Campaign idea: land without rulers

[weenie]

So summer is here and it's time for a new campaign. I've been thinking on what type of setting I would run and started tinkering with the politics of the place. What I came up with is inspired by the ancient Irish and Icelandic system of governance, where there were no states as we have today, but people were able to change their political representatives or in the case of Ireland decide to represent themselves and others if they wanted to.

In my setting there would be no lords and kings, the only functions resembling a ruling body would be judges, who wouldn't be appointed by anyone, but would earn their position through a history of wise and impartial rulings.

Law could be enforced by anyone, which would mean there was nothing preventing violent conflict except the price and risk of it, so I think that separate security organizations would emerge with agreement on which judge will settle their disputes, to prevent unnecessary costs. People could sell their grievances to others, so harming somebody poor could still have repercussions, because even if they can't hire somebody to get restitutions from you, they could sell their grievances toward you to a stronger organization and that organization could then take you to court, or hunt you down if you don't agree to a legal settlement.

A concept that I should work on a bit more is the outlaw. These will be the people, who will agree to a court presiding over a dispute, but will evade the consequences of the solution. People will try to avoid them in general, because they probably won't have anything to loose, and will be desperate, since there will probably be bounties on their head and an "ok to harm" statement issued from several reputable judges.

So what do you think, would you play "people" that found themselves washed up in such a world?

[rlc]

Sounds fun, actually. Of course, the tech level would probably have to be around the same level as those some people had. And I could actual see a lot of intrigue going on. Maybe your character/party is a group of these outlaws. Or maybe there's an organization that's buying up all of the grievances and even a judge or two.

[weenie]

Sounds fun, actually. Of course, the tech level would probably have to be around the same level as those some people had. And I could actual see a lot of intrigue going on. Maybe your character/party is a group of these outlaws. Or maybe there's an organization that's buying up all of the grievances and even a judge or two.

Yeah, I think the adventure options might be limitless. That one organization would buy up all grievances or judges would be kinda of an economic problem though, because it would make the price of grievances skyrocket, and if people get the feeling that a judge is biased, they'll just stop hiring him for arbitrations.

For potential plot hooks I'm not so sure what to do actually. Depends on what the players will want to play probably. If they'll want to enforce the law, they might have to hunt down outlaws, or do investigative work for people, or maybe even fight monsters. It's still a fantasy setting, and Manticores don't care much about the law of people.

Any other suggestions regarding plot hooks will be much appreciated.

[veti]

Sounds to me like - most players I know would consider themselves failures if they weren't running the whole place within two months.

What you're describing is anarchy, in its most literal sense. It can only work as long as (a) everyone around buys into it (it's, paradoxically, a very conformist system) and (b) no-one is that much more individually powerful than anyone else, so individual "outlaws" can safely be ignored.

Your players will probably violate both these rules with a vengeance.

[The Oni]

The way I see it, there's got to be some way of protecting the borders or a monarchist army would just steamroll over the country, unless the country sucks, and nobody wants it (like the really lousy frozen parts of Russia) or unless there's some kind of guardian spirit or force that prevents that, maybe. Possibly it's even tied to the Judges. At any rate it only awakens to deal with large scale threats like invasions, but skirmishes and squabbles are beneath its attentions. Just a suggestion.

[weenie]

Sounds to me like - most players I know would consider themselves failures if they weren't running the whole place within two months.

What you're describing is anarchy, in its most literal sense. It can only work as long as (a) everyone around buys into it (it's, paradoxically, a very conformist system) and (b) no-one is that much more individually powerful than anyone else, so individual "outlaws" can safely be ignored.

Your players will probably violate both these rules with a vengeance.

It's pretty much anarchy, yes. Private property anarchy to be precise. I actually hope that the players will try to "break the system" as it were, because I would love to see how it plays out. Of course it's all up to DM fiat, but I get the feeling that if you set up the main PCs beforehand, don't make them incredibly idealistic and then try to play out their beliefs consistently, it would sorta create a simulation of how things would truly work out. Of course if players are lvl20 characters and everybody else is a commoner, they'll be more than able to crown themselves, but this was meant as more of a low-level campaign, so PCs aren't invincible on their own.

[weenie]

The way I see it, there's got to be some way of protecting the borders or a monarchist army would just steamroll over the country, unless the country sucks, and nobody wants it (like the really lousy frozen parts of Russia) or unless there's some kind of guardian spirit or force that prevents that, maybe. Possibly it's even tied to the Judges. At any rate it only awakens to deal with large scale threats like invasions, but skirmishes and squabbles are beneath its attentions. Just a suggestion.

That's a great idea. A foreign invasion would be very interesting to play out. Then it could be up to the players on how they would fight it, uniting all the security organizations against the foreign threat, not opposing the conquest directly, but sabotaging any attempt to collect taxes on the people covertly or maybe something entirely different, that I haven't even thought of yet.

