such oaths, ensuring they are only fulfilled when the force of destiny confirms them. I declare, Urcheon, that you have no right to the princess as yet. You will win her only when-'
'When what?'
'When the princess herself agrees to leave with you. This is what the Law of Surprise states. It
is the child's, not the parent's, consent which confirms the oath, which proves that the child was born under the shadow of destiny."
It isn't strictly paternally. My understanding from wiki reading is that a relationship does, in fact, end up forming between him and her - after she grows up and completes her training.
@@shannonlouden3428 No. That does *not* happen. Geralt is her adoptive father and Yennefer is her adoptive mother. I think you might be referring to Var Emrhys wanting to wed and bed Ciri but ultimately marrying a double.
I know you come at it from a legal perspective but the law is framed a lot more like a sort of trick of fate or philosophical/magical concept, like it's not that you legally own a person it's more like your fate is linked to that person no matter what you do, the books explore that a lot, people linked by fate and invisible connections and so on. A more fun way of applying this to the real world is how a concept of interlinked fates and destiny would have been adapted into the legal code had it existed in the real world.
Anyway fun video!
not to mention that we're talking about medieval setting over here, so perhaps law presented in context should be old european one?
Exactly! Also my issue with his game of thrones one.
Also technically Duny wanted to renounce his claim, when she ran into Pavetta and they fell in love and only invokes the law of surprise when he is denied her hand in marriage by Calanthe, not Pavetta. So, the law doesn't really guarantee that the person in question will want to marry you....
I personally feel that the law of surprise is a way for both parties to leave fate choose the reward, be it destiny linking 2 individuals or for fate to choose what things you will be rewarded with.
Yea, feels more like a Law in the scientific sense (i.e. the laws of motion) except in a magical sense, rather than in a legal sense.
A life bring saved requires payment in return - you've just described the American medical system in case of emergency treatment Legal Eagle
The patient owes the same amount even if the patient dies so not exactly. It's the attempt that the patient is paying for. But yes, you can consent to (and agree to pay for) medical treatment simply by being unconscious.
“Maybe a new pup or a new car”
Are you implying a John Wick video coming soon?
New John Wick movie confirmed!!!
Toss a coin* to your lawyer~
*Coin must equal in value to the agreed upon payment for the lawyer's services.
LMAO Good one!
In all fairness, based on Geralt's reaction in the show he neither seems to know the details of the law of surprise, or simply doesn't care about it (he is basically above the law, after all). The only reason he was even using it to defend Duny was because he was going to fight for Duny either way (actually he had already started fighting). When he left and Duny demanded Geralt ask for a reward the way he said the law of surprise indicates he either had never heard of it or he had zero intentions of ever collecting what he probably expected to be a suit of armour, a small plot of land, or some other random thing. This is backed up by the fact that he did not come to collect Ciri or even ask about her at all (he wasn't even aware his claim was to a princess and not a prince) until the day he realized they were in danger.
Which is completely wrong on every level. Claiming that by the point of Geralts involvement in Cintra Geralt doesn't know the details of the law of surprise is actually pretty hillarious, seeing that the LOS is the entire reason for him being a Witcher.
This is just a fault of the screenplay really.
"lets think beyond the constitution"
Thats the scariest thing iv'e ever heard a lawyer say
Admittedly, it seems to be pretty common these days.
@@NotHPotter Its also something you have to when talking about laws that exist outside the US.
OK, sure.
Even though the constitution is an extremely flawed document, that not even the men who wrote it thought it was a great document? And we need to move past it as a nation because it’s over 200 years old, says slaver is okay. Not to mention that even the most progressive man of 200 years ago, would look like a barbarian by today’s standards.
@@zaczane If you want to see what happens when a nation "goes past" the constitution, just look at the last five years in Poland. Advice from a European: Amend your constitution when necessary but don't throw it away.
NO NO NO
Someone screwed up the translation.
It goes
You will give me something that you allready have but you dont know about it.
"...you measure in LOoooOOOoove" songs from RENT now stuck in my head.
Seasons of lo-o-o-o-ove! (LOOOooOOoove!)
