07.08d: Matters of State

Play by post Amber game, now in progress
Wyvern
Prismatic Pangolin
Posts: 2283
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: 07.08d: Matters of State

Post by Wyvern »

Seems fairly reasonable to me.

However, I can also think of at least one major point Alys is going to suggest adding: "honorary" citizenships for other amberites - in other words, we might not have the right to go in and make laws / decrees / executions at whim, but we would have the right to operate under the "defense of city" clause - taking quick and decisive action when needed. The perfect example of this being Alys' actions the previous night - unless she has the authority to act in defense of Amber, then even her initial efforts to detain & investigate Lane might be regarded as vigilantism, or interference by an outside state, or otherwise illegal / inappropriate.

If you think this is something that would already be in the document, you're welcome to add it. If not, I'll deal with it in character.
User avatar
Sadie
Lunatic
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:24 am

Re: 07.08d: Matters of State

Post by Sadie »

Is definitely something I've been considering actually in my trying to figure out exactly what to make of non Rebma Amberites. Rebma Amberites I intend to play vital roles in the government but well some of this needs to be hashed out when figuring out the full details of what is what. There is not a full constitution yet or anything.
Sadie - "You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law..."
Wyvern
Prismatic Pangolin
Posts: 2283
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: 07.08d: Matters of State

Post by Wyvern »

Hm. I'm also, on further consideration, curious how "All citizens of Rebma are to be trained as militia" co-exists with "civil rights... etc..." - it seems to me that, if every citizen is effectively reserve military, capable of being pulled to active duty as needed... then what you've got is essentially a feudal system, just with generals or admirals instead of dukes or barons.
User avatar
Sadie
Lunatic
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:24 am

Re: 07.08d: Matters of State

Post by Sadie »

A fuedal system is nothing of the sorts as a fuedal system gives citizens zero rights outside the service to the state. So long as a citizen serves as needed they have actual rights provided them and those rights are protected and given actual legal documentation and promises to such.

The feudal system was created by men who had power and wanted to horde that power for them and their powerful friends while subjugating the masses and stripping them of any real rights and live as serfs AKA glorified slaves. They did so under various excuses such as divine right to rule ect, and used things like religion ect as a smoke screen to keep to busy, to afraid, ect to revolt. The most trained in the fuedal system were not peasants, real peasant training didn't exist until the crusades. The peasants were ruled through fear, kept in poverty, and specifically put in the position where they were entirely reliant on the lords for protection against raiders ect, the lords taking full advantage of the situation to put the peasants between a rock and a hard place. When there were no raids or wars, the knights ect did whatever they wanted to the peasants who had no rights. The feudal system was designed for one purpose only to create a system were the masses were there only to work for and be subjugated by the elite few. People were ruled through fear, and told their only hope lied in the afterlife, with religion being used as the opiate of the masses.

This system makes sure that each citizen knows how to protect themselves, what rights each citizen has, and works to create a brother or sisterhood in which each citizen is responsible for the protection of each other, their rights, and the state. Yes you need to serve the state, but there are many ways to do so, and in doing so the state is made to serve you. If you do right by the state it is contractually bound to do right by you, also, there is no single ruler there are technically three branches, though only two hold true power while the third is more a suggestive power, though even it can gain power through the other two.

If say the third branch tries to pass a law and Sadie rejects it, but the supreme branch rules that veto unconstitutional then a yet undetermined process occurs in which the law may be passed anyway.

Same as if Sadie tries to pass a law but the supreme rules it as unconstitutional but the third branch supports the law the same process occurs.

If Sadie tries to pass a law, the supreme rules it unconstitutional, and they support it being unconstitutional, it does not pass.

The third house is pretty much a house of representatives and lords. Their purpose is to speak for the people and high ranking officials.

As we can see none of this is even slightly reminiscent of the Feudal System.
Sadie - "You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law..."
Wyvern
Prismatic Pangolin
Posts: 2283
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: 07.08d: Matters of State

Post by Wyvern »

Wow. If that's how Sadie sees things, no wonder she's going so far out in left field trying to change it. You're missing a key component of the feudal system: responsibilities. With rights there come responsibilities; if you can give someone orders, you are also (to at least some degree) responsible for their well-being. Historically, yes, many of the rights of the leaders were abused. That does not mean that's how it has to function, however; and such abuse is not an actual cornerstone of the system.

