Print

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

[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)

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.

By "absolute property" I meant fee simple.

By "collective property" I meant land owned at the village or the town level and alloted to the inhabitants according to the needs by the local council (like the Russian mir or the kibbutz).

I agree entails or majorates must have been filed under succession laws.

By "feudalism" I meant any system where the holder of an estate, named fief, is allowed to exerce sovereign rights such as taxation or justice - indeed, some of these fiefs could constitute parts of this soveregnity such as toll rights on a bridge.

[GoblinCookie]

By "absolute property" I meant fee simple.

By "collective property" I meant land owned at the village or the town level and alloted to the inhabitants according to the needs by the local council (like the Russian mir or the kibbutz).

I agree entails or majorates must have been filed under succession laws.

By "feudalism" I meant any system where the holder of an estate, named fief, is allowed to exerce sovereign rights such as taxation or justice - indeed, some of these fiefs could constitute parts of this soveregnity such as toll rights on a bridge.

By absolute property you just mean private property I guess. 

Laws are not systems, laws are created *for* systems that are not in themselves entirely written down as law.  Feudalism is therefore *not* a law, feudalism is a system that *has* laws of a certain type which carry out a given function under that system.  Laws are created according to a given system by those in legislative authority and come in two types.

Conservative Laws: These laws serve to protect part of a given system considered desirable by the legislative authority from something that threatens it's integrity.  A RL example of this are laws against murder.

Transformative Laws: These laws serve to undermine part of a given system considered undesirable by the legislative authority in order to either destroy it altogether or turn into something more desirable.  A RL example of this are laws against workplace discrimination. 

This is why I called the OP ideas anachronistic, the vast majority of those laws would not exist because the system that we have in the game at the moment would never have any cause to implement them; the devs would have to spend years designating a whole array of different systems in order then be able to justify introducing the array of laws that those systems would produce;  it is better to focus on the present system and think of what laws the present system would produce, along the above two lines as this allows the devs to get on with adding in the laws right away without having to spend time inventing a whole raft of different systems beyond the extent that it needed to add in the various starting scenarios etc. 

To start with the Transformative Laws, we have to think of people to whom the present order is not a desirable state of affairs, this will be those with a positive opinion of [INDEPENDANCE] and/or a negative opinion of [COOPERATION], since dwarf entities in vanilla meet neither of these criteria there will no Transformative Laws in existence since nobody in authority will be unhappy with the social system of the dwarf fortress dwarves.  If we were dealing with creatures with different values then it is possible that there would be Transformative Laws passed but that it all extra work for the devs in order for something to happen that will not presently happen in vanilla with any significant probability. 

This leaves us with only Conservative Laws.  In a sandbox by which the site population is trapped in the site territory we only need basic laws to keep dwarves from fighting and killing eachother.  It is independently acting individuals that are acting outside of the site box, in other words adventurers that stand to cause disruption to the social system and the threat they pose requires Conservative Laws in order to protect/enforce the social system.  For instance if a site member can help themselves to food, drinks, clothing and jewelry from the stockpiles of their site, however what happens if an individual site member decides to help themselves to the entire drinks stockpile of their site and then leaves the site?  In a sandbox this is not a problem since the dwarves cannot accomplish anything by helping themselves to more drinks that they can drink since they cannot leave the site and sell them to some other party to make themselves richer, return to their site and repeat the process.  Equally members of one site could 'migrate' to another site in order to cart off the drinks of another site and then migrate back to their original site bringing their drinks with them to add to that site's stockpiles, thus living parasitically at the expense of the other site. 

There are number of Conservative Laws that could be passed here to fix the situation.  One of them would be to place a strict limit on the amount of drinks that any site member can claim per a given amount of time.  Another would be to allow site members to take over a limited amount of drinks offsite per a given period but allow them to freely consume as many drinks as they wish otherwise.  A third option would be to forbid any drinks from being carried offsite by members.  A fourth option is to issue 'adventurer licenses' that entitle particular individuals to carry off drinks while forbidding site members from doing so by default and then to revoke those licenses if the system is abused by the individual.  A fifth option is to pay all site dwarves a fixed wage per a given period and then set the price of each drink low enough that they can always consume purchase enough drinks for their own needs.  In all cases we need a system to enforce the state of affairs, a clear statement of the rules in order so people are clear as to what they can or cannot do and penalties for disobedience; in other words we need laws.