Objection re ambiguity:
Not knowing the contents of well specified entities does not entail ambiguity. I could say to you "would you like this bag and everything that's in it for £100?" and form a contract with you, even if neither of us know what's in the bag. The goods being bartered for are clearly and well defined, even if not explicitly known.
The problem in this case is the second point you made. That "your surprise upon coming home" is ambiguous. One presumes this would have been cashed out in the case law of the world and could quite easily be done so. The life saver is entitled to travel with the person they saved back to their residence. Any capital gains or income generated over the period of 3(or however many) months prior to the date of their arrival belongs to the life saver.
My central point is that being unknown and being ambiguously specified are not the same and the law of surprise is plausibly the former, not the latter.
Buying things in advance without knowing their content or value frequently occurs in storage locker auction sales, therefore the concept is indeed legal.
Objection: saying “I will save your life in return for your horse or new born pup or whatever”, doesn’t that raise a duress issue that would void the contract?
Objection to your objection. The payment is only agreed upon/given *after* the life is saved. The payment isn't agreed upon, before or during duress.
@@IONE_the_Enby That's not how Devin describes it. Watch starting at 14:10 again.
@@KingoftheJuice18 right, but I'm saying gerald's universe, you can't claim the agreement was made during duress.
And actually a child of surprise can refuse the claim
@@IONE_the_Enby Thank you. But the comment by Vic G is not against what's going on in the Witcher universe. It's raising a legal question specifically about Devin's suggestion that in our world maybe you could make an oral contract with someone before saving their life.
@@KingoftheJuice18 and as others have made mention the "law of surprise" is no man made law, it's a literal force of nature, like gravity, electromagnetism, motion and energy. It is no more debatable and redefinable by mans design than a legal court could redefine or annul gravity, and immediately have everything and everyone proceed to float
2:15 It's not a French neologism, it's a Beauclairoise neologism. And in Witcher lore, humans are from another dimension- likely ours. Elves and many of the monsters are from different dimensions as well. Apparently only gnomes are indigenous.
4:21 Also, the reason why witchers use the law of surprise so often has less to do with ensnaring female captives, but male captives they can turn into witchers, as males are easier to mutate. The mutations witchers undergo don't react well with female hormones. Sometimes it's invoked when someone obviously doesn't have the means to pay for witchering services. Most of the time, the Law of Surprise doesn't result in captives at all, but in something of far less value.
Masterfully said
And Beauclair is heavily French based country, so it fits.
Wow. I doff my hat.
Ok which is bad lol. Just kidnapping children to torture them in the hopes of turning them into powerful beings? Don’t get me wrong, I understand in the context, it’s done out of desperation etc. But this doesn’t really correct him in terms of it having the same consequences? And in that episode we see two people being contracted and they’re both women, so I see why he focused on that, even if that’s not often the case.
On top of all this, if the law of surprise doesn’t usually result in getting a human (which I agree with, that’s the primary purpose it seems, to get something else that isn’t human), then why do Witchers do often invoke it with the hopes of getting a human? They must assume they have a pretty good chance then right? Based exclusively on what you said.
Also I had to look up neologism: “a newly coined word or expression.” So… in this case it’s a new phrased based on something that’s based on French… but it’s NOT a French neologism? So the word is gnomish? Which happens to sound like French?
@@NoelleMarThe child consent.
As compelling this arguement is, I don't think "destiny" cares about the nuances of the validity of the law
More like _Destiny™_ defines the nuances and the validity of the "Law™".
Geralt needed a good lawyer after he himself was badgered into accepting something as payment and in his frustration claimed the law of surprise
It's funny because he actually does get a lawyer in the third book, though for a much different reason.
For clarification (at 5:15 on the video) in the books it explains that that one of the ways that you can tell that the law of surprise is present is that both parties will agree with the terms of the law. Which is one of the reasons WHY Pavetta fell on love with Duny. Cause destiny doesn't like non-consensual slavery I suppose.
OBJECTION:
Requiring an Offer and Acceptance to occur prior to saving someone's life would mean that the party being saved would be under duress and could possibly be considered extortion.
It is invoked after saving.
@@martinsriber7760 That's not what Devin described. See at 14:10 and following.
