The City of FREEDOM! What would you do?

[dascarletm]

In an upcoming campaign I'm placing a city on the map called Temoux the Free City. It is run by the last of the elves, and they have no laws... well kind of. They have three supreme decrees. Grossly breaking them causes their security force to banish you from the city. Minor violations usually carry the punishment of repaying damages done, and all punishments are decided by a court of the leading elven council. Here are the decrees, and besides them there is no written law.

1. Those of sentient minds are always free on the isle of Temoux.
2. The freedom of one ends where the freedom of another begins.
3. The following freedoms are always true: The freedom of life, the freedom of property, and the freedom of expression.

What would you do in such a city (assuming adequately leveled security forces)? Also would you peg this city as Chaotic or Neutral? I say it is in the Chaotic territory, but they do have some semblance of order.

[MisterKaws]

It's a CG city, and honestly, it could have anything.

[Campbellk8105]

I'm confused what the 3rd decree means on Freedom of Property.

Does that means no one has a right to property because propert has its own freedom? Thus implying stealing, or borrowing without permission is ok.

Or, does it mean you are free to own anything, so long as it's not a slave. Unless of course the slave/pet is not sentient.

Also, with that last point. BBEG could walk in to town, blatantly evil with his Necronomicon because he has freedom of property.

[dascarletm]

I'm confused what the 3rd decree means on Freedom of Property.

Does that means no one has a right to property because propert has its own freedom? Thus implying stealing, or borrowing without permission is ok.
Or, does it mean you are free to own anything, so long as it's not a slave. Unless of course the slave/pet is not sentient.
It's simply a way for people to own property as long as it doesn't break the previous decrees. Stealing would be in violation of your freedom ending were others begin... Basically the second.


Also, with that last point. BBEG could walk in to town, blatantly evil with his Necronomicon because he has freedom of property.
And yes, he could. As long as he does not violate any of the laws, by virtue of being in town.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's definitely chaotic. Even chaotic creatures recognize the necessity of banding together for mutual security in a hostile world. If it doesn't make cows, horses, or birds lawful, it doesn't make intelligent races lawful either.

Point of concern; does freedom of property mean that all property is free to the use of anyone in the city or does it mean that every person's right of ownership is to be respected in regards to their personal property?

As for what some of my characters would do; I see an unguided people ripe for the picking. I'd find out who has powerful influence within the city (there's somebody. Intelligent creatures always stratify and subdivide themselves) and start in on them with rhetoric about how, in spite of it being a very fine city, the lack of structure is limiting Temoux's potential. After swaying some to my way of thinking (or replacing them if they can't be swayed), I'd start propagandizing the idea of order as a force that would benefit the people much more than the lassez faire weakness on which they currently rely.

Here's where my characters diverge.

The good ones start pushing for a more codified legal system that promotes justice as fairly as possible. A fairly minimal number of legally empowered officials to uphold the law would be appointed and would focus on making sure the city's order was maintained and that people come to as little harm as possible in maintaining order. They would also be empowered to collect taxes and enact public works projects for the betterment of the city; roads, sewers, monuements to heroes and shrines to wholesome gods, and the like.

The neutral ones try to confederate various artisans and shop-keeps into a set of trade guilds and, ultimately, a mercantile consortium, with himself at the head of course. The running of the city would be decided by commities comprised of representatives from the various trade guilds.

The evil ones start pushing for a much more codified and detailed legal system that's slanted to put people like himself on top and keep them there. His own instrumental nature in establishing such a system (and more than a little back-room dealing) would be leveraged to establish himself as the city's glorious leader. Propaganda would be angled to villify some likely scape-goat for the city's problems; the local tribes of savage humanoids, some rival city that shares a prominent feature such as placement along a trade route or access to a valuable and necessary resource. Dissidents would be quietly disappeared when possible and 're-educated' if they're too prominent to disappear or replace.

My characters of a more chaotic or neutral bent probably wouldn't do anything particularly relevant to the city on the whole beyond maybe buying a house (if such is possible) and knocking out various problems for which adventurers are known.

[Werephilosopher]

What if someone enters the city while they are under contract with someone else? Are they "free" of the contract?

What if the contract is servitude, and had been fairly agreed-upon, but now the indebted party wishes to exit the contract? Can they call upon the city guard to help them if their master refuses to release them?

How are the guards and the leaders paid? How are other utilities paid for? How do they ensure the streets are swept and kept in good condition? The walls? Is there any public land? Is water supplied by magic?

If someone wishes to construct a really unsafe building, do they need clearance, or does their right to property preclude that need?

Does freedom of expression allow hate speech, yelling fire in a crowded area, and just following a guy and yelling profanities at him for an hour? They don't seem to violate freedoms of life, property, or expression. Are they allowed? For that matter, are stalking and threats?

How does the city guard enforce the decrees? Can someone appeal their case if the council rules against them?

How does the economy work? I'm guessing they don't mint their own coins, just use other currencies and barter? Do people pay taxes to pay for utilities/the guard? How are tax rates decided?

A lot depends on how the terms "freedom," "life," "property," "expression," and "sentient" are defined. Also, one's freedoms may end where another person's begins, but the boundary between them isn't always clear. Even if these definitions are all codified, this place seems pretty chaotic, and there's a lot of room for people to pull off shenanigans.

[Flickerdart]

Definitely CG - the rules they have temper the Chaos, but into Good rather than into Neutral. But even "always X" will have people who are not X, and those are the interesting cases.

Lawful Good - But Thou Must
Just because the government doesn't enforce any laws doesn't mean that citizens cannot police themselves. Indeed, getting your citizens to internalize a code of behaviour is the best way to get them to behave. Since freedom of speech is not restricted, expect a lot of PSAs from LG types about things like etiquette, duty, and obligations to their fellow man. LGs will also lead by example - impressionable young Temouxians are likely to emulate what Greg the Awesome Dragon Slayer does, even if he's not Chaotic. Expect lots of churches, community organizations, and similar, all of which appeal to "doing the right thing".

Lawful Neutral - Terms and Conditions Apply
The "laws" of Temeoux never define what "free" means. However, the second law all but prevents contracts from being enforced. Thus, an LN entity is interested in short term arrangements to get what it wants. Do this for me, I will pay you ten gold. You like that ten gold? Come back tomorrow and do the thing again. You are free to stop doing the thing at any time, but then you don't get the gold.
Since there is also a right to property, lease-based contracts can also work. Behave in this way, the LN entity says, and you can use this house/horse/magic hat. But the house/horse/magic hat is our property, and as soon as you stop behaving in the way we want, we will take it back, as is our freedom.