[Arthropleura]

This is why I called the OP ideas anachronistic, the vast majority of those laws would not exist because the system that we have in the game at the moment would never have any cause to implement them; the devs would have to spend years designating a whole array of different systems in order then be able to justify introducing the array of laws that those systems would produce;  it is better to focus on the present system and think of what laws the present system would produce, along the above two lines as this allows the devs to get on with adding in the laws right away without having to spend time inventing a whole raft of different systems beyond the extent that it needed to add in the various starting scenarios etc.

I highly doubt Toady aka "the devs" WANTS to keep the current system in place. The current system is very samey and stagnant which is diametrically opposed to the world of organic stories that dwarf fortress is supposed to produce. It is important to remember that DF is not a product, it doesn't matter what kind of game we want, it only matters what kind of game "the devs" want. And "the devs" have shown time and again that simplistic place holders for upcoming complex systems are not the desired end state.

To start with the Transformative Laws, we have to think of people to whom the present order is not a desirable state of affairs, this will be those with a positive opinion of [INDEPENDANCE] and/or a negative opinion of [COOPERATION], since dwarf entities in vanilla meet neither of these criteria there will no Transformative Laws in existence since nobody in authority will be unhappy with the social system of the dwarf fortress dwarves.  If we were dealing with creatures with different values then it is possible that there would be Transformative Laws passed but that it all extra work for the devs in order for something to happen that will not presently happen in vanilla with any significant probability.

Values are randomized on the individual level and on the civilization level, although an individuals values are rarely far from their original civs values it's not impossible for an individual to be wholly opposed to the norm.

[GoblinCookie]

I highly doubt Toady aka "the devs" WANTS to keep the current system in place. The current system is very samey and stagnant which is diametrically opposed to the world of organic stories that dwarf fortress is supposed to produce. It is important to remember that DF is not a product, it doesn't matter what kind of game we want, it only matters what kind of game "the devs" want. And "the devs" have shown time and again that simplistic place holders for upcoming complex systems are not the desired end state.

We pay for the devs, so no the devs do not get to ignore our wishes entirely; not if they want donations to keep on coming.

Yes the devs could throw out the whole game and start again entirely from scratch but that would be a completely new and different game, which would require them to redo 10 years of work all over again.  A placeholder is something that holds a place within a larger system, hence the name placeholder; by definition the whole game system as a whole can never be a placeholder but only one element of the system.

It does not make sense for them introduce more complex systems in order to then have more complex legal systems because even simple systems create complex legal systems as I have pointed out based on my analysis of what laws would exist based upon the present "simple placeholder" system.  A more complex basic system multiplies the work of generating a legal system for that system, creating more bugs while preventing existing bugs from being quickly fixed due to the sheer amount of hard work that is needed, plus causing the game to become unbalanced.  The development of a simple legal system for the simplistic system and then simultaneous incremental additions to the system *and* the legal system is far better. 

Values are randomized on the individual level and on the civilization level, although an individuals values are rarely far from their original civs values it's not impossible for an individual to be wholly opposed to the norm.

The individual never has the ability to do wholly as he likes.  An individual, even a king might happen to have an opposing value system in an area but he will not be able to actually do anything that radical without wider support from the populace and the elite, if he tries he will be forced to back down, be overthrown or the reform will simply be subtly ignored in practice.  This means that alternative systems corresponding to opposite values than the present dwarf values do not really have applicability in fortress mode as long as dwarves remain the only playable race since no dwarf society will implement them.  This means that the devs do not have to take those things out of world gen and actually implement them until such a time as other races become playable or dwarf societies as a whole can have more varying values.

[LMeire]

I highly doubt Toady aka "the devs" WANTS to keep the current system in place. The current system is very samey and stagnant which is diametrically opposed to the world of organic stories that dwarf fortress is supposed to produce. It is important to remember that DF is not a product, it doesn't matter what kind of game we want, it only matters what kind of game "the devs" want. And "the devs" have shown time and again that simplistic place holders for upcoming complex systems are not the desired end state.

