| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would guess monarchy.
The fewest number of people in charge the better for people who don't like being told what to do....
What's worse? one king or queen? or hundreds of elected officials?
The idea of precedent...
I may have used the word "precedent" too loosely when talking about law.
...and paying attention to what happened before is unusual in legal history
I would say that in writing down a law, in doing so, that is the government/society paying attention to what happened before, or at least that is what I mean. Which then includes any codified system of government/law.
Hammurabi's code was created largely to restrict the authority of local judges and to create a proscriptive authority to override local variation.
The codification of the laws into stele to be set in urban centers was for those reasons, I agree. But the laws themselves, most of them, were not created in anticipation of the possibility of an issue occurring but as a result of an issue having actually happened and being brought before the judge(s), which is my main point...that over time issues arise that a government will make a law on (whether to bring justice to the party wronged or in the hope of diminishing such events from occurring in the future or both).
And once that law is set down it becomes a "precedent" (loose usage) for what one should do if, for example, one's levy breaks and ruins the crops of a neighbor.
Yes? Or am I still not clear/not understanding you, Orfamay?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of precedent...I may have used the word "precedent" too loosely when talking about law.
...and paying attention to what happened before is unusual in legal historyI would say that in writing down a law, in doing so, that is the government/society paying attention to what happened before, or at least that is what I mean. Which then includes any codified system of government/law.
Which is precisely what most governments don't do. Most governments don't particularly care about paying attention to what was done, except possibly in the sense of "pour encourager les autres."
Hammurabi's code was created largely to restrict the authority of local judges and to create a proscriptive authority to override local variation.The codification of the laws into stele to be set in urban centers was for those reasons, I agree.
But the laws themselves, most of them, were not created in anticipation of the possibility of an issue occurring but as a result of an issue having actually happened and being brought before the judge(s), which is my main point...that over time issues arise that a government will make a law on (whether to bring justice to the party wronged or in the hope of diminishing such events from occurring in the future or both).
Er,... no Over time, issues arise that a government will make a decision on. Making a decision is independent of codifying it as a law. Most of the time, the government doesn't care about the codification, and it's sufficient deterrence for it to be known that such actions generally are punishable, without specifying punishable in what way.
In fact, it's generally to the government's benefit for there not to be any formal standards of punishment, because it permits the government flexibility. (You can show mercy if you need to court popularity or because it's politically feasible, or you can be really harsh if you want to crush an opponent.)
And once that law is set down it becomes a "precedent" (loose usage) for what one should do if, for example, one's levy breaks and ruins the crops of a neighbor.Yes? Or am I still not clear/not understanding you, Orfamay?
You're still not understanding me. A typical government, and especially a chaotic government, does not want to establish normative guidelines about what one should do in such circumstances. It's much better to be able to rule as the individual circumstances demand, for example, by making the punishment lighter or heavier.
The flip side of that is that a generally lawful population prefers certainty. This makes forward planning easier, but the flip side of that is that it may (for example) be cheaper simply to pay the fine than to correct the behavior. (We see this all the time in US law.)
A chaotic government would not want to lose the power to make decisions that reflect the needs of the moment. A chaotic population would not want the government to be unable to respond to the needs of the moment by creating guidelines that could become shackles.
There's a maxim in US jurisprudence, "bad cases make bad law." The basic idea is that, precisely because decisions become precedents, a case with a bad set of circumstances, or a badly decided case, cannot be easily put aside when a more normal case comes along. A chaotic society would know this and therefore refuse to accept anything regarding precedent or that a previous decision was in any way compelling. That was then, this is now.... and now is different from then.
Which is precisely what most governments don't do. Most governments don't particularly care about paying attention to what was done, except possibly in the sense of "pour encourager les autres."
Fair enough. Though I was only talking about governments that do write down or enact laws there ("...in writing down a law..."), perhaps not most ancient governments. And my original post was centered on an elf ruler that did start writing down laws. My apologies if I was being too sweeping and generalizing.
Er,... no Over time, issues arise that a government will make a decision on. Making a decision is independent of codifying it as a law. Most of the time, the government doesn't care about the codification, and it's sufficient deterrence for it to be known that such actions generally are punishable, without specifying punishable in what way.
Again, I was talking about a government making/codifying a law.
A typical government, and especially a chaotic government, does not want to establish normative guidelines about what one should do in such circumstances. It's much better to be able to rule as the individual circumstances demand, for example, by making the punishment lighter or heavier.