@@KingoftheJuice18 I am not refering to what Devin described, but to Andrew Gilmour's objection.
@@martinsriber7760 Ok, but Andrew's point itself is a response to Devin's legal arguments, so if you are not referring to Devin's comment, then you are not actually replying to Andrew's objection.
@@KingoftheJuice18 Andrew wrote about something that never occured, which I pointed out. What are you trying?
• 13:05 - Moreover, there's nothing that says he has to wait until she's grown up and then marry her, he could have adopted her as a baby and raised her, or kept her as a servant. ¬_¬ In fact, there isn't (?) anything that says he's _obligated_ to take her at all.
• 13:44 - The ambiguity is the whole point (that's why it's called the law of _surprise_ ), it's about leaving it to fate to decide.
• 14:21 - It's rarely plausible to make a deal to save someone's life, time is usually of the essence. Hence the social contract.
It's been awhile since I read the books so I might be forgetting something, but to add to your last point, as far as I can recall, the LoS was never _demanded_, it was always voluntarily offered. Duny does come to claim Pavetta, but he's only fundamentally demanding that the late king's prior offer be honored rather than pressing a novel claim. It seems to be less that blood debts were considered legally binding (Geralt saves plenty of people who never offer him anything at all in return, and there seems to be no legal obligation or recourse in such situations), but rather that in cases where someone wishes of their own volition to show gratitude to another for saving their life the LoS was traditionally recognized as an appropriate form of compensation.
social contract: everybody's favorite fascist myth
3:38 Actually, it's "that which you have but do not know" as in, you must HAVE IT to have the law be applicable.
I always felt, especially from the books, that the Law of Surprise was enforced by destiny itself, rather than having its basis in any human law - as in "If you don´t follow the Law of surprise and try to cheat it, then destiny literary will hurt you until you conform". This is what happens to Calanthe (and its even clearer in the book) - she tries to cheat this and as a result her country is conquered and she and everyone she loves, sans Ciri, dies. So its basically a divine enforcement on the level of Egypts 10 plagues and because of its (very real) teeth, people have decided to accept it as a law, because the consequences clearly do exist, and like gravity - some things are just a fact of life, regardless of what humans think. So why not work it in your legal code as well?
That even makes less sense then as to why there wouldn't be human laws to enforce it. Breaking it causes such widespread ramifications that I couldn't imagine laws wouldn't be in place so that if you invoke the Law of Surprise you could not break it.
@@nixalot9065 Everyone would agree not to invoke it in the first place though. Like with Duni, who gained a wife, but lost a daughter. If it is enforced with such prejudice, it would have been stricken from records and word of mouth by all. Before it could become a respected, ancient tradition.
"No one ever talked to their lawyer and was like 'I love talking to my lawyer. They let me do whatever I want!'"
I guess you've never spoken to any of Rudy Giuliani's clients.
Or Trump. It doesn't matter to Trump what his lawyers say, he thinks they give him the ability to do whatever he wants.
@@steveaustin2686 Trump *is* one of Giuliani's clients. That was OP's whole joke.
Speaking of autocrats and their mages, I keep hoping for a video about William Barr and the role of the Justice dept to drop.
I was totally going to post just this.
He called Jaskier delightful 😍 and my heart just melted.
Geralt wasn't claiming Pavetta's daughter. She just happened to hilariously burst into existence the moment that he claimed the Law of Surprise.
We know Duny and Pavetta already met before, in my understanding they had sex, otherwise if Pavetta was a virgin, she would have easily dismissed puking as a stomachache, plausibly induced by the previous very stressful situation, when Calathe asks her "are you... (pregnant) ?"
My guess is Pavetta already knew/suspected she was pregnant but kept it to herself, and the puking was just destiny forcing the revelation at the right moment, just after the call for the law of surprise, sealing the deal.
I can't be certain, but other factors i will not mention as they are spoilers, gave me the impression Duny considered himself the real father, not just a step father to Ciri.
I haven't read all the books so I may be wrong, this is just my interpretation based on the show, the games, and some of the books.
I mean, the main topic of the series was fate, so it couldn't have happened any other way
@@wizzolo umm... lets just say Duny is someone very important to the story as a whole... like, major force involved important.
