Gloranthan legal systems

From: Martin Crim <mcrim_at_erols.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:25:15 -0500 (EST)


David Dunham wrote, with regard to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty,"
>The Chinese (at least in Judge
>Dee stories) used torture on suspects, to extract >confessions; Kralorelans
>undoubtedly do the same.

I loved the Judge Dee stories, and second the notion of using them as a basis for Kralorela. Note that Judge Dee would be executed if the prisoner died under torture, and that he could not be present where the prisoner was except in open court, perched on his high bench with the prisoner kneeling below. He was also limited in some other strange ways; if he disinterred a body, for example, and then failed to prove that the deceased was a murder victim, then the judge would be executed (if memory serves). Although Judge Dee was scrupulously honest, my memory of Chinese history is that judges in later periods wouldn't turn up their noses at a bribe. Litigation in those days consisted of trying to bribe the magistrate more than the other side could. This was done bit by bit, so that both sides could bankrupt themselves.

>I suspect in Dara Happa (if not the >Lunar Empire
>at large), if the authorities accuse someone, they're >assumed to have a
>very good reason, and the burden of proof is on the >defendant. The Orlanthi
>system seems not to favor either side.

I agree with both observations to a point. I think that the difference is not so much Dara Happan/Orlanthi, but "strong state" versus "weak state" (or no state). Where and when the central authorities are strong, they can accuse people pretty much at will and expect the charge to stick. Where the central authorities can't be bothered for one reason or another, people tend to pursue "self help," and neither side has an advantage. This applies as much to Dara Happan peasants during times of anarchy as to Orlanthi in their normal (semi-anarchic) state. ("I thought we were an autonomous collective!")

>In many cultures law is of the "self-help" variety -- you >take action to
>remedy a wrong against yourself or your kin. I suspect only >the "Civilized"
>(in RQ3 terms) governments try to reserve this right. Such a >system is
>little concerned with standards of proof -- if a Praxian is >wronged, his
>kin will go thrash the accused.

Yup. One of the defining terms of a "state" as opposed to a feudal system or other society is that a state has a monopoly or near-monopoly on the _legitimate_ use of force. This suppresses blood feuds, which in turn increases commerce, promotes the general welfare blah blah blah. But makes things much less interesting from a story-tellers' point of view. Face it, the Hatfields and the McCoys is more interesting than Hatfield v. McCoy, a hypothetical lawsuit.

For example, in the U.S., a landlord cannot use force to evict a tenant (in Virginia, anyhow, and probably other states as well). But if the landlord wins a legal action against the tenant, the Sheriff throws the tenant out into the cold. So the end result is the same, force being used to evict, but the state supplies the means. In Glorantha, even in the more civilized areas, I bet landlords use self-help to evict non-paying tenants. This was something of a late development in our world.

>I know various Gloranthan legal systems have been discussed >privately, but
>I don't think ever posted to the Digest.

Sounds like an invitation to me. The challenge is to make them interesting, comprehensible to a non-specialist, and (most of all) capable of being plot drivers. Here's a little bit, based on medieval English land law:

In order to transfer a parcel of land, the buyer and the seller have to travel to the land in question, gather witnesses, and conduct a ceremony. Certain words have to be spoken, and the seller hands a lump of soil and a stick from the land to the buyer. If the buyer doesn't move onto the property, and the witnesses all die, it may not be clear to anyone who owns the property. (If you want to be especially mean to the PC's, they have to walk or ride the perimeter.)

Two scenarios suggest themselves right away: 1. The ancestor of a PC bought some land and now all the witnesses were dead. Their legal claim may need some backing up with cold bronze. 2. The PC's buy some land, or want to. Getting to the land may be difficult, or others may try to mess up the ceremony.

(In medieval Italy, before they had notaries, they used to beat two young boys within an inch of their lives so they would always remember the day that so and so sold the bottom land to the other guy. Or so my medieval and renaissance studies professor claimed.)

If anyone's interested, I can also talk about the law of self-defense. - -------
If I can put my two cents in on another subject, the recent post to which many people have objected is hardly the first anonymous post to the Digest. I was thinking about posting a parody piece to the Digest to which I didn't wish to attach my name, but now it'll never see the light of day. There are many reasons to send mail anonymously, including malice, a desire that the message be considered on its own merits without being colored by people's perception of the messenger, and others. I am reminded that the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the right of citizens to distribute anonymous campaign literature, citing the precedent of The Federalist.... I, for one, would have had no trouble with a news story from a reputable paper being reproduced here if it has some bearing on the list's topics (which that one did), EXCEPT that there is an obvious copyright violation problem. For that reason, it's better just to post the URL, if one exists, as Peter Michaels did.

Powered by hypermail