Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ekaton]

What about right of secession?

I think that secession would work better as a revolt, and I don't think that gameplay-wise fragmenting civs is a good idea. Besides, those are not modern states, fantasy world is approximately medieval/renaissance with countries working more as a patrimonium instead of governed by a nation. Even in case of republics it won't be as clear as to recognize a nation's right to secede and self-rule.

The only time secession makes sense is in case of an Empire falling, but then it should result in a civil war as existing nations would want to justify their rule over other states that emerged from the same empire.

Perhaps if we could have confederacies, this could work, but possibly through negotiations between civ and a certain part of it that wants to secede.

[Ekaton]

Wow.This has been one of the best post I have read in a long time. It´s very clear and exhaustive, and will (probably) solve a lot of problems in the future, good job man
But I have 2 questions:
Most of those laws require the implementation of the economy to work, such as taxes or production contracts, as well as the moving caravan arc, so, until that is putted into the game, how will civil contracts work at all?
-If I read correctly, each contract and judge session will need a scribe to ´´make it oficial´´, and make those legal papers be archived. Could you expand a little on that part?
Could those copies be looked at after a trial to, for example, obtain information about an enemy´s penalty or anything else?
Should those copies be stored somehow to prevent thiefs, as the disappearance of a contract would render it useless?

The first question - as I've said before - you can sign a contract with a craftsdwarf stipulating that he will produce certain goods for you, and you will pay him - without money existing properly, with items of equal value, such as loot. This wouldn't need implementation of the whole economy - just craftsdwarves of different professions - carpenters, bowyers, armorsmiths etc.

Basically the court needs an official to record the proceedings, or at least the sentence. For example in adv mode I imagine a trial as something done through dialogues - you decide who will speak, you will ask questions, and afterwards communicate the sentence. At the same time the court official will record the sentence, so that the player won't have to do it himself, and give it to both sides, and keep another copy in the archives, so that even years after that, it will be known, and sides will be able to obtain a copy even if theirs was stolen/destroyed/lost. The written sentence could for example be an evidence in the future -such as when you want to prove that a certain item is yours, and you show that it was considered yours by the court, or when you want a sheriff to evict someone forcefully.

In case of criminal cases - the copy should be sent to prison, and warden would choose the penalty based on it.

This could lead to some nice missions - for example to steal every copy of a sentence, or to swap it with a forgery. Doing so, you can essentially change the sentence, as the justice system would use the copy for any further proceedings.

For the player - yes, he should store the contracts safely, perhaps in a bank if we'll have those, in a hiding place, or anywhere else where it could be safe. Thieves could be given assignments to steal a valuable contract from those who signed it but don't want to do what those stipulate. There are many fun possibilities.

[WakeMeUp]

What about goblin law?

[Ekaton]

What about goblin law?

I have some ideas but I have yet to refine them.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Most impressive!

[Genubath]

On the topic of who is the Legeslative power holder ... , why can't there also be an individual who is the "Lawgiver"? This Lawgiver could have underlings who assist the duties of drafting laws and such, but the final say on the passing of the law or tax or whatever goes to the Lawgiver (With the Executive Holder being able to veto). This could lead to a weird reversal of the legislative and executive branches (of the democratic countries that have them) of our world where instead of there being one head executive and a legislative body, there could be a head legislator with an executive body. There might be (an incredibly bureaucratic) system where there are both a Legislative body and an executive body or a system of political rivalry between the heads of legislative and executive branches. These weird government forms could lead to interesting power dynamics (Especially if the two heads keep trying to assassinate each other).

On how to become a citizen ... maybe mandatory military service for an amount of time would be required for citizenship or maybe it would elevate you to a different class of citizen that have rights that second (third,fourth...) class citizens don't have like voting.

On the Subject of Criminal Law and punishment ... Some other punishments could be:
Banishment into the wilderness or a penal colony.
Forced military service in a penal legion either until they die a violent FUN death or for a specific period of time or number of battles.
Slavery / indentured servitude for life / a period of time

What do you think?