Lawful Evil - Pawn Stars
Doing crimes yourself is for schmucks. LEs will go to any lengths to obtain pawns, and get those pawns to commit crimes on their behalf. If your pawn is exiled, who cares? The LN strategy is certainly workable, appealing to people's greed. So is the LG one - induct someone into your community, get them to depend on you for friendship and shelter, then order them to murder someone or face exile. If that's too complicated, holding their family hostage outside the bounds of the city works great too. Interestingly, the laws do not prevent someone from being grievously injured, as long as they are not killed. That includes feeblemind or baleful polymorph, which causes the victim to become nonsentient and therefore exempt from the law.
LE's biggest problem is going to be freedom of expression. How can you crush people with an iron fist when there's a sign calling you a loser with tiny hands? The LEs will have a man on the council who always casts doubt on what freedom of expression really means and whether insulting someone is violating their freedoms in the same way that stealing from them does. If I run a legitimate business, someone calls my products low quality, and as a result I lose profits, did he not in fact steal from me?

Chaotic Evil - How to Get Away with Murder
Minions and loopholes are for losers. The CE character will violate even the few laws Temoux has, and rely on personal skill in order to escape persecution. Because there are so few laws, most of the time the CE character will appear just like anyone else living there, allowing him to gather a circle of personal acquaintances and then corrupt them to his way of thinking. These organizations will constantly try to get rid of even the laws that currently exist in the city, mostly through force of arms. They'll steal things in plain sight and dare the law enforcement to stop them; if the guardsmen fail, the laws of the city are exposed as a sham.

The other alignments are boring. CGs, NGs, NNs, and CNs mostly do the thing you expect. NE is a dumb alignment and does the CE thing but in a less cool way.

[Gildedragon]

How is real estate acquired or developed? If a bunch of urchins use a lot for meetings and the like, though they have never paid for it, can a richer individual buy it to develop it? Would that impinge on the freedoms of the urchins?
How are things bought or sold?

[Judge_Worm]

Also, with that last point. BBEG could walk in to town, blatantly evil with his Necronomicon because he has freedom of property.

Taking this a few steps further...
If I were if I were said BBEG, I would raise an army of nonsentient undead and use them as my primary invading force (outside of the city of course). My undead, my property, no touchy. You want vengeance on me, tough luck, I have committed no wrong (by the laws of the city.) Not to mention the highly addictive substances I would sell, and other usually illicit things one isn't allowed to do in a more lawful city. Being LE in a CG city is just too easy to abuse.

[Bobby Baratheon]

Can Ron Swanson be the mayor of this city? Or at the very least, an expy of him?

[Kelb_Panthera]

What if someone enters the city while they are under contract with someone else? Are they "free" of the contract?

What if the contract is servitude, and had been fairly agreed-upon, but now the indebted party wishes to exit the contract? Can they call upon the city guard to help them if their master refuses to release them?

How are the guards and the leaders paid? How are other utilities paid for? How do they ensure the streets are swept and kept in good condition? The walls? Is there any public land? Is water supplied by magic?

If someone wishes to construct a really unsafe building, do they need clearance, or does their right to property preclude that need?

Does freedom of expression allow hate speech, yelling fire in a crowded area, and just following a guy and yelling profanities at him for an hour? They don't seem to violate freedoms of life, property, or expression. Are they allowed? For that matter, are stalking and threats?

How does the city guard enforce the decrees? Can someone appeal their case if the council rules against them?

How does the economy work? I'm guessing they don't mint their own coins, just use other currencies and barter? Do people pay taxes to pay for utilities/the guard? How are tax rates decided?

A lot depends on how the terms "freedom," "life," "property," "expression," and "sentient" are defined. Also, one's freedoms may end where another person's begins, but the boundary between them isn't always clear. Even if these definitions are all codified, this place seems pretty chaotic, and there's a lot of room for people to pull off shenanigans.

In a typical chaotic city I'd expect that the guard are a volunteer force and that maintaining the streets would be a matter for the business and homeowners that live on those streets.

I doubt any kind of taxation would codified, much less enforced. The occasional call for a collective effort based on necessity might be made or a charitable religion might -ask- for donations for public works but that's about all I'd expect.

Economics don't give a crap about your government unless you outlaw private property. Supply and demand march on unimpeded as always.

Decisions on what consititutes a violation of the "laws" would probably be left to the best judgement of the guard and appealed to a prominent member of the community known for his wisdom in such matters. Nothing particularly stringent or codified would exist.


These are the answers I'd expect for these questions if the city is intended to be chaotic, which such a simple set of "laws" suggests.

[Grinner]

What would you do in such a city (assuming adequately leveled security forces)?

Get what I need and leave. As observed, this can be a self-defeating idea, even if the city guard is infallible.

[Flickerdart]

How is real estate acquired or developed? If a bunch of urchins use a lot for meetings and the like, though they have never paid for it, can a richer individual buy it to develop it? Would that impinge on the freedoms of the urchins?
Step 1: Acquire n 5ft cubes of metal.
Step 2: Arrange your n cubes in such a way that they surround the house of someone you do not like. If you do not like anybody, fill the entire city with cubes.
Step 3: Set a magic mouth that reminds everybody the blocks are your property, and because you have the right to property, they cannot be meddled with.

[Gildedragon]

Step 1: Acquire n 5ft cubes of metal.
Step 2: Arrange your n cubes in such a way that they surround the house of someone you do not like. If you do not like anybody, fill the entire city with cubes.
Step 3: Set a magic mouth that reminds everybody the blocks are your property, and because you have the right to property, they cannot be meddled with.

For example.
Or what happens when two freedoms clash. Say you have the only vial of a cure that one other person needs to live. You refuse to give it so they steal it. Does their right to live outweigh your right to property?

[Campbellk8105]

Taking this a few steps further...
If I were if I were said BBEG, I would raise an army of nonsentient undead and use them as my primary invading force (outside of the city of course). My undead, my property, no touchy. You want vengeance on me, tough luck, I have committed no wrong (by the laws of the city.) Not to mention the highly addictive substances I would sell, and other usually illicit things one isn't allowed to do in a more lawful city. Being LE in a CG city is just too easy to abuse.

Why outside of the city? It's your property, and you're FREE to be in the city with it.

Just have an entire undead army frolicking through town because there's no reason not to. Plus, if someone kills a skeleton of yours, they are destroying your property and thereby have to reimburse you for its destruction.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The lawful nature of the playground is showing in this thread.

In a city with a chaotic power structure like we're discussing, trying to loophole through the laws is going to be outright ignored. If you come to town with a small army of skellies, you'll be presumed as an invader and repelled with force of arms. Even if you leave them outside of town, you'll almost certainly be asked to see to your business and move along as quickly as possible by the local militia. I also wouldn't expet any claims made against someone destroying one of your minions to go very far.

[dascarletm]

Tons of very tough questions and thoughts! Excellent! I'll be ready with answers when the players come a' knocken.



Point of concern; does freedom of property mean that all property is free to the use of anyone in the city or does it mean that every person's right of ownership is to be respected in regards to their personal property?

It's more about ownership. People are free to use their property, as long as it does not affect the freedom of others (freedom intentionally left vague).



What if someone enters the city while they are under contract with someone else? Are they "free" of the contract?
People can make contracts as they see fit. To them it is basically trade. One trades a service for another service or good. If they cheat one of their contract they are in violation.