@@stephenflint3640 I know im trying to be vague
Depends - in the books, he knew full well that she was pregnant (Witcher senses) and invoked the law of surprise knowing that this would be the thing Duny didn't know about. The series does do it differently though
OBJECTION: There’s fully a region in this world called Touissante (spelling error probable) that is straight up just an idyllic France. “Soirée” absolutely has precedent
And its beautiful.
Toussaint
temeria is also based a little on france
@@otavio8566 first clue for that is the code of arms with the lillies
Don’t forget its dark secrets! Haha wish we could kill orienna like the trailer
Good ol' Duny. I liked seeing him in this series, humble and noble. A far cry from how we see him in The Witcher III.
Forgive me for sounding a little dumb here, but where was Duny in the Witcher III?
Oh wait, he's Emperor Emhyr isn't he?! I completely glossed over that!
Devin? I thought your first name was "Legal"...
Unsubscribed.
I know, I thought false advertising was illegal, clearly he's not even a lawyer 😂
Is he even an eagle??? I have so many doubts now.
@@jasonv.5938 Obviously not, he doesn't even know Bird Law.
I thought his name was DJ.... What does the J stand for?
@@ckillgore "Jay"?
11:58 Absolutely _legendary_ reference to "Seasons of Love" :)
Angelic Hunk I’m glad someone else noticed it! Lol
Lol immediately looked at the comments if someone else caught that.
"Bill of Rights Schmill of Rights, let's think beyond the Consitution" sounds like something a dictator would say as he sends his ex in-laws to the gulag
OBJECTION! Entering into a contract in exchange for life saving help would be considered contract coercion, and the contract would not be legally enforceable.
This may be tricky. He's mentioned in the past there are no laws forcing a person to act in a manner to save anyone's life. Which means if the recipient wants to be saved, he may actually have to enter a contract with the performer in order to guarantee at least an attempted life-save. Now, if the person saving his life *is the one threatening it to begin with*, then I think you may have a case so you can't legally enforce a contract done under threat.
@@bensaret that would actually just be extortion.
He's already saved the life and the 'victim' offered anything he wanted in payment. He refuses any payment at all for doing the right thing, but when pushed with insistence he must get something, it is a king insisting he must have something, he goes for the law of surprise, expecting it to be nothing serious. That's why Geralt jokingly asks for the same thing, it's expected to be something minor.
@@andysutcliffe3915 well that's like me promising to buy you pizza because you are a good person at a later date. If a couple of days pass and i still haven't delivered on my promise then in that case it is not valid because you didn't give up anything to warrant that pizza. That's what this situation is about.
Me: I can't love this lawyer more
Devin: Pulls out guitar and sings...
Me: Why is this channel my kink?
5:59 gives the Star Wars prequels aggressive side eye
Also, Devin is a theater kid!!!
14:20
Objection! A contract made under extreme duress might also be considered invalid in most places.
Doesn't matter because he's explicitly stating what he wants to give up. Which in this case would be the service of saving someone's life in exchange for something of value at a later date.
@@rjtheripper931 Could you clarify? The contract is made under life-threatening conditions - how could his clouded judgment be valid in any way?
@@mrdaniel511 i don't know if this would count as legal advice because this is my factual opinion on this but anyways as I was saying right now the fact of matter is that this is all theoretical. But if we were trying to make it into an actual contract it would apply because the person is giving up a service in exchange for something else that the other guy is going to give up at a later date but even then it wouldn't be considered an actual contract due to the fact that by nature he did something good. There was a court case that involved this woman losing her dog and had asked a person to be a private investigator for looking for her dog and the person had agreed to it and began doing all the work to track down the dog and eventually found it. Well while the investigator was doing his thing and looking for the dog, the woman was walking around town and posting flyers that had said if her dog was found she would give the person a reward. So the investigator had found out about this while he was looking for her dog and when he found the dog. He had asked for the reward and the woman had said no. So the investigator sued for breach of contract and the holding of the case was that because of the good nature of the investigator that had been demonstrated. The law says that things of good nature can't be claimed as a contract because your doing something for someone because of the fact that it was the right thing to do and the service that was given was for respect of the woman.
rjtheripper931 wait so if I get this right the law didn’t accept his claim? Also, what you’re saying then is that because of the good nature principle the contract wouldn’t be valid anyway right? But he clearly set conditions for saving the life of the other person in this scenario therefore it is a contract and not an act of good nature.