[Ekaton]

On the topic of who is the Legeslative power holder ... , why can't there also be an individual who is the "Lawgiver"? This Lawgiver could have underlings who assist the duties of drafting laws and such, but the final say on the passing of the law or tax or whatever goes to the Lawgiver (With the Executive Holder being able to veto). This could lead to a weird reversal of the legislative and executive branches (of the democratic countries that have them) of our world where instead of there being one head executive and a legislative body, there could be a head legislator with an executive body. There might be (an incredibly bureaucratic) system where there are both a Legislative body and an executive body or a system of political rivalry between the heads of legislative and executive branches. These weird government forms could lead to interesting power dynamics (Especially if the two heads keep trying to assassinate each other).

On how to become a citizen ... maybe mandatory military service for an amount of time would be required for citizenship or maybe it would elevate you to a different class of citizen that have rights that second (third,fourth...) class citizens don't have like voting.

On the Subject of Criminal Law and punishment ... Some other punishments could be:
Banishment into the wilderness or a penal colony.
Forced military service in a penal legion either until they die a violent FUN death or for a specific period of time or number of battles.
Slavery / indentured servitude for life / a period of time

What do you think?

About the legislative power holder - it indeed seems that I've forgotten about making the ruler into the lawgiver, was sure that I did. Thanks for your feedback!

As to your suggestion, some fine ideas here. I'll include them in my update of the OP. Thanks!

[Tatterdemalian]

Very impressive, though I would prefer the concept of law start from a procedural seed and grow from there. All the most successful elements of Dwarf Fortress seem to start from those, and the less successful elements are instead imposed from the top by the game engine declaring fixed requirements.

EDIT: Unintended threadjack removed. Will make new post with idea as soon as I have a decent draft typed up.

[FantasticDorf]

PTW

[Cub]

Your Fortress crumbles to dust in flood of bureaucracy

the sheer enormity of this post is impressive and i acknowledge the work involved in the thought and writing. just, if i may mention...
these ideas seem to be heavily influenced by US legal system and thoughts. it is mostly focused on pure law, letting culture and politics out of sight. if laws su..."aren't appreciated" france and russia are examples for ways how people change that themselves. egypt is an example that people grow tired of overthrowing the government if the successors don't get better after too many tries. maybe ideas from the not-so-ideal actual implementation of legal systems and ideas from other parts of the world might make it even more interesting.
to make a legal system sane it requires the implementation of more sophisticated culture and politics and influences between them. considering that DF aims to simulate existence that seems to be an imperative.

i can't see a real democracy or (military, economic or religious) dictatorship possible. such would not just require laws but also politics and culture.
also the leader might be split apart into chancellor, maybe chained by some parliament and a neutered president, i. e. making a hereditary monarchy president by law and let the chancellor be elected - which way ever. for that you could take a look at the UK or netherlands.
also citizen should be - at least influenced - in decision making by their intelligence. not-so-intelligent beings should rather listen to loud, short and simple worded market criers politicians and rather support the ideas the most people dislike to show that they are generally unsatisfied with their life circumstances in the fortress or their civilization or even to damage their fellow men, dwarfs, elves, whatever. a school system might be a good idea, not just for politics/laws but also to train kids to start adulthood with a higher skill in a certain profession... but that should be subject of another thread... still, in a democracy not-so-intelligent beings will be breaking - at least influencing laws and will turn it into a dictatorship if their kind outweighs and will increase crime which again is a matter of law. then there will be dictatorship or some tiny government making laws and things citizen just don't care about. maybe they might even have a second government of their own. how would you handle this by laws and punishment?

slavery isn't just (limited) legal or illegal. it can be fully illegal by law but people can still be legally forced to work for just a slice of bread a day, some by economic pressure ("work or starve"), some by cultural pressure ("you are worthless without a job"), some by emotional pressure ("love is shown by value of presents" or "i love you. you love me, right? so go prostitue yourself for me"), some by legal loopholes. that brings in the suggestion of begging and gifting (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=159491.0) and prostitution (not linking that discussion, it has a funny smell sometimes). begging might also be a matter of law. but laws alone don't feed one so beings without a job, for reasons of health, laziness or simply because there is not enough work for all citizen, need social benefits, friends, help of some NGO or a mix of that. same for prostitution, which can be forced by needs or lust, though it might be tricky to implement that in a proper decent way. that would be a matter of laws as well.