What if the contract is servitude, and had been fairly agreed-upon, but now the indebted party wishes to exit the contract? Can they call upon the city guard to help them if their master refuses to release them?
This would be up to the council to decide, but I think they would uphold indentured servitude in most cases. This is of course if the person succumbed to the arrangement willingly.

How are the guards and the leaders paid? How are other utilities paid for? How do they ensure the streets are swept and kept in good condition? The walls? Is there any public land? Is water supplied by magic?
The elves are of one of the 4 great houses in the setting. They are quite rich due to the house's trade. The house has many ties to the element of water (they are called House La Mer after all). They maintain anything that is "public." That is they actually own public property and maintain it, they allow people to use it since they want people to go to their city.

If someone wishes to construct a really unsafe building, do they need clearance, or does their right to property preclude that need?
People can do whatever they want, as long as they own the land. Land ownership is deed based.

Does freedom of expression allow hate speech, yelling fire in a crowded area, and just following a guy and yelling profanities at him for an hour? They don't seem to violate freedoms of life, property, or expression. Are they allowed? For that matter, are stalking and threats?
People can spout hate speech, but must deal with verbal backlashing.
If they use speech to cause harm to someone then they deal with the consequences.
Life tends to mean well-being.
One can stalk, so long as they do not harm.
Threats are also allowed.

How does the city guard enforce the decrees? Can someone appeal their case if the council rules against them?
The city security force enforces the decrees. I'm not sure on appeals... Hrmmm... Yes, provided the council accepts the appeal.

How does the economy work? I'm guessing they don't mint their own coins, just use other currencies and barter? Do people pay taxes to pay for utilities/the guard? How are tax rates decided?
Well gp is the base of the economy, mostly because I don't want to deal with exchange rates in the game. No taxes. The guard enforces the city laws, and is free to anyone who enters.

A lot depends on how the terms "freedom," "life," "property," "expression," and "sentient" are defined. Also, one's freedoms may end where another person's begins, but the boundary between them isn't always clear. Even if these definitions are all codified, this place seems pretty chaotic, and there's a lot of room for people to pull off shenanigans.
Yes there is room. The ruling council defines where these lines lay on a case-by-case basis

Snip
Thanks for the insight.

How is real estate acquired or developed? If a bunch of urchins use a lot for meetings and the like, though they have never paid for it, can a richer individual buy it to develop it? Would that impinge on the freedoms of the urchins?
How are things bought or sold?
The land was all originally owned by the ruling House La Mer. They have since sold it to others, who in turn may sell it to anyone else... etc. The urchins are entitled to nothing. If the owner of the property wishes to use the property for something the urchins have no say.

Taking this a few steps further...
If I were if I were said BBEG, I would raise an army of nonsentient undead and use them as my primary invading force (outside of the city of course). My undead, my property, no touchy. You want vengeance on me, tough luck, I have committed no wrong (by the laws of the city.) Not to mention the highly addictive substances I would sell, and other usually illicit things one isn't allowed to do in a more lawful city. Being LE in a CG city is just too easy to abuse.
The city would not care what you did with your undead outside of the city as long as you are an outstanding citizen within the city and your undead harm no one. They wouldn't enforce their laws outside of the cities borders.

Can Ron Swanson be the mayor of this city? Or at the very least, an expy of him?
Sure! :smallwink:

Snip
These are all pretty spot on actually. :smallbiggrin:

Step 1: Acquire n 5ft cubes of metal.
Step 2: Arrange your n cubes in such a way that they surround the house of someone you do not like. If you do not like anybody, fill the entire city with cubes.
Step 3: Set a magic mouth that reminds everybody the blocks are your property, and because you have the right to property, they cannot be meddled with.

The thing about a chaotic ruling body is that they don't care about legal loopholes. They would tell you to stop. They would probably say something along the lines of the area where your property is positioned is on House La Mer property. Move it.

[dascarletm]

For example.
Or what happens when two freedoms clash. Say you have the only vial of a cure that one other person needs to live. You refuse to give it so they steal it. Does their right to live outweigh your right to property?
People have a right to life, but they don't have a right for others to maintain their life for them. Same situation as if they asked for someone to fix their house.

Why outside of the city? It's your property, and you're FREE to be in the city with it.

Just have an entire undead army frolicking through town because there's no reason not to. Plus, if someone kills a skeleton of yours, they are destroying your property and thereby have to reimburse you for its destruction.
Hey as long as you don't hurt anything or anyone.... go ahead.

The lawful nature of the playground is showing in this thread.

In a city with a chaotic power structure like we're discussing, trying to loophole through the laws is going to be outright ignored.

Exactly. Kelb, you're like my spirit animal.:smalltongue:

Sorry for double-post.

[Campbellk8105]

The lawful nature of the playground is showing in this thread.

In a city with a chaotic power structure like we're discussing, trying to loophole through the laws is going to be outright ignored. If you come to town with a small army of skellies, you'll be presumed as an invader and repelled with force of arms. Even if you leave them outside of town, you'll almost certainly be asked to see to your business and move along as quickly as possible by the local militia. I also wouldn't expet any claims made against someone destroying one of your minions to go very far.

Why? It's BBEG's right to own his army of skeletons and his right of expression to parade them through town. The OP already said BBEG could come in with an inherently evil artifact, just upping the ante is all. That'd be a terrible thing to just go and presume.

And why would the destruction of his minions not go far? Is his property somehow less than someone else's?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Why? It's BBEG's right to own his army of skeletons and his right of expression to parade them through town. The OP already said BBEG could come in with an inherently evil artifact, just upping the ante is all. That'd be a terrible thing to just go and presume.

It's much worse to assume that a chaotic people would be so bound up in their own "laws" that they'd ignore common sense in favor of those laws.

Owning an evil artifact is one thing. People tend to presume an object can't act on its own (no matter the fact that's simply untrue thanks to magic). A literal army at your doorstep is somthing else altogether. It's an existential threat to the city and would be treated as such unless the people that lived there were too dumb to have survived to adulthood.


And why would the destruction of his minions not go far? Is his property somehow less than someone else's?

Because they're abominations that shouldn't exist in the first place and the "law" of the land is based entirely in the wisdom and judgement of the community's prominent members. Unless one of them's a necromancer himself, he's not going to care a whit that your pet corpses got trashed. It's unlikely that any witness would come to your aid and only the most lawful of individuals would consider your claim valid by virtue of the fact we're talking about an ambulatory corpse.

Hell, some might consider that the need to respect someone else's life should extend to their remains and call for your arrest on general principal with positive results.

[Campbellk8105]

Sure, he could turn them loose, but that would be his right to expressly do so. He would pay the repercussions of his actions. Simply saying, "No can't has cause scared," should not mean he can't do what he should be able to do. As decreed by the city.

What are abominations to others, are not to some. Saying the necromancer doesn't deserve his skeletons because they're not nice for a person to have, is like saying you can trample a Druids flower garden because you don't like the smell of tulips.

Also, it's freedom to life. There is no mention of "respect" for the dead. Now you could have argued the deceased persons remains are their property, however if no dead was raised in the city, than the remains he's animated are still his own to have animated. By Marshall law of course.