The feudal system (is supposed to) function, instead, almost exactly like your proposed state: if you do right by whoever's above you, they are bound to do right by you. That the highest level has a committee (Sadie + house + court) rather than a single leader doesn't change the underlying system.

Plus, you totally missed my point; if everyone is effectively a member of the military... then the admirals or whatever have exactly the same powers as a current noble: the power to take immediate & decisive action, including ordering about anyone below them, answering only to higher nobles, or collections of their peers, and generally only after the fact.
misfit
Raving Mad
Posts: 651
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:13 pm

Re: 07.08d: Matters of State

Post by misfit »

I'm going to jump in here for a moment because I've had some of the same concerns about a universal draft. I had been planning to bring them up in character, but since the discussion is here, I'll jump in.

A military has to be rather authoritarian to function. People have to be subject to orders with (sometimes very harsh) punishment for disobeying orders. They don't get to vote, there are no polls or committees, soldiers follow orders. A big danger of your proposed system is that there is a perpetual state of martial law, even if it is not actively exercised at any given moment. An officer can give an order, and if it touches on military issues, he can expect it to be obeyed. Since everyone is in the military, any issue can be argued to affect the military and it's well being. Trade? That effects logistics and supplies. Assault? You've just assaulted a fellow solider...or a superior. I could go on, but I think you see the point I'm going for here.

I know the obvious answer is that Sadie wouldn't behave that way, and no one is saying that she would. But it is a system that could easily become corrupt. Also, what if something happened to Sadie? Some unknown successor could abuse the hell out of this. That's one thing you have to consider when creating a new government: what can happen years/decades/centuries down the line?
Wyvern
Prismatic Pangolin
Posts: 2283
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: 07.08d: Matters of State

Post by Wyvern »

Ah, right. I did totally steal that from OOC discussions with you, didn't I? Sorry about that. >.<
misfit
Raving Mad
Posts: 651
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:13 pm

Re: 07.08d: Matters of State

Post by misfit »

Did you? I don't recall. LOL
User avatar
Sadie
Lunatic
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:24 am

Re: 07.08d: Matters of State

Post by Sadie »

There are certain assumptions being made here about how her military functions which is not wholly accurate. As for easily abused nothing compared to the feudal system, especially as the militaristic part is being built up right alongside the rights part. There's more to it than just a military, and yes it does create a mostly state of martial law, but an ethically built martial law with indoctrination from a young age into very specific mindsets and societal views, but that's partially the point.

Sadie needs to give her history of the world, social evolution, the cyrcle of fat complacency, the failing of all so far systems due to it, and how to break the cycle explanation. Yes it's a bit of a social experiment, and the outcome is well... up to Josh really, but the theory is to break the cycle that we as a people are facing today. The idea is to create a government where that is no longer a possibility.

As for feudalism, it is not built to function any different than a control mechanism for the powerful few over the masses. You keep mentioning that it can work in the right instances, and this is true, IF you have the right leader, BUT even then it still comes by it's very nature with the subtle threats on the populace that is at the very core of it's nature as well as the excuse/assumption that IF a leader so happens to choose not to abuse the system for any given amount of time the populace SHOULD feel blessed and fortunate despite that at any given time the leaders can choose to abuse it at any point and there is no real way for the populace at large to know the leader well enough to know what that is.

Really the feudal system in terms of Europe anyway was built upon the most successful protection racket/scam of all time. Unfortunately for the system, things got too big for it to handle and in time it fell apart due to various logistic problems with the system in a nation beyond a certain size. You mention that it is built to work a way it is not actually built to work. It sometimes has the illusion of such at the best of times, but it is not the function of the system, there's is nothing in the system actually saying it is expected to work as such, nor is it designed to do so. What you are confusing is individuals using different methods to accomplish their goals in the system. Really there is no restriction in the system for how anyone does anything so long as they accomplish what the person above them told them to in a way that was acceptable by them.