i also can't find the possibility of "monetary incentives" by lobbies for the rulers, laws about such is a heavily discussed subject in several countries. "i know, selling this stuff is illegal... but maybe we could discuss it further and you could overthink this again at a good dinner, ok? i pay for it. it doesn't have to be allowed by law, just secretly by justice, just for me would be enough. they don't have to actually allow it, they just gotta be blind..." or just "i pay for the dinner and you listen to my idea, ok?! i know a fine expensive restaurant..." social skills required for that already are in the game. besides it could be merged with the suggestion of persuasive magic and minions (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=159440.0).

not every tribe, city or civilization requires laws. some have laws no one cares about. some fully lack of them. some follow those with the biggest clubs, others those with the biggest words and some are just a free for all deathmatch.

citizenship is not less controversial than sexuality. a fully separated fortress should have some drawbacks, like it might die off after some generations since a gene pool of 200 is just too tiny to keep the peoples alive and healthy. laws for incest and such would be useful as well.

well, these are just some hints that a legal system might benefit if there is more than just laws, like laws and revolution don't fit well together. these thoughts can be improved a lot and there is a lot more which could be taken into account. i suggest to be very careful with hard coded enforcement of laws since that might cripple the possibilities of the game.

sometimes my writing is a bit mistakable, i am not saying the idea of sophisticated laws is bad, rather the opposite, i just believe that it needs to be extended and opened, a lot.

[Azerty]

Property statuses needs to be settled, and should maybe divided between chattel and real property:

Real property
Real property would include land, buildings and any thing permantly bound to it, such as serfs (slaves bound to a plot of land), workshops,
some cattle,

• Absolute property: The owner is absolutely propertary of his stuff
• Collective property: The land belongs to the covilization/tribe/city/village, and the owner only has rights to use (usus and fructus, as said the Romans) - Tribals should be able to use only this law
• Fee tail allowed: Land can be entailed so that they only pass to the descendents
• Feudal allowed: The owner receives rights of uses from the local lord in exchange for services such as military service, cash or tributes, and can lose his land according to the title granting him usage rights and the local customs

Chattel property should include any thing moveable and able to be appropriated; it should be subjected to the same kinds of laws as real property (a civilisation could have land only owned collectively but chattel absolutely owned)

I would also include religions as a source of law, since canon law had a great influence during the Middle Age; corporations, such as temples and trade guilds, should be able to have specific law related to their internal dealings -e.g., how two traders can sue each other or if a priest is lawfully seated.

[Genubath]

Commanding the military - includes deciding the course of action, appointing generals, ordering troops to be trained etc.
Executive Power Holder commands the military
Legislative Power Holder commands the military
A person chosen either by Executive Power Holder or Legislative Power Holder commands the military, for life, for a fixed period of time, or until being replaced

Could there be a separate Commander-in-Chief Who commands the military? His job would be:

• Commanding the army
• Overseeing recruitment (depending on draft law)
• Petitioning the Executive/Legislative power holder for the ability to initiate a draft
• Maybe staging coups

Power to declare war and sign peace treaty
Can belong to either power holder

Power to impose new taxes
Can belong to either power holder while another can have veto.

Somewhere in there should be:
Power to conscript/recruit for the military:
Can belong to either power holder or commander in Chief

Bill of Rights - based on civ's values/ethics
Basically includes the rights which the civ accepts. If a certain right is not in the constitution, it is not guaranteed, so the other extreme is simply the law not covering that matter - not guaranteeing a certain right.

The right to worship freely.
The right to worship non-violent religions.