There's a reason why the city is chaotic, and not LG.

[Larsen]

Undead can't be resurrected I think. Which means that by controlling/raising undeads instead of destroying them you deny their right to life.

[Campbellk8105]

Undead can't be resurrected I think. Which means that by controlling/raising undeads instead of destroying them you deny their right to life.

They have to be sentient for that to apply.

Also if that were the case, destroying them would also be denying their life.

[Larsen]

Ah, but they are! Souls are a thing in D&D and many are sentient in the afterlife.

[Campbellk8105]

Ah, but they are! Souls are a thing in D&D and many are sentient in the afterlife.

Key word, souls. The things that a skeleton army is lacking.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Sure, he could turn them loose, but that would be his right to expressly do so. He would pay the repercussions of his actions. Simply saying, "No can't has cause scared," should not mean he can't do what he should be able to do. As decreed by the city.

What are abominations to others, are not to some. Saying the necromancer doesn't deserve his skeletons because they're not nice for a person to have, is like saying you can trample a Druids flower garden because you don't like the smell of tulips.

Also, it's freedom to life. There is no mention of "respect" for the dead. Now you could have argued the deceased persons remains are their property, however if no dead was raised in the city, than the remains he's animated are still his own to have animated. By Marshall law of course.

There's a reason why the city is chaotic, and not LG.

Yes, CHAOTIC good. The "law," such as it is, exists solely to offer protection to the people that live there. If it fails to do so, it gets ignored. Your one necromancer poses a threat, by disproportionate power to act if not by your intent, to everyone else in the city. The "law" will be ignored to end, or at least mitigate, the threat.

This is not a society governed by the rule of law but by guidelines mutually agreed upon by its occupants, more or less. If the consensus is that you and your undead are a problem, regardless of why, you will be politely asked to move along, at best, or forcefully ejected, if you make even a minor misstep.

In short, very much yes, "Can't has cause scared."

[Larsen]

Key word, souls. The things that a skeleton army is lacking.

It doesn't change the fact that the squeleton being there prevent the soul from being resurrected. Even if the soul is not in the squeleton, it still exist.

And there is still the argument that the squeleton is still the property of the soul.

Edit : the problem wouldn't be there with construct instead, but kelb_panthera addressed the problem of the army.

[Campbellk8105]

By that logic then, no mid to high level casters should be allowed in the city. Regardless of gender, age, race etc. Solely for the fact that it can pose an immediate threat to the inhabitants of its city. No dragon should ever be allowed in the city, humanoid form or not, for the threat it could pose. No epic anything, for the threat it can pose. What if a small groups of solars came into town? Do they have to leave because its inhabitants are threatened? Or no because they're not evil?

Your argument is completely biased in regards of what one being is allowed to do, and what one is not. It's completely lopsided in the fact of the necromancer is evil.

[Kelb_Panthera]

By that logic then, no mid to high level casters should be allowed in the city. Regardless of gender, age, race etc. Solely for the fact that it can pose an immediate threat to the inhabitants of its city. No dragon should ever be allowed in the city, humanoid form or not, for the threat it could pose. No epic anything, for the threat it can pose. What if a small groups of solars came into town? Do they have to leave because its inhabitants are threatened? Or no because they're not evil?

Your argument is completely biased in regards of what one being is allowed to do, and what one is not. It's completely lopsided in the fact of the necromancer is evil.

Yes, and?

People are illogical biased jerks. If you are an obvious threat that can't assuage the fear that you might cause destruction and mayhem or intimidate people into not screwing with you, people will tell you to go away and make you feel unwelcome. They will disregard your complaints about it too.

[Campbellk8105]

Good thing it's up to the council on who stays and who goes then right?

What about the people who don't see it as a threat?

You know the saying, "To each their own"? That about sums up this city, aside from the decree's set forth. Just because the illogical biased jerks have a problem, does not mean it is a problem.

How about the necromancer is a ringmaster and it's merely a circus show that happens to be made up entirely of skeletons. That's fair enough. Now he can stay right? Because who is afraid of a juggling skeleton.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Good thing it's up to the council on who stays and who goes then right?

The council answers to the people if they want to stay on the counil. At the very least they have to answer to those wealthy and charismatic enough to oust them.


What about the people who don't see it as a threat?

You're not serious? It's a squad of undead abominations. They're automatically a threat simply by existing. The only people unconcerned by such things are other necromancers and adventurers powerful enough to squash the lot of them without aid. Those groups don't make up the majority of -any- city.


You know the saying, "To each their own"? That about sums up this city, aside from the decree's set forth. Just because the illogical biased jerks have a problem, does not mean it is a problem.

It is if there are enough of them and there -will- be enough of them when you're talking about undead. With a volunteer guard, stopping a lynch-mob is almost certainly outside of their power and with undead being the source of the disturbance they probably wouldln't even try -if- they don't join the mob themselves.


How about the necromancer is a ringmaster and it's merely a circus show that happens to be made up entirely of skeletons. That's fair enough. Now he can stay right? Because who is afraid of a juggling skeleton.

Maybe, just -maybe- that would get you an uncomfortable pass. It depends largely on whether or not there are any noteworthy anti-undead factions within the city; the churches of pelor, heironeous, etc.

You don't seem to be getting that a chaotic society like this is just barely a notch above mob-rule. Any politicians, such as they are, have to keep the populace pacified or they will rapidly find their power in society flagging.

[Campbellk8105]

You can't say most will have a problem for sure. Maybe the Lich necromancer becomes a slum lord and sure the skeletons are scary at first, but what if he just settles down and plants his roots there. I could easily see that happen in a city that opens its arms and let's that into its midst.

My point of all of this is, that if those are the decrees set forth, I would work as a player, to exploit and manipulate everything I could. If the last of the elves, ELVES, are running a city like this. Then by all means, I highly doubt the council will be as strict they're being made out to be in the previous posts.

I also don't tend to play the nicer type characters. I love chaos and meddling. Especially when things are not supposed or wanted or hell, shouldn't be meddled with.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You can't say most will have a problem for sure.

With absolute certainty, no, I can't. With a very high degree of probability, I absolutely can. People are generally against anything to do with corpses and especially the idea of ambulatory corpses. It's horrific on a visceral level that the vast majority of people -won't- move passed, whether they can or not.

In karnath on eberron, sure, go nuts; in just about any other more generic fantasy setting, almost certainly not.

The relative comfort of people with corpses and the undead is an -extremely- recent development in the western world, IRL. The advances of science and agnosticism and the decline of irrational superstition are largely responsible for this change in attitude and it's not something you can even begin to presume in a fantasy setting where so much of the superstition is factually accurate.

[Vizzerdrix]

People have a right to life, but they don't have a right for others to maintain their life for them.

So no punishment for leaving an infant in a dimpster to die? I expect necromancers would flock to the place due to the booming slay mate trade.

[OldTrees1]

3 Questions:
1) Naïve or sophisticated definitions of those freedoms? Flickerdart's cube thought example presumes the naïve definition of right to property. The sophisticated definition of a right to property would consider the use of those cubes as violating everyone else's rights to property (not to mention other freedoms).
1a) Also which are positive rights and which are negative rights?