We pay for the devs, so no the devs do not get to ignore our wishes entirely; not if they want donations to keep on coming.

...

Dude, it's a work of art and nobody owes you anything besides the promised crayon drawing/story; yes they absolutely can ignore suggestions outright. People will still donate for the sheer fascination of the work's depth and complexity even if you're personally displeased with it's direction.

[Arthropleura]

We pay for the devs, so no the devs do not get to ignore our wishes entirely; not if they want donations to keep on coming.

Yes the devs could throw out the whole game and start again entirely from scratch but that would be a completely new and different game, which would require them to redo 10 years of work all over again.  A placeholder is something that holds a place within a larger system, hence the name placeholder; by definition the whole game system as a whole can never be a placeholder but only one element of the system.

I'm sorry? Are you implying that you send toady a check every month under a contract that stipulates that he program a game for you in exchange for monetary remuneration? No? Well then I guess you don't "pay for the devs". Bay12 isn't Bethesda where they need to keep selling in order to keep making games. You know what would happen if everyone stopped donating? Toady would get a job somewhere and he would keep making this game. DF has been in early alpha for nearly a decade. Toady is an artist and DF is his masterpiece, he's not going to radically change his vision because some random forumite thinks he's owed something for donating. For someone who claims to understand social and economic forces you really seem clueless to what drives the great toad.

It does not make sense for them introduce more complex systems in order to then have more complex legal systems because even simple systems create complex legal systems as I have pointed out based on my analysis of what laws would exist based upon the present "simple placeholder" system.  A more complex basic system multiplies the work of generating a legal system for that system, creating more bugs while preventing existing bugs from being quickly fixed due to the sheer amount of hard work that is needed, plus causing the game to become unbalanced.  The development of a simple legal system for the simplistic system and then simultaneous incremental additions to the system *and* the legal system is far better.

Reality is complicated at every level, and DF is supposed to simulate a fantastical reality. What you call simple is already massively complex, and it's just going to get more complex as time goes on. Or rather, it's going to get more realistic. Without randomized values and government systems(maybe) every civ in a race would have the same laws, and remain stagnant for ever. However with such randomization it's entirely possible for radical agitators to go around convincing people of their ways of thinking, eventually sparking a civil war, and if they win, well then we have a leadership that has cause to enact laws that were contrary to the old order. Same goes for when a foreign civ conquers a site, new laws.

The individual never has the ability to do wholly as he likes.  An individual, even a king might happen to have an opposing value system in an area but he will not be able to actually do anything that radical without wider support from the populace and the elite, if he tries he will be forced to back down, be overthrown or the reform will simply be subtly ignored in practice.  This means that alternative systems corresponding to opposite values than the present dwarf values do not really have applicability in fortress mode as long as dwarves remain the only playable race since no dwarf society will implement them.  This means that the devs do not have to take those things out of world gen and actually implement them until such a time as other races become playable or dwarf societies as a whole can have more varying values.

I feel I must correct myself, currently humans are the only one with randomized values. And for someone with apparent socialist leanings you seem to be forgetting about popular movements. Insurrections already happen, and it's entirely possible to play Karl Marx and go around changing people beliefs through debate and convincing people to revolt in adventure mode. One person can have a massive tranformative impact on society. Master Kong, Karl Marx, Martin Luther, Iulius Augustus Ceaser... The list goes on. It's not impossible for radicals to gain power and enforce their values through "tranformative laws" Just look at every Fascist or Communist regime ever.

[GoblinCookie]

Dude, it's a work of art and nobody owes you anything besides the promised crayon drawing/story; yes they absolutely can ignore suggestions outright. People will still donate for the sheer fascination of the work's depth and complexity even if you're personally displeased with it's direction.

I do not recall ever claiming that the devs are obligated to take suggestions seriously, in fact I was the one basically suggesting that the OPs suggestion should be basically ignored in the first place and a different, less anachronistic basis for the legal system drawn up.