The flip side of that is that a generally lawful population prefers certainty. This makes forward planning easier, but the flip side of that is that it may (for example) be cheaper simply to pay the fine than to correct the behavior. (We see this all the time in US law.)
A chaotic government would not want to lose the power to make decisions that reflect the needs of the moment. A chaotic population would not want the government to be unable to respond to the needs of the moment by creating guidelines that could become shackles.
I largely agree with you here.
A chaotic society would know this and therefore refuse to accept anything regarding precedent or that a previous decision was in any way compelling. That was then, this is now.... and now is different from then.
However, I don't think chaotic means they will outright "refuse to accept...precedent or previous decision[s]" as I think if a decision that worked well in the past and it is remembered (written down or otherwise) then it would be applied again in a similar situation as chaotic does not equal stupid. But I do agree that a chaotic society will be more likely to rule differently from previous rulings based on the differing circumstances of the new event than an otherwise equal in every way, but lawful, society
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Democracy.I thought about that, but a pure democracy would be ineffective for such a large number of people (the elves have a decent sized population in my campaign). Also, a republic didn't seem to work either because it means electing people to make decisions for you on your behalf, something chaos wouldn't agree with.
On the contrary, as a long lived race elves might ask for a consensus and wait until they have one...
'Jiltynilianun to design the New archive: yes or no.' five centuries later, fenyuliliun the scribe tallys the votes.
"hmmm...just waiting on silyilwin."
Feudalism doesn't feel very elven to me.
That's because you associate it with Humans. *looks around* *whispers* They copied! :D
Feudalism != Monarchy. A king can just as easily be a tribal chieftain who rules directly, or the head of a huge Chinese bureaucracy that manages government independently of any nobility.
An elven monarchy would be quite plausible and chaotic. An elven duke who has sworn personal fealty to an elvenking, and who himself has accepted the fealty of a group of elven barons, who have themselves accepted the fealty of a large number of knights who rule individual fief/manors,.... less so. But the second is what historians describe as "feudalism."
A feudalism where individuals have to agree and "opt in" seems quite chaotic to me. It's a matter of individual choice then. In European feudalism most individuals had no choice. You were born into a feudal system where your position was already defined. You had no choice. You were locked in. And the benefits of the system were weighted in favor of one side of the relationship. A system in which there was choice in feudal relations (i.e. should I swear allegiance to X, Y or Z? Who do I think is best and will he have me?) and the benefits were more evenly balanced strikes me as very Elvish. Families might have traditional blood ties to certain other families but an individual might choose differently. And a chaotic good society would respect that choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since this is going off the "Elves are Chaotic", let's not forget that they are also Good. In my homebrew I have an area that is called the Elven Nation while they have no ruling body or figurehead of any sort. They live together in tree hugging harmony. I give the elves a STRONG sense of community. If there is an Orc army nearby or in the world, they don't wait for a King to declare war on the Orcs, those that can take up arms and do what is Good. The only reason I see why elves would need goverment is to interact with other races.
That makes sense. It must frustrate their neighbours that don't follow their system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vulcan high command.
No, seriously--the way I interpret elves is that they experience much stronger emotions than humans do. When they're young, they can barely control themselves, acting on nearly every impulse. As they age, they acquire more discipline, eventually mastering their emotions entirely (vulcan-style).
So, a gerontology/democracy: eldest, most revered elves collectively rule as part of a council, perhaps with a queen acting as the figurehead.
|
|
Vulcan high command.
No, seriously--the way I interpret elves is that they experience much stronger emotions than humans do. When they're young, they can barely control themselves, acting on nearly every impulse. As they age, they acquire more discipline, eventually mastering their emotions entirely (vulcan-style).
So, a gerontology/democracy: eldest, most revered elves collectively rule as part of a council, perhaps with a queen acting as the figurehead.
Probably why the young act out. All the oldies telling them what to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A chaotic government... a purely chaotic government would be one led by a leader(or leaders) who people wanted to follow. And each citizen would be free to obey or not as he or she determined was best. The citizens of such a society would hold no ranks or authority beyond those that choose to follow. Each citizen would take great pride in contributing his or her best toward the furthering of society itself, whatever that best may be. In such a society there would be few if any restrictions on occupation... if an elf wishes to take up arms then he can do so and any willing warriors would simply add that elf to the training rosters. If an elf wishes to lead then they simply step up and lead, any willing to follow that lead then follow. An elven leader has greater status only from the following they inspire. If an elf wishes to become a tradesman or merchant they simply do so without all the legal restrictions and permits required by a lawful society.