@@mrdaniel511 well yeah that's kinda how it is. Unless it's implied which gets into more hairy territory because that's hard to tell what's going on. It's the equivalent of asking the question of is this a gift or is it something that I would have to have consideration for, thus making it a valid contract.
"Daylights, or sunsets, or midnights, or cups of coffee?"
Did you borrow the lyric or rent it?
dang it, I'd taken a sip as I was perusing the comments!
And now I'm mopping my keyboard.
I was hoping I wasn't the only Broadway and Witcher fan in the audience
+
How much love for that princess? I measure in love.
@@charon59 then its going to be 525,600 love please.
I swear he's more creative in this episode then I've ever seen. He's really getting into his creative side. :3
The fact that they "conveniently" already met and fell in love offscreen is consistent with the destiny theme that they were going for with the law of surprise. It's not a case of contrived coincidence.
Much like Geralt himself was also trying to avoid his surprise for over a decade but fate kept leading him back to Ciri.
“No one ever talked to their lawyer and was like ‘I love talking to my lawyer. They let me do whatever I want!’”
I saw that. Awesome burn.
Lawyer: You can't 'contract' for people.
Gaunter O'Dimm: Maybe you can't.
4:20 you gloss over the most important aspect of tue law of surprise. The one even the games forgot. The promised person can reject the claim and make ot null and void
"Its a surprise for the giver and the receiver." That's almost exactly how my first child was born lmao...
...same...
Yes, I do believe many children are born like that
“Think devan think!”
*insert jimmy neutron brain blast scene*
"According to the Law of Gravity -"
"Think, Devon, you're a lawyer! You must know this! ... Wait a minute! That's not a real thing!"
Mhm. In the world depicted, while the Law of Surprise may look like a contract, it's more akin to a law of nature (i.e. destiny being a VERY real thing and not just 'woo') than something that can be interrogated and challenged by legal experts or adjudicated by a judge. Destiny doesn't care about lawmakers or lawyers.
It's also not enslavement (if admittedly too close for comfort sometimes) despite forming a powerful, magical link. Pavetta fell in love and Duny appears to feel that he is entitled to her hand in marriage, but that (according to Geralt, in the short story the episode in based on) only works out if Pavetta consents.
In fairness, the show is not clear on how Ciri->Geralt is different from Pavetta->Duny. Some are understandably confused and wondering if Geralt got himself a very young wife, but that's not it.
@@CybFrog Yeah, I kinda checked out of this video five minutes in because it seemed like Stone was so off the mark.
As for Geralt and Ciri, I think the show did a good job conveying the relationship, but I also found the time-jumping well-done and easy to follow, soo... *Shrug*
Well, the "law" seems more cultural than legal. Opposing it seems more taboo than anything else. Not counting the enforcement from "destiny" that is.
Also, Ciri is not his slave, but his daughter, it'd be like calling adoption, slavery, lol ("owning" is seemingly used very loosely in the law of surprise). He also only did it because he didn't plan to ever come back to claim the law of surprise. It wasn't really his fault that right then and there they found out.
More strictly if you want to point at this, the show, and I assume the books too, treat the child as belonging to the father. Otherwise, the child would not be included in the LOS as it wouldn't be the father's surprise. Like, it's not like someone bought you a puppy, or a new car, because in both those cases, you are the sole owner, but in most cases, custody is shared. In Geralt's case, you could argue that both parents are in debt to him, and therefore, Ciri can still be his child through the LOS, but it wouldn't have been the case for Ciri's father's claim on her mother, because he only saved the father of Ciri's mother. In short, it is unreasonable that you'd get a child through the LOS unless you saved both parents of that child (unless only the mother is alive and you save her, but that's sort of an exception as then she'd be the only one with custody to give away).
Well - "taboo" does not cover it... if you violate that thing - something really really bad happens to you.