I'm sorry? Are you implying that you send toady a check every month under a contract that stipulates that he program a game for you in exchange for monetary remuneration? No? Well then I guess you don't "pay for the devs". Bay12 isn't Bethesda where they need to keep selling in order to keep making games. You know what would happen if everyone stopped donating? Toady would get a job somewhere and he would keep making this game. DF has been in early alpha for nearly a decade. Toady is an artist and DF is his masterpiece, he's not going to radically change his vision because some random forumite thinks he's owed something for donating. For someone who claims to understand social and economic forces you really seem clueless to what drives the great toad.

I donate to the devs in order that they continue to develop the game, if the devs were to entirely forget about the game and do something else altogether the donations would stop coming, equally if a very long period of time were to pass with no sign of development the donations would likely reduce considerably.  If Toady One were to get a regular job then the time taken on that job would take up most of his time and energy, meaning that the development of the game would slow to a crawl; the loss of momentum could quite possibly kill off the devs interest in developing the game altogether since the slowness of progress in something tends to kill off motivation to continue.  Additionally having an active and engaging fan-base tends to be motivating, a lack of such a fan-base demotivating.   

What drives the Great Toad then is very much our donations and  Toady One and Threetoes tend to remind us of this monthly.  So in the vision of the Great Toad, which you seem to think you know and speak for, our donations are very important.  Talking about the subject of developer vision, you come across like you speak for the devs somehow and can thus imply that I am proposing a radical change to the devs vision which you alone understand perfectly.

Reality is complicated at every level, and DF is supposed to simulate a fantastical reality. What you call simple is already massively complex, and it's just going to get more complex as time goes on. Or rather, it's going to get more realistic. Without randomized values and government systems(maybe) every civ in a race would have the same laws, and remain stagnant for ever. However with such randomization it's entirely possible for radical agitators to go around convincing people of their ways of thinking, eventually sparking a civil war, and if they win, well then we have a leadership that has cause to enact laws that were contrary to the old order. Same goes for when a foreign civ conquers a site, new laws.

A fantastical reality is even worse than actual reality as far as complexity goes. 

I know that it is going to get more complicated, this is why I want the devs to conjure up a legal system for the game based upon the presently implemented game society because the legal system is always more complex than the basic social/economic system that it is based upon, even more when we are talking about 'possible' legal arrangements rather than merely the legal arrangements that are.  As the game's basic systems become more complex then the legal system needed to deal with those systems will get exponentially more complex.  From the dev page I would conclude to some extent the devs understand this, since they are tying the start of the development of a more complex basic system (starting scenarios, the global economy, development of fortress mode economy etc.) to the development of a legal system. 

It is not possible to change civ values at the moment, merely to (in adventure mode) convince individuals to adopt your values rather than that of their civilization, however even if you were to convince every single member of a civilization of a particular set of values, the values of the civilization itself would remain unchanged and new people born or generated would have those values rather than the values of the individuals.  Radical agitators opposing the present order and civil wars over values are not presently a game mechanic, though the existence of individuals with divergent views from the civilization as a whole is one step in that direction; that means there is no sense in the devs working out fortress mode systems at odds with present dwarf civ values since there is no way that those values can ever change. 

I feel I must correct myself, currently humans are the only one with randomized values. And for someone with apparent socialist leanings you seem to be forgetting about popular movements. Insurrections already happen, and it's entirely possible to play Karl Marx and go around changing people beliefs through debate and convincing people to revolt in adventure mode. One person can have a massive tranformative impact on society. Master Kong, Karl Marx, Martin Luther, Iulius Augustus Ceaser... The list goes on. It's not impossible for radicals to gain power and enforce their values through "tranformative laws" Just look at every Fascist or Communist regime ever.

It does not matter whether values are randomized or not, the only difference between dwarves with non-randomized values and humans with randomized values and humans with randomised ones is that in Yr0 the dwarf civilizations all get the same values while human civilizations get different values.  Neither races civilizations can ever budge one point from their starting positions, however long the history of the game lasts and whatever the player does, because the mechanics for doing this are not presently implemented.  This means that there is no sense in the devs initially implementing in fortress mode the mechanics for the full range of possible social and legal systems that would correspond to the varying values, since only dwarves are playable, dwarf civilizations all have identical values and there is no way for any civ's values to change. 