If the king asked Baron Joe to bring in so much revenue by a certain time, unless the king himself cared it didn't matter whether Baron Joe did it through peaceful means or Tyranny, that's not actually built into the system, and is purely an individual choice. Now the king may not want Joe to use tyranny in which case sucks to be Joe since he should have known the character of his king but then again who really ever knows anyone and really the king might even be happy with the results as he needed the money that quickly and really Joe had no good option to acquire said money, but damn if he doesn't make a good scape goat, poor Joe... well ok not really shedding tears here.

This said, the people in charge are "generally unlike the people they keep ignorant when/if possible" educated people and typically are decent at knowing when to throw the people the occasional scrap to keep them complacent. But again that's them choosing to and they reserve the right to change their mind at any time. But again that's them and NOT the system.

The feudal system is not supposed to function like that, it wasn't built by people with that in mind, if you think it was you're deluding yourself. It was built by roving armies that took advantage of a helpless populace, realized it was easier to defend than raid, and that by fortifying and increasing their army while the populace took care of their basic needs they could increase their power tenfold and not have to worry abouut crossing a town that's already been raided by someone else.

The "start" of the feudal system, what it began to grow from went more like this.

A bunch of peasants look up, oh great another army come to raid us, we're fucked again.

Army Leader: "Hey, we have a pretty big army."

Village leader: "Yyup"

Army leaderr: "We could raid you and take your stuff and rape your women and there's really nothing you could do."

Village leader: "Yyup."

Army leader: "But we're tired of wandering all over creation so tell you what. Instead we're going to stay here, and you're going to do whatever we say. Don't worry about the other guys though, you belong to us, got it?"

Village leader sighs: "Yyup."

And it grew from there. Other raiding armies after running into similar things got similar ideas. I could take you all the way the fall of Rome to modern times if you'd like. The core of the system never really changes until just before it begins to become something else entirely. True feudalism had it's heyday during the dark ages for a reason.

So don't confuse the time it was evolving and changing into something else for the original system, which by Dworkin's laws are far closer to true feudalism than any of it's later incarnations and please don't romanticize feudalism. It was never really a great thing, and pretty much 95% of it's history really really sucks for most of the people it ruled over and it was by far not designed by anyone with anyone's best interests other than themselves and their friends.

So go ahead and try and describe how it can work, and go ahead and describe what subtle changes can be done to make it effective and talk about scenarios in which with the right people it can be effective, but do not for a moment try and pretend it was created with any form of altruism in mind or any kind of goal for a society that benefits all involved.

Nor did Dworkin do that either. Nor has he even really pretended he has. He created a basic system so he could have his castle and give us something to start from and give us his select few the power over the populace to do what we wilt, he left it to us to figure out what to do from there. That's it, it's clear as day.

Since many players plus a DM are educated and know maths and logics yes use some basic logistics here.

Logic Problem 1
A law that allows the killing of a person who is attempting to severely hurt a small child = acceptable.
A law that allows the killing of a small child playing innocently in the sand = unacceptable
A law that allows for both equally = ???

Logic Problem 2
A law which allows for making the killing of red headed children illegal = acceptable
A law which allows for making the killing of red headed children to be mandatory = unacceptable
A law which allows for both possibilities to be made legal and can be changed arbitrarily in either direction = ???

A system of government wherein the leaders must actively choose not to invoke their rights in order for the government to function in a way that is not tyrannical is clearly not a good or even neutral system. Keep in mind when discussing a system of government we are discussing the system itself and what it does and does not allow for, what it promotes, and what it actively says is and is not acceptable before a leader steps in and decides what to do with it. We're talking about the laws and system itself first and foremost. That a leader can choose to act in a benevolent fashion DESPITE what the laws allows for and gives him the right to do, is irregardless of the law itself which gives him the right to act in a malevolent fashion and explicitly allows him to do so.

A system of law in which following it's laws creates a just society = acceptable
A system of law in which following it's laws creates an unjust society = ???