2) Crime rate? Those rules when followed perfectly result in something related but different from when those rules are occasionally broken by individual citizens.

3) What is the culture's position on the rules?

In theory these are one of the example sets of rules that communities of virtuous CG individuals might adopt.

[Flickerdart]

The thing about a chaotic ruling body is that they don't care about legal loopholes. They would tell you to stop. They would probably say something along the lines of the area where your property is positioned is on House La Mer property. Move it.
This sounds like a very legalistic argument. :smallbiggrin:

[dascarletm]

So no punishment for leaving an infant in a dimpster to die? I expect necromancers would flock to the place due to the booming slay mate trade.
I suppose there wouldn't be any punishment. Though I'm not sure that sort of thing would happen all that often. If it was a problem people would be free to set up orphanages in order to prevent that sort of thing.

3 Questions:
1) Naïve or sophisticated definitions of those freedoms? Flickerdart's cube thought example presumes the naïve definition of right to property. The sophisticated definition of a right to property would consider the use of those cubes as violating everyone else's rights to property (not to mention other freedoms).
1a) Also which are positive rights and which are negative rights?
I suppose most would be negative rights, except for expression. That is something you do actively. I would aim for sophisticated definitions of these freedoms

2) Crime rate? Those rules when followed perfectly result in something related but different from when those rules are occasionally broken by individual citizens.
I haven't thought about the crime rate. In general I am going to assume it is pretty low. Many of the inhabitants ply their trade elsewhere, and those that would be criminals tend to do their crime elsewhere. Don't sh** where they eat and all that. That doesn't mean this is a utopia by all means, there most likely is some crime. That's a good question though and something I haven't thought of for detailing the city.

3) What is the culture's position on the rules?
Most are either elves who are just happy to have a home (and not be dead) or they are refugees from the settings more strict nations. Most appreciate it because of this. However, there are still quite a few who believe that there should be more laws in place. I'm thinking there might be pocket communities that have agreed upon extra rules that everyone follows.

In theory these are one of the example sets of rules that communities of virtuous CG individuals might adopt.
I was thinking as such as well. Though I am back and forth between CG and CN. What would it take to go full neutral?

This sounds like a very legalistic argument. :smallbiggrin:
:smallconfused:...:smalleek:...:smallmad:... Curse you Flickerdart!

[Flickerdart]

:smallconfused:...:smalleek:...:smallmad:... Curse you Flickerdart!
This is an issue you need to solve. Normal societies do it by introducing more laws. You can do it by introducing one more law: the laws do not bind the council. When it is in the interest of the city, the council can move to damage life, liberty, and property. This is the most chaotic solution.

There's really no way to reconcile "freedom of action" and "freedom of property." Either you can put whatever you want anywhere, or anyone can steal your things. You could make a differentiation between public spaces, and private spaces (your attended items and home, etc), something like:


All have the right to sanctity of person - their body and private property are beyond the freedoms of another.
All have the right to freedom in public - all public spaces belong to the government, which permits any activity that does not violate sanctity of person.
Offenders forfeit their rights - The government may violate the sanctity of person when defending the two laws.


You could also go full Communism and get rid of this pesky "private property" concept. All spaces are public, all property is shared, if you abuse that the government will spank you, carry on.

[OldTrees1]

I suppose most would be negative rights, except for expression. That is something you do actively. I would aim for sophisticated definitions of these freedoms
With negative sophisticated rights you can get pretty far although that area has lots of internal debates. Leaving expression as a positive right can be a weak point but it should be suitably tempered by the first 2 negative rights.


I haven't thought about the crime rate. In general I am going to assume it is pretty low. Many of the inhabitants ply their trade elsewhere, and those that would be criminals tend to do their crime elsewhere. Don't sh** where they eat and all that. That doesn't mean this is a utopia by all means, there most likely is some crime. That's a good question though and something I haven't thought of for detailing the city.
Pretty low but still existence sounds like you will need enough of a justice system that it should have the procedures for dealing with external threats although it might not initially have enough infrastructure/capital for a particular external threat.

Likewise your word choice of "pretty low" suggests to me that it is not low enough that justice would be blind to circumstances.

You will need to detail the justice system, the procedure for conflicting freedoms(including negative vs negative and self conflicting freedoms), how to handle malicious vs non malicious violations, and external threats(like armies).


Most are either elves who are just happy to have a home (and not be dead) or they are refugees from the settings more strict nations. Most appreciate it because of this. However, there are still quite a few who believe that there should be more laws in place. I'm thinking there might be pocket communities that have agreed upon extra rules that everyone follows.

So the culture seems to be embracing the rules. They might make mistakes in their rules due to distraction, but it sounds like the culture has bought in to idea of the system.

Pocket communities with extra rules is an expected result. You should consider possible troublesome consequences (segregation being merely one example).



I was thinking as such as well. Though I am back and forth between CG and CN. What would it take to go full neutral?

Not quite sure what you meant here. CN individuals (just like LG individuals) would be welcome in such a society. Even demons/devils might be welcomed, but subject to the rules.


This is an issue you need to solve. Normal societies do it by introducing more laws. You can do it by introducing one more law: the laws do not bind the council. When it is in the interest of the city, the council can move to damage life, liberty, and property. This is the most chaotic solution.
The common solution is: Your negative right to property ends where it would violate someone else's negative right to property. Your cube example is a clear violation. Since locking away someone's house violates their negative right to property, your cubes are not protected while being used as such.

[dascarletm]

This is an issue you need to solve. Normal societies do it by introducing more laws. You can do it by introducing one more law: the laws do not bind the council. When it is in the interest of the city, the council can move to damage life, liberty, and property. This is the most chaotic solution.

There's really no way to reconcile "freedom of action" and "freedom of property." Either you can put whatever you want anywhere, or anyone can steal your things. You could make a differentiation between public spaces, and private spaces (your attended items and home, etc), something like:


All have the right to sanctity of person - their body and private property are beyond the freedoms of another.
All have the right to freedom in public - all public spaces belong to the government, which permits any activity that does not violate sanctity of person.
Offenders forfeit their rights - The government may violate the sanctity of person when defending the two laws.


You could also go full Communism and get rid of this pesky "private property" concept. All spaces are public, all property is shared, if you abuse that the government will spank you, carry on.

I do think I'll need to reword the decrees. As far as the council being unbound by the laws, I (and the council too) would be wary of that. It could potentially lead to disastrous consequences should they be compromised. Though I perhaps I'll need to add in such a rule.

As far as going full communism, that wouldn't work with this one. Mostly because the government is actually one of the 4 powerful trade houses.


With negative sophisticated rights you can get pretty far although that area has lots of internal debates. Leaving expression as a positive right can be a weak point but it should be suitably tempered by the first 2 negative rights.

Yeah, I think that the decrees could use some work.