In any case it is never possible for a single individual who merely happens to personally disagree with the dominant values to successfully legislate according to those values at a civilization or even site level and actually transform anything at all.  This is because an individual whose powerbase is made up entirely of people of the regular values will either overthrow him or more likely simply give lip service to the characters decrees while quietly ignoring them in practice.  This means that there is presently no way for laws contrary to the civilizations 'eternal values' to ever function even though there are a few individuals who dissent from those values that might accidentally end up in a powerful position, the 'eternal values' will always bury anything they might legislate according to their own personal values. 

The real question is how to model the process of civilizational change, even in societies that do not have any books or scholars.  We should probably have some kind of faction mechanic, by which a historical character who happens to disagree, preferably strongly with the civilizations values but is part of will then recruit some more characters that also object to the same value to form a new civilization level sub-entity dedicated to changing the society's values in that direction.  We combine this with a mechanic that allows individuals to persuade other individuals to adopt their values (does not presently exist in worldgen) then the faction can grow to an unpredictable extent depending on the people it happens to have recruited.  If the faction gets large enough then an opposing faction to the first faction is created, which recruits people who agree with the status quo and those who think things "do not go far enough".  Then we have to model a series of conflicts whether violent or peaceful between the two factions allowing one of the factions to emerge victorious.  Both factions have a leader, initially the founder but they will be replaced from the ranks of the faction members if the founder dies or whatever.  The new civilization value on the given subject are simply the values of the victorious faction uploaded onto the civilization level, that means that it is possible for the 'conservative' side to change things as well if they win, provided their leader is of the "things do not go far enough".

[Genubath]

May I suggest that we keep on topic and discuss how law and government would work in DF instead of whether it should be implemented or what The Great Toad is obligated to do with his work AKA whatever he wants... This is just a suggestion thread...

[Arthropleura]

May I suggest that we keep on topic and discuss how law and government would work in DF instead of whether it should be implemented or what The Great Toad is obligated to do with his work AKA whatever he wants... This is just a suggestion thread...

Yes, it's for the best.

So it occurred to me that since we already make dwarf nobles  make mandates based on preferences, perhaps we could have rulers make laws based on preferences, beliefs, and values; and do this on every level.

For instance, Law-giver Nomen hates sheep, and thus bans the keeping of sheep. Baron Emsi doesn't care one way or the other and therefore enforces the law. Lord Shishen however, likes sheep.
 Now, Lord Shishen may or may not enforce the law depending on a number of factors; Beliefs, Values, Weather Lord Shishen thinks Law-Giver Nomen should die in a fire or that he's the best thing since sliced elf, etc..
If Lord Shishen decides not to enforce the law in his territories, that doesn't mean keeping sheep is legal, it just means that Lord Shishen's men aren't going to arrest you for it, but Baron Emsi's and Law-Giver Nomen's men will, if they happen upon anybody keeping sheep in Lord Shishen's lands. This may land Lord Shishen in a heap of trouble depending on weather or not Baron Emsi and Law-Giver Nomen Like him enough to let it slide.
This could happen at any level, it could be the baron banning sheep, and thus it would be illegal only in the barons territories, or even Lord Shishen being the one banning sheep. Although for the sake of not having laws being wildly different in every hamlet in the world perhaps it's best to re-intepret lords as knights with no law making authority at all. Especially since hamlets seem to be set up quite like medieval manors.

[GoblinCookie]

Yes, it's for the best.

So it occurred to me that since we already make dwarf nobles  make mandates based on preferences, perhaps we could have rulers make laws based on preferences, beliefs, and values; and do this on every level.