The right to free speech.
The right to not be imprisoned unless sentenced or during the prosecution.
The right to own property.
The right to be free from conscription
The right to possess arms

Rights of women - based on civ's values/ethics
They are superior to men
Equal
They can be nobles but cannot perform certain tasks, they can own property only as widows.
They can be nobles but cannot perform certain tasks and they can't own property.
They can own property, but cannot be nobles or perform certain tasks
They have no rights, and cannot be nobles and/or perform certain tasks

Rights of men - if women are superior, then one of these is chosen
They can be nobles but cannot perform certain tasks, they can own property only as widows.
They can be nobles but cannot perform certain tasks and they can't own property.
They can own property, but cannot be nobles and/or perform certain tasks
They have no rights, and cannot be nobles and/or perform certain tasks

Slavery - based on civ's values/ethics
Illegal
Legal as indentured servants for a period of up to a year/2 years/5 years/10 years/25 years
Legal, but cannot be killed
Legal, can be killed with a good reason
Legal, can be killed without a reason

Conscription/Recruitment Law:
How are recruits obtained?

• Volunteers only
• Conscription only during war time
• Conscription during peace
• Conscription only with the approval of both/either Power Holder (This could also be paired with the other options)

Who will be allowed in the military>

• Male/Female/Both?
• All or Specific races? (Only dwarves and maybe humans in the army! no elves allowed! )
• Only Citizens or are non-citizens allowed?
• Certain age groups? (like 18 to 60 for humans)
• Slaves?

Who can be Conscripted?

• Male/Female/Both?
• All or Specific races?
• Only Citizens or are non-citizens allowed?
• Certain age groups?
• Slaves?

How to become a citizen
Ius soli
Ius sanguinus

Is there a petition to live somewhere or not. Perhaps you can always settle there if you want and become citizen by buying land in the town or renting a room?
Perhaps you will only be assimilated after a fixed period of time and granted rights and duties of a citizen.
Perhaps the town is so elitist that you can never become its citizen.

Perhaps only members of certain races can become citizens

Spell correction: Jus sanguinis (sorry, nitpick )
Perhaps you could reorganize the paragraph into:

• Must be a land owner/renter
• After a period of time in residence
• May petition for citizenship

I would also add:

• Must be of a certain race
• Through military service

If a town was super eliteist and wouldn't allow outsiders to become citizens, I would think that their only citizenship law would be Ius sanguinis.

Punishments
Public humiliation
Lashes
Fine
Imprisonment for a fixed period of time or for life
Beating
Hard labor for a fixed period of time or for life
Death penalty

Maybe add:

• Banishment (maybe to a penal colony or just forced to wander)
• Branding (Literally branded as a criminal. Maybe there are specific brands for different crimes.)
• Forced military service
• Loss of citizenship
• Body part removal (depending on severity of the crime, this could range from a finger/toe to a hand/ foot or even an entire arm/leg)
• Imprisonment in a torture dungeon for a fixed period of time or for life

instead of "Hard labor for a fixed period of time or for life", it could be seperated into:

• Public Service for a fixed period of time or for life
• Sold as a slave (maybe branded/ tattooed with a "Release by" date haha)

[crazyabe]

• Body part removal (depending on severity of the crime, this could range from a finger/toe to a hand/ foot or even an entire arm/leg)

I can see how the game would react to that now, even withit being based off crime severity:
Thievery: Loss of Stomach and left hand, Murder: Loss of tongue ad both legs, Failing to make an impossible item for a noble: Loss of head, heart, and Spine followed by 101 lashes with a whip.

[GoblinCookie]

I find most of the OP legal suggestions to be rather anachronistic and US-centric; DF society as it presently stands would not bother to invent hardly any of those laws anyway.  To pick two of the worst offenders.