In fact... Dunny - or Emhyr Var Emreis - would have little reason to sack Cintra if Ciri was not there and was with Geralt.
the world has all encompusing Magic field... one that interacts with everything. This creates a magical bond between people... and if you dont adhere to this bond - one noone knows how to dispell - there is a serious backlash against you.
Law of surprise - is more akin to Law of Physics rather then something "legal".
The only one who actually knew about stuff - Mousack (or Ermion) knew that messing up with this magic tendency is BAD BAD thing.
@@Paerigos, well, I did say "not counting the enforcement from 'destiny' that is."
Destiny in that universe is as you say, like a law of physics, and Geralt disrespected it by abandoning his custody of Ciri, so destiny forced them together. Like the violent tornado that ensued when the queen tried to kill the guy to break the LOS.
From witcher books: "'Everyone heard,' spoke Geralt, 'Baron Tigg tell us about the famous heroes taken from their
parents on the strength of the same oath that Urcheon received from King Roegner. But why should anyone want such an oath? You know the answer, Urcheon of Erlenwald. It creates a
powerful, indissoluble tie of destiny between the person demanding the oath and its object,
the child-surprise. Such a child, marked by blind fate, can be destined for extraordinary things. It can play an incredibly important role in the life of the person to whom fate has tied it. That is why, Urcheon, you demanded the prize you claim today. You don't want the throne of Cintra. You want the princess.'
'It is exactly as you say, knight unknown to me,' Urcheon laughed out loud. 'That is exactly
what I claim! Give me the one who is my destiny!'
'That,' said Geralt, 'will have to be proved.'
'You dare doubt it? After the queen confirmed the truth of my words? After what you've just
said?'
'Yes. Because you didn't tell us everything. Roegner knew the power of the Law of Surprise
and the gravity of the oath he took. And he took it because he knew law and custom have a power which protects such oaths, ensuring they are only fulfilled when the force of destiny confirms them. I declare, Urcheon, that you have no right to the princess as yet. You will win her only when-'
'When what?'
'When the princess herself agrees to leave with you. This is what the Law of Surprise states. It
is the child's, not the parent's, consent which confirms the oath, which proves that the child was born under the shadow of destiny."
It's not actually like an adoption, though. Ciri's only his "daughter" because he chooses to treat her as such, but Duny & Pavetta's (very uncomfortable, and I'm told much more uncomfortable in the books) relationship proves that the child of surprise isn't actually guaranteed a "child" role in the relationship. They belong to the other person, in whatever way the other person chooses, and just because Geralt's a kind "owner" doesn't cancel out the worrisome implications.
@@rachelr4126, more specifically, I'd argue that the LoS contracts the child of surprise to either become adopted or for there to be an arranged marriage.
In Geralt's case, it is the former, but in Duny's case, it was the latter (the circumstances that makes it one or the other seems unclear though?). However, I mentioned adoption because it is the most closely related thing I could think of which is legal.
There will also always be issues translating what is essentially a metaphysical contract into real law. Like, under what falls signing a contract with destiny as a witness for the CoS to be bound to the claimant?
I also don't believe what others mentioned above to be relevant. By the mere fact that the CoS is bound to the claimant by destiny, there is no choice, no free will. If I don't misremember, Geralt does the same to Yennefer through the genie (bind them by destiny), something she yells at him for.
This is sort of pointed out here in fantasywind's comment: 'It
is the child's, not the parent's, consent which confirms the oath, which proves that the child was born under the shadow of destiny." Implying that by destiny, the CoS will always consent to the claim (is it really consent if you're bound by destiny to consent and therefore had no real free will?).
An example of how it is not a choice is the sacking of Cintra, despite Geralt making it clear he had no interest in knowing Ciri, and Ciri not even being aware of his existence (can't answer for the books as I haven't read them).
I wouldn't call it "ownership" though, he doesn't "own" Ciri anymore than he "owns" Yennefer, but they are bound by destiny (also isn't specified exactly what that means?). By signing those contracts, he essentially cuffed himself to Ciri and Yennefer and then threw away the keys.
I can also imagine that the Witcher universe has quite the issue with pedophiles and scammers trying to create fake life or death situations to claim the LoS for a chance of something of high value or a CoS, and in the case of Pavetta, there's a question to be had about grooming.