For instance, Law-giver Nomen hates sheep, and thus bans the keeping of sheep. Baron Emsi doesn't care one way or the other and therefore enforces the law. Lord Shishen however, likes sheep.
 Now, Lord Shishen may or may not enforce the law depending on a number of factors; Beliefs, Values, Weather Lord Shishen thinks Law-Giver Nomen should die in a fire or that he's the best thing since sliced elf, etc..
If Lord Shishen decides not to enforce the law in his territories, that doesn't mean keeping sheep is legal, it just means that Lord Shishen's men aren't going to arrest you for it, but Baron Emsi's and Law-Giver Nomen's men will, if they happen upon anybody keeping sheep in Lord Shishen's lands. This may land Lord Shishen in a heap of trouble depending on weather or not Baron Emsi and Law-Giver Nomen Like him enough to let it slide.
This could happen at any level, it could be the baron banning sheep, and thus it would be illegal only in the barons territories, or even Lord Shishen being the one banning sheep. Although for the sake of not having laws being wildly different in every hamlet in the world perhaps it's best to re-intepret lords as knights with no law making authority at all. Especially since hamlets seem to be set up quite like medieval manors.

But politically things do not work that way.  Law-Giver Nomen knows that his hatred of sheep is not shared by anyone but himself and hence if he implements a law on sheep it will either be ignored by everyone or he will be overthrown, if in response to the former he tries to crack down the latter will happen.  In order for Law-Giver Nomen to even consider turning his own personal views of sheep-hatred into legislation he has to have a force of other people who see things as Law-Giver Nomen sees them.  There has to be a movement of sheep-haters behind Law-Giver Nomen in order for anything to happen.  This is because the neutrals (Baron Emsi) either have no sheep already or they have sheep for some other reason; in the former case it does not matter than Baron Emsi would be willing to enforce the law since all the sheep are Lord Shishen's, in the latter case he is not going to enforce the law since it is costly, even though he does not care about sheep in theory.

Individuals cannot in isolation pass transformative legislation since they threaten existing systems and those systems have teeth.  To ban sheep is to directly attack the lifestyle of a whole lot of people who outnumber the Law-giver by a large amount.  Those people will flock to Lord Shishen's cause and Baron Emsi will be pressurized by his own shepherds into supporting the pro-sheep cause even though he personally might be willing to follow the law otherwise.  All in all this means that under most circumstances there will be many personal preferences or animosities of powerful people who will *not* be turned into legislation and we need to have a model for political movements before we can think about having laws intended to change a state of things.

[LMeire]

Yes, it's for the best.

So it occurred to me that since we already make dwarf nobles  make mandates based on preferences, perhaps we could have rulers make laws based on preferences, beliefs, and values; and do this on every level.

For instance, Law-giver Nomen hates sheep, and thus bans the keeping of sheep. Baron Emsi doesn't care one way or the other and therefore enforces the law. Lord Shishen however, likes sheep.
 Now, Lord Shishen may or may not enforce the law depending on a number of factors; Beliefs, Values, Weather Lord Shishen thinks Law-Giver Nomen should die in a fire or that he's the best thing since sliced elf, etc..
If Lord Shishen decides not to enforce the law in his territories, that doesn't mean keeping sheep is legal, it just means that Lord Shishen's men aren't going to arrest you for it, but Baron Emsi's and Law-Giver Nomen's men will, if they happen upon anybody keeping sheep in Lord Shishen's lands. This may land Lord Shishen in a heap of trouble depending on weather or not Baron Emsi and Law-Giver Nomen Like him enough to let it slide.
This could happen at any level, it could be the baron banning sheep, and thus it would be illegal only in the barons territories, or even Lord Shishen being the one banning sheep. Although for the sake of not having laws being wildly different in every hamlet in the world perhaps it's best to re-intepret lords as knights with no law making authority at all. Especially since hamlets seem to be set up quite like medieval manors.

But politically things do not work that way.  Law-Giver Nomen knows that his hatred of sheep is not shared by anyone but himself and hence if he implements a law on sheep it will either be ignored by everyone or he will be overthrown, if in response to the former he tries to crack down the latter will happen.  In order for Law-Giver Nomen to even consider turning his own personal views of sheep-hatred into legislation he has to have a force of other people who see things as Law-Giver Nomen sees them.  There has to be a movement of sheep-haters behind Law-Giver Nomen in order for anything to happen.  This is because the neutrals (Baron Emsi) either have no sheep already or they have sheep for some other reason; in the former case it does not matter than Baron Emsi would be willing to enforce the law since all the sheep are Lord Shishen's, in the latter case he is not going to enforce the law since it is costly, even though he does not care about sheep in theory.