Pretty low but still existence sounds like you will need enough of a justice system that it should have the procedures for dealing with external threats although it might not initially have enough infrastructure/capital for a particular external threat. Likewise your word choice of "pretty low" suggests to me that it is not low enough that justice would be blind to circumstances. You will need to detail the justice system, the procedure for conflicting freedoms(including negative vs negative and self conflicting freedoms), how to handle malicious vs non malicious violations, and external threats(like armies).

Yeah, I imagine it will mostly be: if you are accused of infringing on someone's rights you will be summoned to see the council. If you do not show, you will be apprehended and brought before them. At that point they will hold a trial, using magic to aid in finding the truth. At which point the council will dole out punishment. Malicious intent will be important, and lacking it will most likely keep you from being banished, which is their highest form of punishment.

External threats are dealt with via mercenaries which they hire. They also have strong ties to the element of water, which helps them repel water based assaults.



Not quite sure what you meant here. CN individuals (just like LG individuals) would be welcome in such a society. Even demons/devils might be welcomed, but subject to the rules.

I was replying to the thought of this society as CG. I'm not sure if the society is CG or CN.

[Flickerdart]

I do think I'll need to reword the decrees. As far as the council being unbound by the laws, I (and the council too) would be wary of that. It could potentially lead to disastrous consequences should they be compromised. Though I perhaps I'll need to add in such a rule.
The council needs to be able to ignore the laws, since kicking someone out of the city or obligating them to pay a fine curtails their freedom and property respectively.

[OldTrees1]

I was replying to the thought of this society as CG. I'm not sure if the society is CG or CN.

Oh, I see the confusion. The society sounds like it is CN, but it is the kind of CN rules than virtuous CG individuals might implement.

[dascarletm]

The council needs to be able to ignore the laws, since kicking someone out of the city or obligating them to pay a fine curtails their freedom and property respectively.

True, in the very minimum it should include the security council as well, and apply to anyone violating the decrees.

[OldTrees1]

True, in the very minimum it should include the security council as well, and apply to anyone violating the decrees.

Having rights end at the point and to the degree they trespass on another's rights is usually a sufficient phrasing. If you want preventive security (other than at the moment preventive security) like exiling someone prior to an offense, then you would need something more.

[Gildedragon]

I was replying to the thought of this society as CG. I'm not sure if the society is CG or CN.
Seems very CN with potential to move one step west or south at any moment. Its focus on individual rights and not collective ones set it firmly within a neutral mindset rather than a good one (where collaboration and the public good would take primacy). There is a clear "I wont harm you, but I won't help you unless it helps me too" mindset (see the way how the right to property trumped the right to life).
the primacy of currency and deeds as the base of ownership may even allow for "slavery in everything but name" via a truck system enforced via rules to live in a particular building.

[ace rooster]

Definately CN. I don't see how a system that gives no protection to the homeless and the starving could be called good, chaotic or otherwise. Good characters may still exist, and may even be prominant, but the system itself is not good.

This city could have homeless orphans begging at every corner.

[Flickerdart]

Definately CN. I don't see how a system that gives no protection to the homeless and the starving could be called good, chaotic or otherwise. Good characters may still exist, and may even be prominant, but the system itself is not good.

This city could have homeless orphans begging at every corner.
Anyone in the city is free to open a charity, if they so desire, or throw a coin to a beggar. Chaotic Good doesn't do systematic or mandatory helping.

[OldTrees1]

Anyone in the city is free to open a charity, if they so desire, or throw a coin to a beggar. Chaotic Good doesn't do systematic or mandatory helping.

Well said!
Since CG doesn't do systematic or mandatory helping, they try to form their societies in a manner that increases the ability & freedom that each person has to help others. (So making it easier to set up charities and do charitable deeds)

[Barstro]

Just the thought of a town like this bothers my law-filled nature.

Who owns property? To where do you turn if someone with a larger sword comes into your house and says it belongs to him now? A small enough village will know everyone and understand that he is the interloper, but what happens in a larger city?

Person A wants to start a pig slaughtering business on his own property. Person B's life has become miserable from the smell. Person A says that it's not his fault the wind blows in that direction.

Chaotic places like this will very quickly result in the most powerful controlling everything.:smallyuk:

I'd be able to play only a very chaotic character who was just south of neutral.

[dascarletm]

Just the thought of a town like this bothers my law-filled nature.
Allow me to soothe you with my chaos filled heart. :smalltongue:

Who owns property?
Individuals, groups, anyone. There is no reason this would fall-apart.

To where do you turn if someone with a larger sword comes into your house and says it belongs to him now?
Well, that person is violating your right to your property (house and land). You go to the security force or an intermediary of the council.

A small enough village will know everyone and understand that he is the interloper, but what happens in a larger city?
I'm sure there is some sort of way to prove your ownership. Magic in particular is helpful in this regard.



Person A wants to start a pig slaughtering business on his own property. Person B's life has become miserable from the smell. Person A says that it's not his fault the wind blows in that direction.
Sucks to be person B, Person A can do what he wants on his land.


Chaotic places like this will very quickly result in the most powerful controlling everything.:smallyuk:
:smallconfused:I don't see why a chaotic place is in less prone than a lawful place. If someone is more powerful and able to control everyone there, then some laws written on paper won't matter at all.

[Kelb_Panthera]

True, in the very minimum it should include the security council as well, and apply to anyone violating the decrees.

Wow. Never even made it to a table before the influence of Law started to exert itself.

The more structured and nuanced the rules and organizations of the city get, the less chaotic it becomes. Except for the freedom of property being in need of a rewording (to avoid confusion rather than to be prescriptive) the three basic laws you've outlined are fine.

There's no need for a "the council is not bound by the rules" clause because they -are- the rules. They, and everyone that respects them, follow the three laws because they respect the council members and the ideas the three laws were meant to suggest. Treating them as prescriptive, inviolable laws of the land is a very lawful way of looking at them. They're simply guidelines for the volunteer security forces to go by and on which the council will, not must but will, make their rulings.

One of the major advantages of a system like this is that it's difficult to sow seeds of corruption without first shifting the city towards a more lawful bent and implementing a much more codified system. One of its major weaknesses, though, is that any corruption that takes root can reach as far as the corrupt agent's influence within the city extends and for as long as he can defend it with reasonable arguments. That is, corruption is just as difficult to oust as it is to sow. You're dealing with individuals in a voluntary collective rather than components of an organized system.

It's a pretty alien mindset to most people that live in modern nations governed by the rule of law where it's the law itself that gets final say in a matter rather than whatever adjudicator that is called upon to resolve it. The folks on this forum, and particularly this subforum, seem to have an even tougher time than most in this regard. I suspect this is, in no small part, because of the very strong current of following RAW over any individual's judgement of what the rules should or shoudn't mean.

[dascarletm]

Wow. Never even made it to a table before the influence of Law started to exert itself.
Snip

:smallfrown:
You're right! Bah! A shame upon my household. I think all of them could use rewording and clarification, but you're right.

[Hecuba]

You could also go full Communism and get rid of this pesky "private property" concept. All spaces are public, all property is shared, if you abuse that the government will spank you, carry on.