The offer was “Name your reward” for doing a great deed.
Oh! I have an idea for one. "Selling your soul to the devil" has a lot of cultural context. Go large, go theological, take that one on. "Can you sell your soul to the devil? And how to get out of it?"
♫Toss a coin to your lawyer! Oh valley of plenty, oh valley of plenty!♫
well if someone were to invoke the law of surprise on me, they'd be getting a stack of bills, which is what usually awaits upon my return home!
This is my favorite, and arguably the smoothest, transition to the sponsor of the video. Bravo!
you should breakdown the PSYCH episode titled Cloudy with a chance of Murder
And then the remake where they really go fast and loose with procedure.
Please! I love psych and would love to see him review this.
PSYCH was SO good! I’d love a breakdown.
+
Law of Unfair Suprisery.
In Geralts defense and defense of The Law of Surprise Cintra is not part of the United States of America which means it not subject to any of the laws mentioned in the video.
Objection: (I'll stick to the show here too, as the books have more details I'm told) We're overlooking a lot of facts here that go into the law of surprise.
1) To invoke the law of surprise before saving a life, if someone is truly in mortal peril, wouldn't that borderline on manslaughter if you then chose not to help because they wouldn't agree? I think there is some type of issue there worth investigating further.
2) So let's assume the initial formation of law of surprise is after saving the life, as it is in the show. In all the examples we have, the law of surprise is invoked ONLY after someone having their life saved OFFERED payment. This is key here, the potential victim is offering up 'I owe you a debt, name your price'. There's our meeting of the minds. It hasn't ever been demanded or invoked against someones will.
3) When it comes to dealing with people, ambiguity presents some issues, agreed, but marriage is never indicated to be a requirement. In the case of Pavetta marriage is on the table because they've already been together, conveniently (and agreed, probably in Canada). But it's never required that they be married, so we're making assumptions on ambiguity. It could just mean if you've got a new baby, I'm now adopting it. Which is perfectly legal and there's ton of adoption law and contracts already, so I think the idea that it's only related to servitude represents one specific case. Since we don't see much slavery anywhere in the show, I'm going to make the mental jump it's not a thing allowed in society, the same as ours. And at that point, we also need to start making some other considerations to the times, such as dowry, inheritances and things that are all legal and still happen today, that could be mutually beneficial in the case of the transfer of a child.
4) The other thing we see is that everyone here, fortunately, is applying real logic to the law of surprise. Our first knight opted to forgo his payment of the child. Geralt also insisted he would not collect payment in that manner. There's definitely some more nuance going on here so I want to say we've been a little reductionist.
But we have also seen that those who refuse the reward given to them by fate suffer and are forced towards their reward/person linked to them by fate itself.
Geralt was pushed towards Ciry and towards Yen after he linked the 2 of them by fate with the last wish to save her life, it is explicitly shown that no matter how much we try to avoid fate in the Witcher's universe fate will always finda way.
GhostOutlaw you have no legal responsibility to rescue anyone. Someone could drown in front of you while you watched, and you’d still be legally in the clear unless you were the direct cause. - if you do choose to help, Good Samaritan laws will protect you from legal retaliation that might result from that (you can’t be sued for breaking someone’s rib while attempting life-saving cpr for instance) but you have no active obligation to help in any scenario.
The reason for this is obvious, if we make it a requirement to help then every time there is a fire tons of untrained unprepared civilians would need to rush in, endangering more people. Every time someone was injured people would need to try and fix it, regardless of their lack of medical experience, potentially resulting in damages. Every time there was a robbery, all the civilians would need to interfere, getting everybody else killed. And anyone who didn’t do those things would be open to legal damages, obviously a terrible system, we have professionals for a reason.
So you don’t have a responsibility to save the dying. - you could argue that the contract was made under duress, and thus can’t be enforced if he did, but you couldn’t get him for manslaughter because he wasn’t acting negligently, just using his right as a free citizen to do absolutely nothing.