...

Depends on what gives Nomen his authority in the first place; while the threat of a popular uprising keeps the leaders of somewhat liberal societies at bay, if he has Divine Right or iron-fisted control of the military, then he can make any damned laws he wants, because anyone that might resist would have to then deal with the wrath all those soldiers and/or the gods themselves. And that's assuming that he doesn't just involve some propaganda campaign to demonize sheep and make the law a popular movement, like blaming them for the plague or saying they're "unclean" in the gods' eyes.

[Arthropleura]

All this talk about popular support for lawmaker has given me another !!idea!!

Local customs! Things that aren't laws but nevertheless have consequences for violating!

Maybe in one town shouting is considered highly offensive and will get you spit on by passerbys.

Perhaps in a hamlet somewhere the handicapped are looked down upon and people refuse to talk to them.

Just crawled out of a sewer? Don't expect to see the mayor of Eno without getting a bath first. Oder is highly offensive there. Or maybe it was the reverse and you must spell like an ettins armpit at all times...

Something to think about at least.

[GoblinCookie]

Depends on what gives Nomen his authority in the first place; while the threat of a popular uprising keeps the leaders of somewhat liberal societies at bay, if he has Divine Right or iron-fisted control of the military, then he can make any damned laws he wants, because anyone that might resist would have to then deal with the wrath all those soldiers and/or the gods themselves. And that's assuming that he doesn't just involve some propaganda campaign to demonize sheep and make the law a popular movement, like blaming them for the plague or saying they're "unclean" in the gods' eyes.

Completely unhistorical in the extreme.  No ruler can do whatever he pleases in practice and *all* historical rulers are kept in check by the threat of a popular uprising, the more illiberal a society the more likely a popular uprising will happen and topple the government not the reverse; both because there is less prospect of removing the government legally and more prospect that the ruler will think he can do something he cannot.  The idea of a omnipotent ruler that can do absolutely whatever he pleases is always just a fantasy, ablait one that a large number of cultures believe in and another set of cultures believe in so as to think that they are in some sense special because this is not the case for them. 

In both the examples you listed the rulers are very much unable to do as they wish.  This is because their 'absolute power' is founded upon a basis which very much limits what they can do.  In one case the ruler has to maintain 'iron-fisted military control', which means he has to support a large number of soldier and maintain their loyalty, the moment he starts doing things that the soldiers dislike his 'iron-fisted military control' starts to fall apart; before long there will be a military coup and that is the end of our Nomen.  In the second instant of 'Divine Right' the ruler must constantly act so as to uphold the belief in the god that appointed him and also act in such a way that his actions are in accord to the nature of the god he claims to serve. 

Since absolute power is based upon something, absolute power may be an ideological thing but it is never an objective thing, since such a ruler is limited by the inability to act if it undermines the actual foundation of his 'absolute power'.  This leaves us with the final plank of the point, the propaganda campaign; the problem is that propaganda is simply just not that effective.  Propoganda continually fails to persuade people whose ideological views and interests are opposed to those of the propagandists, that is why history did not simply come to a halt when somebody invented it.  A single Law-Maker may start a propaganda campaign that sheep are evil incarnate but 100s of shepherds are not going to be persuaded by this and are simply going to start their own propaganda campaign to promote the angelic goodness of fluffy sheep, it is easy to figure out which of the two sides is going to have an easier time making it's case to the middle ground. 

This is not to say that everybody should be counted equally in a campaign.  A Law-Giver should certainly be counted as having greater weight in the campaign than a single shepherd but there is no way that a single Law-Giver that happens to hate sheep should be able to prevail against all the shepherds and their supporters alone without the support of a large number of ordinary people or a sizeable number of important ones.  Alone all that will happen is that the sheep-hating Law-Giver Nomen gets removed from office for reasons of 'insanity' the moment he starts to preach the evils of sheep.

All this talk about popular support for lawmaker has given me another !!idea!!

Local customs! Things that aren't laws but nevertheless have consequences for violating!

Maybe in one town shouting is considered highly offensive and will get you spit on by passerbys.