A child born of rape can grow up to become a well respected doctor a save 1000's it does not make the rape of his mother a good thing.
A good and beloved leader who creates a golden age for his people born out of feudal society does not make feudal society a good thing.

You can clean up and polish a turd, but at the end of the day it's still a turd.

Oh and the "challenge" law is really a, you're all "gods" and have equal rank so can challenge each other, duh, than it is anything. And as to why the populace should feel great about that, I'm not sure. I mean do they innately know each of our characters', well... character? And even if they did, under what assumption is there that the one defending them is the one that will win the challenge? As for it creating balance amongst us, how so? It only does so if we again start with a baseless assumption that there is a balance of views amongst us, and that the person doing an unbalanced act will, once again, actually lose the challenge in the first place. But this aspect should really be argued against in character as it was brought up in character, just felt like weighing in my own opinion on this.

I do not mind Alys bringing it up.

And do not mind characters that support the feudal system for whatever reason they do, but really can we stop pretending ooc that it was designed by noble and caring people? As for what can happen years down the line, that's exactly what happened to feudalism. It was created with a right of the high to subjugate the low in mind with the maintaining of said power as it's cornerstone. It changed over time and eventually died because it got stretched too thin. The people became too many, the nobility too divided and the king too weak.

As for Sadie's system, given enough time without her, it will fall apart as time and change consumes all things, but it will require a lot of time and a lot of changes over that time as part of the system involves something a lot of governments don't spend enough time on, the young. The education/indoctrination of the system is the cornerstone upon which it is built. So long as that does not change, the system should keep itself in check. So long as it doesn't let up and fall to complacency. Which is the whole thing she's trying to prevent.

Oh and case anyone decides to bring up Feudalism in the orient, think long and hard about it first and whether the general populace was really in a good position and whether the leaders really had their best in mind.

Oh and also look at the tendency for feudal lords to rule by some form of divine right. Why was that so necessary? Think hard about that as well.

As for responsibilities, the only responsibilities a feudal lord had to his people were the responsibilities a child has to his toys, If he chose to melt his toys, it was perfectly within his right, sure he might miss them, and if they were part of a set the set might be no longer fun to play with, but that really is as far as his responsibilities to the people go. You keep saying Sadie is too modern and has too modern a perspective, but really right now discussing feudalism and bringing up responsibility as if it was built with the idea the lord would be responsible with his toys is a modern perspective. At the time feudalism was created the general populace were considered with about as much care as a plow horse, and even this is tainted by modern perspectives and the now existent animal rights movement.

Oh and one more thing in response to the feudalism doesn't have to be a bad thing.

A sword is designed to stab someone, just because I could also use it as a lever to say help someone get out from under something, or pry open a jammed door to help someone out of a burning building does not change that it was designed to kill. Same as feudalism being able to be used to rule a populace justly does not change that it was designed for the explicit purpose of forcing the populace to serve an individual or group of individuals with the people's well being, being completely irrelevant to the system.

* To those who don't want to think to hard about divine right. It's because the system gave people no rights and no legal way to defend themselves and allowed the lord to do what he wanted. The divine right was there because of the need for an excuse to why this should be allowed at all since there is no altruistic explanation for it that can be logically or rationally applied without adding assumptions to the system that were never there and it doesn't even hint at. It also increased his power base by making it not only of a mundane nature but given to him by the gods on high. Plus it made the lord feel good, powerful and special, and really in the end that's all he really cared about.
Sadie - "You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law..."
User avatar
Joshua
Gibbering
Posts: 2987
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:59 pm

Re: 07.08d: Matters of State

Post by Joshua »

Back! Back ye wall of text...!

One thing that mundane feudalism didn't have to deal with was the rulers being literally that much more powerful or literally chosen by a higher power. Consider that in Amber, you can destroy not only the city single-handedly, but also the universe it rests in. That does change perspective slightly. Especially cause you can do it in about a day. (or less if you really know how.) Dworkin could probably destroy REbma (or Amber) in about an hour, maybe less.

That kind of power imbalance will always be there, no matter what laws are in place.
Post Reply