@@ilo3456 So outright refusal and refusal of certain specificity are different! Geralt said he won't marry/rape/take the girl. It doesn't mean he can't accept her into her life and basically be a godfather. The context of the gift is vague enough to leave people a lot of room to not piss off fate, but follow through on all the terms agreed upon. It was the Queen who feared Geralt way more, Geralt had no ill intentions, and that's a sub point of contracts as well. Things need to be negotiated in good faith. Hence my previous point, if someone is hanging off a cliff and you tell them you'll help them up if they give you $1,000,000, they're going to say yes whether they have it or not. That's not a good faith negotiation.
@@GhostOutlaw True.
"wouldn't that borderline on manslaughter" lol not even close, you have no obligation to put your own life at risk to save someone else, ever.
Isn't the law: "a thing that I possess, but don't know of it?"
@Technobarb technically you should refer to the original polish text then I think
The different phrasing might otherwise be the result of the translations. Polish and english are very different after all
@@DocKrazy are you stating it can be translated differently as fact or speculation?
@@peythe as an educated speculation. The grammatical rules of both languages are quite different. Also the translation might have differnt implications. Maybe I'll actually look into it, though my polish isn't the best
@@DocKrazy How about what he says in the show...
@Technobarb in the book Geralt ask for what you have but don't know of.
Have you ever lawyered any old westerns? They seemed to love court scenes, and it would absolutely be an interesting comparison.
11:59 “how are we supposed to value that person’s life”
Well ...🎵🎶how about looooove?🎶
Eh, usually I'd go with lifetime earnings capacity
"you don't want Thomas Frank to make fun of you again" is a big mood
Objection, making a contract when you are about to lose your life would be classified as duress.
I bet the author of the books wished he claimed "law of suprise" for the games before then trying to sue the company. Haha
the surprise of the games doing really well :P
😂😂😂😂😂
There was a court case which is common in Europe where you sell the rights for cheap, and if it becomes a huge deal they owe you more money. It allows IPs to possibly grow, and still allows fair compensation to both parties afterwards. Its basically written into the law, that surprise of something becoming a thing doesn't leave you selling a golden goose for a few acorns.
Can you imagine LegalEagle in the house of court....His mighty defense of his client, who she was wrongfully wronged by the assaulter!
And a bard gracefully dances and sings around him, as he pleads the case.
Lol... This creep would only mount a "mighty defence" of his client, if his client agreed with his personal political views....
Objection! 🤓
Rent!! 😍
You quoted rent, and it was super-sneaky! 😄
I love it! Thank you! 🥰
I think the books say "something you dont expect when you get home..." or something
One important thing. The witcher guilds use this law to recruit.
And its I think its perfectly valid to not take something.
Something you already have but don't yet know. This is useful for kids because pregnancy lasts a while before anyone knows about it, but that little crotch goblin is something they have.
Objection! I finally had that damn song out of my head and now look what you've done.
I know this is a year old...but in the case of a Suprise Child, they are claimed no younger than 6ish, and the child has to give final consent to go with the Claimer.
you mean ive been watching the dude for almost a year, and come to find out his name...
is Devin...?
objection!
gameron55 lol what did think his name was “Lawyer McLawman”?
I just thought his name was 'Dad'
Devin, Devin Stone, attorney at law.
Eagle McLegalberg
It was Devinitely surprising to learn, yes.
Objection!
In the case of human beings being claimed as reward for the law of surprise, the Witcher clearly states that the person being claimed must agree to the claim to confirm their destinies and, therefore, for the law to apply.
That does not mean one can give themselves into slavery, however anyone can accept a marriage proposal (hold the jokes, boomers).
The cases in which a child is adopted are shakier, since the will of the child might still not be enough (idk).
(this is my second objection to this video, btw)
Actually, Geralt only give this as an explanation to make it easier for the nobles of Cintra to let their crown princess marry a lowly ranked noble. It's not a part of the law of suprise
A different yet related objection.
There is no need for the "wokeness" the law of surprise apply to boys as well as girls. In fact that is how witchers are created.
Gilian Staelen the irony is duny ends up taking over nilfgard
@@donaldtusk2678 did I just get spoiled😂 I think I did! I'm not gonna ask the very obvious questions that comes after that
“I love talking to my lawyer, they let me do whatever I want!” 😂 Love it! Excellent vid per usual, and it gave me flashbacks to 1L.