Perhaps in a hamlet somewhere the handicapped are looked down upon and people refuse to talk to them.

Just crawled out of a sewer? Don't expect to see the mayor of Eno without getting a bath first. Oder is highly offensive there. Or maybe it was the reverse and you must spell like an ettins armpit at all times...

Something to think about at least.

Customs have application particularly in instances of occupation of a site by a party that does not have the same laws in a given thing as the site's previous owners.  In that case we should see the old laws continuing to be observed by a large number of the site's citizens even though legally speaking they have no force.  This could provide a basis to model collaboration/resistance choices properly and create a more realistic model for an occupation.  People who personally disagree with the values/ethics/laws of the old civilisation but agree with those of the new civilisation will embrace the occupiers and will be given all the key elite positions in the occupied site. 

They launch a campaign to stamp out the customs of their site which they disapprove of, even if the occupying power itself actually exempted them from having to follow the laws that clash with those customs.  This results in a counter-campaign being formed by those who practice the old customs and the conflict between the two is played out like a regular political conflict, although with the potential intervention of forces from the occupying power or bandits/refugees/adventurers of the old civilisation being decisive.  If the collaborators win then things will play out as a successful transformative movement with the customs/values/ethics of the site's citizens altering accordingly over time.

That allows us to model a successful assimilation of a conquered site into a conquering civilisation, so that we can no longer always turn up at a site that was occupied 100s of years ago and lead them in an uprising.  After so long it is feasible that they have changed to be sufficiently like their new civilisation and unlike their old civilisation that they no longer want to be liberated.  At the same time relying on a vagaries of political outcomes involving many individuals with diverse characters means that it is not entirely predictable what time frame assimilation will take.  Lastly we could have a situation where a site has changed enough to be different to the old civilisation but not enough that it is assimilated into the new civilisation, that gives us a means by which a new civilisation could be created after Yr 0. 

[LMeire]

Depends on what gives Nomen his authority in the first place; while the threat of a popular uprising keeps the leaders of somewhat liberal societies at bay, if he has Divine Right or iron-fisted control of the military, then he can make any damned laws he wants, because anyone that might resist would have to then deal with the wrath all those soldiers and/or the gods themselves. And that's assuming that he doesn't just involve some propaganda campaign to demonize sheep and make the law a popular movement, like blaming them for the plague or saying they're "unclean" in the gods' eyes.

Completely unhistorical in the extreme.  No ruler can do whatever he pleases in practice and *all* historical rulers are kept in check by the threat of a popular uprising, the more illiberal a society the more likely a popular uprising will happen and topple the government not the reverse; both because there is less prospect of removing the government legally and more prospect that the ruler will think he can do something he cannot.  The idea of a omnipotent ruler that can do absolutely whatever he pleases is always just a fantasy, ablait one that a large number of cultures believe in and another set of cultures believe in so as to think that they are in some sense special because this is not the case for them. 

...

Except for you know, North Korea. The Kims have done exactly that and are now held in check only by how they're perceived by larger, more powerful governments.

Also I think you're severely underestimating how much conditioning the average soldier goes through to obey orders, I doubt it would take much more than holding the badge(s) of office for an old enough empire.

[GoblinCookie]

Except for you know, North Korea. The Kims have done exactly that and are now held in check only by how they're perceived by larger, more powerful governments.

Also I think you're severely underestimating how much conditioning the average soldier goes through to obey orders, I doubt it would take much more than holding the badge(s) of office for an old enough empire.

The idea that everybody in North Korea is utterly controlled by some kind of evil mind control by all powerful rulers and everybody would rebel otherwise is nothing but propaganda against the North Korean government, there is absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever.  Actually the whole concept of propaganda having some kind of all-powerful grip over a population is a common staple *of* propaganda, it is designed to allow the dismissal of an opposing group POV and their collective dehumanisation as mindless zombies.  Propaganda only works on people who are not hostile to those whose propaganda it is, if a government manages to essentially alienate a group of people all the propaganda in the world will simply bounce off. 

Yes soldiers are trained to obey orders.  This however has never, ever worked very well, hence why there are so many military coups in history; if the soldiers are essentially hostile to the government then all that obedience training simply stops working.