The right to rule

According to all ancient lore, one of the precepts of the state of being (commandments the crafters gave to humans to live fulfilled lives) was that humans were not allowed to craft. The final verses in this precept however stated that humans were granted the right to rule, implying that the crafters do not have a say in the sovereignty of human domains and the laws by which these are governed, as long as they abide by all the precepts. To kings, queens, despots and petty local lords alike, this verse became the justification to the legitimacy of their rule. By the fate of Aminduis, they had taken the opportunity to rule, and those who were not in a position to rule, would under no circumstance be allowed to question Authority.   The right to rule lead to a global society that was strictly hierarchal. Peasants and lowlifes in general would either be heretical rebels, or piously abide to the precepts. Naturally, exceptions occurred. Over time, the right to rule was interpreted to be independent of the act of ruling. One could lose the right to rule while still being a ruler, just as one could lose rulership while still having the divine right to rule. The crafters never revealed the complete interpretation of the right to rule, but this particular interpretation, which became widely accepted among the Mirvani, Etaliri and Grahni, has lead to the questioning of rulership of an established ruler. The most famous example is the loss of legitimacy of the house of Tarnun after the destruction of the temple of Ranién. After this, the heraditary lowlife of house Alvarez, Rafganor, was made king, and his legitimacy and right to rule was unquestioned. Though in the first few years of his rule, there was fear among Mittrellians about the interpretation of the right to rule, but when there was no Crenex, it was now accepted by virtually all Mittrellians that the right to rule was indeed independent from the act of ruling.