Property statuses needs to be settled, and should maybe divided between chattel and real property:

Real property
Real property would include land, buildings and any thing permantly bound to it, such as serfs (slaves bound to a plot of land), workshops,
some cattle,

• Absolute property: The owner is absolutely propertary of his stuff
• Collective property: The land belongs to the covilization/tribe/city/village, and the owner only has rights to use (usus and fructus, as said the Romans) - Tribals should be able to use only this law
• Fee tail allowed: Land can be entailed so that they only pass to the descendents
• Feudal allowed: The owner receives rights of uses from the local lord in exchange for services such as military service, cash or tributes, and can lose his land according to the title granting him usage rights and the local customs

Chattel property should include any thing moveable and able to be appropriated; it should be subjected to the same kinds of laws as real property (a civilisation could have land only owned collectively but chattel absolutely owned)

I would also include religions as a source of law, since canon law had a great influence during the Middle Age; corporations, such as temples and trade guilds, should be able to have specific law related to their internal dealings -e.g., how two traders can sue each other or if a priest is lawfully seated.

Nobility
Basically - are there nobles in the civ.

What are nobles, is that like a type of bird? 

Rights of women - based on civ's values/ethics
They are superior to men
Equal
They can be nobles but cannot perform certain tasks, they can own property only as widows.
They can be nobles but cannot perform certain tasks and they can't own property.
They can own property, but cannot be nobles or perform certain tasks
They have no rights, and cannot be nobles and/or perform certain tasks

Rights of men - if women are superior, then one of these is chosen
They can be nobles but cannot perform certain tasks, they can own property only as widows.
They can be nobles but cannot perform certain tasks and they can't own property.
They can own property, but cannot be nobles and/or perform certain tasks
They have no rights, and cannot be nobles and/or perform certain tasks

So the setup where men are in charge is identical to the setup where women are in charge aside from that fact.  This implies the societies are essentially identical, but if they are identical then the same gender will be in charge in both societies.  A completely different set of principles would apply in a matriarchal society than applies in a patriarchal society, it essentially has to as those things are not arbitrary.

Property statuses needs to be settled, and should maybe divided between chattel and real property:

Real property
Real property would include land, buildings and any thing permantly bound to it, such as serfs (slaves bound to a plot of land), workshops,
some cattle,

• Absolute property: The owner is absolutely propertary of his stuff
• Collective property: The land belongs to the covilization/tribe/city/village, and the owner only has rights to use (usus and fructus, as said the Romans) - Tribals should be able to use only this law
• Fee tail allowed: Land can be entailed so that they only pass to the descendents
• Feudal allowed: The owner receives rights of uses from the local lord in exchange for services such as military service, cash or tributes, and can lose his land according to the title granting him usage rights and the local customs

Chattel property should include any thing moveable and able to be appropriated; it should be subjected to the same kinds of laws as real property (a civilisation could have land only owned collectively but chattel absolutely owned)

I would also include religions as a source of law, since canon law had a great influence during the Middle Age; corporations, such as temples and trade guilds, should be able to have specific law related to their internal dealings -e.g., how two traders can sue each other or if a priest is lawfully seated.

Absolute Property laws are nonsense, there can be no such thing as absolute property laws since the very fact that it is a law means that the property they claim to own falls under the property claim of some collective entity in the first place (No2).  If they are making laws to establish something as somebody's absolute property then all they are doing is choosing to pretend to alienate their own collective property, except that to do so would place it outside of their legal jurisdiction so their own laws on absolute property would no longer apply; in other words the ability to decide the legal status of the property means that the collective entity actually owns the property.  The last two are more or less redundant, the third one is not a type of property but instead a succession law for private property held by an individual. 

The fourth is not a law a such, feudal systems were contracts by which collective property is handed over to individual tenants as part of a contract not a central legal imperative decided on a societal level.  There was never any legal requirement on the overlords to run things that way, the overlords ruled over collective property (No2) and distributed it over to private individuals on leaseholds in order to get stuff back.  There was also no legal obligation in the reverse since the overlords control the legal system prior to anything else, effectively meaning that there is effectively no way that anybody would ever manage to challenge the overlords for any land that was explicitly held on a feudal basis should they decide to terminate the feudal contract with them. 

[ldog]

I find most of the OP legal suggestions to be rather anachronistic and US-centric; DF society as it presently stands would not bother to invent hardly any of those laws anyway.

Yeah, pretty much sums it up. Snipped the rest for brevity, but I agree with all the rest of your points too (you're pretty sensible when you aren't spouting correlation==causation nonsense ).