Or, if you want to avoid something with quite so much in the way or real world implications, simply go the route that is (inconsistently) applied to Kender: drop the ideas of property outside possession all together. Go on a trip and find someone else living in the house you used to live in? Well, I guess its their house now. You could have asked a friend take care of it for you if it was important.

[dascarletm]

Or, if you want to avoid something with quite so much in the way or real world implications, simply go the route that is (inconsistently) applied to Kender: drop the ideas of property outside possession all together. Go on a trip and find someone else living in the house you used to live in? Well, I guess its their house now. You could have asked a friend take care of it for you if it was important.

I think that would fall a little too far into the realm of ridiculous for what I had in mind for this city. However, I might put a pin in this idea for another game.

[Gildedragon]

Well said!
Since CG doesn't do systematic or mandatory helping, they try to form their societies in a manner that increases the ability & freedom that each person has to help others. (So making it easier to set up charities and do charitable deeds)

I would disagree. CG is a society where good deeds and freedoms are built into the system, where being good is the path of least resistance.
That is to say, good isn't compulsory (or as heavily codified as within an LG society) but they are part of the system. Just as a CE isn't a society where evil is compulsory but is encouraged by, and part of, the system. For example a CG society might just abide by the Bill and Ted maxim "be excellent to each other")
Without a built in protection to the needy the society, as posited, is just as likely to exploit the poor as it is to help them. hence this society being CN.

On a separate note:
the society here has a strong legalistic basis, notably the assumption of private property, private ownership of land, and the use of money as a transactional basis. All those elements imply a regulating body with the authority to enforce said contracts. Given enough time it is likely this society would migrate towards TN. A more C mindset would use a reciprocity system of borrowing and giving.

[Barstro]

There's no need for a "the council is not bound by the rules" clause because they -are- the rules. They, and everyone that respects them,

*shudder*

All one needs is control of the council and that person gets anything. This is ripe for blackmail and Illuminati-like influence. This is how the American Old-West was run. Inaccurate nostalgia aside, there's a reason that sort of structure doesn't exist anywhere.

But, that is all just a tangent on OP's question. Given the time limits of a game, you can easily have an area with these rule that can avoid caving in upon itself before the game ends.

[ace rooster]

Anyone in the city is free to open a charity, if they so desire, or throw a coin to a beggar. Chaotic Good doesn't do systematic or mandatory helping.

Anyone is also free to exploit the poor too, even if they can't kill or rob them. The way this city looks will be a reflection of the powers in it, uninfluenced by the system. While good characters have much wealth and power, it will be a comfortable caring place to live, but while evil characters have power it will be a hell hole, unmitigated by the system.

I would expect a chaotic good system to at least put sentient life as more valuable than property, which this does not intrinsically do. If the city had greater rights to seize assets (tax them, but less systematically) for the purposes of feeding and homing those in need, it would be chaotic good.

[Kelb_Panthera]

On a separate note:
the society here has a strong legalistic basis, notably the assumption of private property, private ownership of land, and the use of money as a transactional basis. All those elements imply a regulating body with the authority to enforce said contracts. Given enough time it is likely this society would migrate towards TN. A more C mindset would use a reciprocity system of borrowing and giving.

The idea of private ownership -far- predates any formalistic or legalistic society and even animals express territoriality. Trade via money is by precious metal weight and rarity rather than any form of fiat money. These are ideas that would have been imported from the larger, global economy. Economic forces may be man-made but they are not in the control of men any more than any other natural force.

That said, I would expect that barter would be reasonably common, especially amongst the lower economic classes. Only a completely self-contained society could free itself from the desire and need for trade with other cities and shirk the passing of coinage.

Owning the land your house is on or any vacant lots might be outside of how things get handled but you would rather unambiguousy own your own home, provided you bought or built it fairly and can corroborate that in some way, to the satisfaction of whomever is called upon should it be questioned.

[OldTrees1]

I would disagree. CG is a society where good deeds and freedoms are built into the system, where being good is the path of least resistance.
That is to say, good isn't compulsory (or as heavily codified as within an LG society) but they are part of the system. Just as a CE isn't a society where evil is compulsory but is encouraged by, and part of, the system. For example a CG society might just abide by the Bill and Ted maxim "be excellent to each other")
Without a built in protection to the needy the society, as posited, is just as likely to exploit the poor as it is to help them. hence this society being CN.

A negative rights protection of the needy is already in the example.
A positive rights protection of the needy quickly becomes LN and then LE as the self contradictory nature of positive rights asserts itself. A CG approach would be the voluntary provision of these things rather than positive rights laws.

However I agree being good would often be the path of least resistance in a CG society.

[Godskook]

@Flickerdart

You're asking questions that fundamentally operate on a lawful viewpoint: "what happens if two freedoms overlap". To the people running this city, such a thing -can't- happen. It'd be as if asking what happens when two atoms overlap. The nuances of the law would provide great topics of debate, but the average use case would self-resolve rather easily and obviously. Your cube example, appearing before the council, would be seen as an act designed to violate the freedom of others(rather successfully, in theory), and you'd be -exiled- for it. Simple and done.

The necromancy example would similarly resolve depending on several factors:

1.How the bodies of the undead were procured - This city doesn't concern itself with universal justice, just local justice. Bodies procured elsewhere would be legal undead here.

2.What the undead were doing - Undead would be treated as extensions of their owner for the purpose of enforcing other laws, and their owner would be expected to handle them accordingly.

[Hecuba]

This setup works for to create a good society only if the council is good. This, in turn, begs a question: if - as a matter of the setting detail - the despots can be reliably presumed to be enlightened despots, why codify any laws at all? If the rule of men can be presumed just, the calculus regarding the rule of law vs the rule of men changes immensely.

At most, it would seem to me, such a society would merely need a rule for how council membership is decided.

Or, if you are willing to change the idea slightly, you could go with something like a more extreme form of Athenian proto-democracy: all matters are a simple vote of the citizens who attend the assembly that day. Chaotoc governance at its finest. Determining who is a citizen becomes important, as does who loses that franchise (vote on that? Normal vote? unanimous?). If the people who make up the society are reliably good enough and wise enough for enlightened despotism to be viable, there is every reason that direct, noninstutional democracy would work without devolving into Ochlocracy.

[ace rooster]

This setup works for to create a good society only if the council is good. This, in turn, begs a question: if - as a matter of the setting detail - the despots can be reliably presumed to be enlightened despots, why codify any laws at all? If the rule of men can be presumed just, the calculus regarding the rule of law vs the rule of men changes immensely.

At most, it would seem to me, such a society would merely need a rule for how council membership is decided.

Or, if you are willing to change the idea slightly, you could go with something like a more extreme form of Athenian proto-democracy: all matters are a simple vote of the citizens who attend the assembly that day. Chaotoc governance at its finest. Determining who is a citizen becomes important, as does who loses that franchise (vote on that? Normal vote? unanimous?). If the people who make up the society are reliably good enough and wise enough for enlightened despotism to be viable, there is every reason that direct, noninstutional democracy would work without devolving into Ochlocracy.

And don't forget that this is a setting where literal demons exist, and tempting people to evil is what they do. They get the same status as good outsiders in this city. Evil creatures can commit evil deeds in this city with the protection of what little 'law' that does exist. Assuming the powers in this city are good is shaky. 'Sharing' their city is not necessarily a good act, if they are exploiting the residents and life in the city pushes people to evil actions. This could easily be the pet project of a succubus, which needed to be not overtly evil.

nudging the discussion away from real world politics.

[Zale]

So the question is what to do in a lawless autocracy if the people in charge are probably nice?

I dunno, leave? Leaving sounds good. I certainly wouldn't want to live there unless I was rich and/or powerful enough to ensure that the whims of the leaders favored my rights.

[Flickerdart]

Your cube example, appearing before the council..

The cube example breaks no laws. Why is it appearing before the council?

[Zale]

The cube example breaks no laws. Why is it appearing before the council?

YOU DISPLEASE THE COUNCIL. REPORT FOR DEPORTATION!

But really, I see this going south pretty quickly and ending with a Paladin stomping around hitting people with a warhammer.

[OldTrees1]

The cube example breaks no laws. Why is it appearing before the council?

It violates all 3 primary rights:
The right to not suffocate/starve/dehydrate to death inside the locked box as a result of the locked box (aka right from murder)
The right to not have your house locked away from you (aka right from theft)
and the positive right of expression is very hard not to violate when you are putting up walls

Since your rights end where they would violate the rights of another, the cubes are not protected.

[Flickerdart]

It violates all 3 primary rights:
The right to not suffocate/starve/dehydrate to death inside the locked box as a result of the locked box (aka right from murder)
The right to not have your house locked away from you (aka right from theft)
and the positive right of expression is very hard not to violate when you are putting up walls

Since your rights end where they would violate the rights of another, the cubes are not protected.
I'm not locking anyone's house away from them. Nor am I murdering anyone, any more than a man refusing to compromise his right to property for another's right of life when he owns food and refuses to give it away to a hungry man. I'm not even sure how you arrived at violating the right to expression. How am I preventing anybody from expressing themselves? They can call their friends and complain about the blocks all they want.

Their freedoms end as soon as they want to mess with my blocks. That law works both ways, which is not something you can conveniently ignore because it's the very problem I'm addressing.

[dascarletm]

The block scenario doesn't work really because unless you own the land surrounding this guy, you have no right to keep those blocks there. It's really just that simple. Whoever owns the land has a right to remove your blocks from it if they so choose. Rewording the 3 decrees may help for this.

There are conflicts that will come up, but the way in which the city deals with these problems is not to make more laws. Instead they treat it on a case-by-case basis, heavily relying on magic to find the best decision. This does leave the problem with needing an enlightened council, but such things leave room for campaign intrigue.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not locking anyone's house away from them. Nor am I murdering anyone, any more than a man refusing to compromise his right to property for another's right of life when he owns food and refuses to give it away to a hungry man. I'm not even sure how you arrived at violating the right to expression. How am I preventing anybody from expressing themselves? They can call their friends and complain about the blocks all they want.

Their freedoms end as soon as they want to mess with my blocks. That law works both ways, which is not something you can conveniently ignore because it's the very problem I'm addressing.

Surrounding someone's house with cubes to prevent their access to their property is locking their house away from them
Surrounding someone's house with cubes to prevent their access to necessities is murdering them
The positive right to expression, being a positive right, tends to be much more demanding that it first appears. Are you sure you can't think of any kind of expression that is impeded by the streets being filled with cubes and everyone being locked either in or out of their homes?

The placement of your cubes violated these 3 right, thus those cube are not protected(since their protection ended where and when they violated those 3 rights). As such anyone can vandalize those cubes without trespassing because those cubes are unprotected as long as they continue the violation they initiated.

Honestly the "surround a house with a private road" test case has been around long enough that you should have expected there to be numerous simple answers to it.

[Gildedragon]

Surrounding someone's house with cubes to prevent their access to their property is locking their house away from them
Surrounding someone's house with cubes to prevent their access to necessities is murdering them
No it isn't. They have no responsibility to ensure another's survival as:
People have a right to life, but they don't have a right for others to maintain their life for them. Same situation as if they asked for someone to fix their house. hence the block-placer has no obligations towards house-owner regarding allowing access to anything.

[OldTrees1]

No it isn't. They have no responsibility to ensure another's survival as: hence the block-placer has no obligations towards house-owner regarding allowing access to anything.

There is a difference between not giving someone necessities(violates a positive right to life but not the negative right from murder) and preventing someone from sustaining themselves(locking someone away to starve is murder if they would have been able to feed themselves if not for your action).

The same goes for the right from theft. The block placer does not have an obligation to provide access, but is prohibited from denying access that already existed.

[Hecuba]

So the question is what to do in a lawless autocracy if the people in charge are probably nice?

I dunno, leave? Leaving sounds good. I certainly wouldn't want to live there unless I was rich and/or powerful enough to ensure that the whims of the leaders favored my rights.

If such a society exists and has existed for multiple generations of governance while indeed remaining Chaotic Good, then the people in charge are not just probably nice: they are reliably good, in a setting where good is an objectively verifiable trait.

I don't know that such a narrative element is particularly compelling (and it would certainly be alien), but it is certainly conceivable. Heck, since its an Elvish city, it even plays into the tired idea of elves just being that much better and more moral than other people.

[dascarletm]

If such a society exists and has existed for multiple generations of governance while indeed remaining Chaotic Good, then the people in charge are not just probably nice: they are reliably good, in a setting where good is an objectively verifiable trait.

I don't know that such a narrative element is particularly compelling (and it would certainly be alien), but it is certainly conceivable. Heck, since its an Elvish city, it even plays into the tired idea of elves just being that much better and more moral than other people.

I never said they are good. In fact they are probably going to be played as strictly neutral in an objective sense. What is most fair. Ideally I want the city to exist for a skypirate campaign as a harbor for outlaws. They can do as they please outside the city, but as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights in the city you will always be welcomed warrant for arrest and all.

To the block situation... again, it wouldn't work I'm sure people could come up with an example, but the current one has a very simple solution.

[Kelb_Panthera]

To the blocks around the house discussion: it comes before the council because the guy who was blocked in moves or destroys some of them to leave his house and goes to the council to complain about his rights being violated by the block owner using arguments similar to oldtrees1's.

The block owner can defend his action with Flickerdart's argument but it's ultimately up to the council which argument wins.

Things that are likely to be weighed in the hearing that have nothing to do with the facts; the block placer and homeowners' reputations in the community, their relative wealth, and any existing relationship they might have with the council or any of its members. In abscence of compex laws or tradition to force the council to only consider the facts, they will, as all people do, allow their own biases to affect their decision as heavily as they feel that bias should.

You're still making legalistic arguments to a chaotic power structure.

[Krobar]

No person shall have the right to deny another person the use and enjoyment of his or her own property, or property that is owned by the city.

Violators will subject to fines and restitution as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.


In a CG city like this in my games you would be required to remove your blocks and pay a fine and reasonable damages.