The biggest obstacle to conquering such a land in my opinion is that you can't just dispose of the previous king, and take over the tax system, like with invading other monarchies. Even if you execute all the most prominent judges in the area, this doesn't give you the ability to administer law yourself or to tax people. You are not attacking a ruler, but the way of life of an entire people, which means they will probably resist you, and if not violently, then at least by supporting the already existing and decentralized armed forces that were present before you invaded them. Engaging guerrilla warriors in a foreign land is the perfect way to lose your crown.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

In Iceland, this worked because a) there weren't that many people, so you had to interact with people you wronged or who wronged you, b) it was isolated from foreign invaders, and c) it was economically poor, such that no one was really able to get that huge an advantage over another for a long long time.

[Poppyseed45]

That's a great idea. A foreign invasion would be very interesting to play out. Then it could be up to the players on how they would fight it, uniting all the security organizations against the foreign threat, not opposing the conquest directly, but sabotaging any attempt to collect taxes on the people covertly or maybe something entirely different, that I haven't even thought of yet.

The biggest obstacle to conquering such a land in my opinion is that you can't just dispose of the previous king, and take over the tax system, like with invading other monarchies. Even if you execute all the most prominent judges in the area, this doesn't give you the ability to administer law yourself or to tax people. You are not attacking a ruler, but the way of life of an entire people, which means they will probably resist you, and if not violently, then at least by supporting the already existing and decentralized armed forces that were present before you invaded them. Engaging guerrilla warriors in a foreign land is the perfect way to lose your crown.

Hmm...problem is, in pretty much every case in real human history where a pastoral, "anarchic" set of groups meets an organized "government-ed" group, the anarchs lose. Every single time. Let's take the foreign invasion scenario above that you mention. There are no systems in place for working together, from what you describe, so any organized army will eat them for lunch, simply because they know how to create real supply lines and the like. Sure, your ragtag bunch of freedom fighters will win a battle or two, but they won't have the ability to win the war. Strangely, guerrilla tactics take organization to work.

Conquering lands were NEVER just a matter of disposing of the king. Take William the Bastard's conquest of England; it wasn't just a matter of disposing the king: have a look. You've always got to clean up the rest of resistance, and that can take decades.

Thing is, we have exact examples of foreign organized powers taking lands of unorganized ones. When Rome conquered Britain (or the part they bothered to), there was resistance to Rome, sure, but it amounted to nothing thanks to exactly the lack of organization you're describing here; they didn't organize, and slowly but surely, Rome ate them, AND they eventually laid down for it: you can see that here.

This isn't to say that magic and stuff can't offset this; it's your game after all. Just, for me, if I were in your game, I'd be trying to figure out, sometime last week, why the organized powers around us haven't steamrolled us into oblivion.

P.S. - forgot to hit your other point, about "attacking a people's way of life." Sorry, that's poetic, but it's a tad...well, let me just say that a way of life disappears pretty quickly in the face of organized destruction (for example, the Celtic languages were once spoken from the Spains all the way to the edge of what is now Scotland; the vast majority of those languages are gone, thanks to organized groups "changing the way of people's lives", specifically Rome, though the Kingdom of England helped eventually that process as well).

[Poppyseed45]

In Iceland, this worked because a) there weren't that many people, so you had to interact with people you wronged or who wronged you, b) it was isolated from foreign invaders, and c) it was economically poor, such that no one was really able to get that huge an advantage over another for a long long time.

The other point I wanted to make, thank you! Groups evolved into more organized groups for very specific reasons, usually relating to their neighbors, and if not them, then the organizing of things around agriculture. Sort of a chicken/egg thing really: is it having agriculture that causes organizing, which gives our neighbors the idea to organize, or did the neighbors organize for some other reason, which leads to agriculture, and now we have even more organizing?

If you're interested in the evolution of groups to organized from pastoral groups, there's a good book on the topic, "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond (here).

[weenie]

In Iceland, this worked because a) there weren't that many people, so you had to interact with people you wronged or who wronged you, b) it was isolated from foreign invaders, and c) it was economically poor, such that no one was really able to get that huge an advantage over another for a long long time.

You first point could be summed up as information being able to spread fast. I think that is very crucial and was wondering how magic could play a role in my society. The fact that is was isolated was a great help for the Icelanders, true. Ireland was also an island and I'm sure that played a large part in why it managed to remain decentralized for as long as it did. I was considering making the land in question an island as well, maybe that will make it more feasible for my players.

As for being economically poor, I'm not so sure that it was. There was no really rich king, but the farmers did pretty well for themselves. Also Iceland didn't stop being decentralized or anarchic simply because somebody became richer than the others, but because of problems in their system as I understand. They had a fixed number of "chieftains", which meant that it was possible to monopolize all of the chieftaincies. Also once christianity came along, chieftains hat the right to tax people according to regional proximity, which went completely against their laws before that.

[weenie]

Hmm...problem is, in pretty much every case in real human history where a pastoral, "anarchic" set of groups meets an organized "government-ed" group, the anarchs lose. Every single time. Let's take the foreign invasion scenario above that you mention. There are no systems in place for working together, from what you describe, so any organized army will eat them for lunch, simply because they know how to create real supply lines and the like. Sure, your ragtag bunch of freedom fighters will win a battle or two, but they won't have the ability to win the war. Strangely, guerrilla tactics take organization to work.

Conquering lands were NEVER just a matter of disposing of the king. Take William the Bastard's conquest of England; it wasn't just a matter of disposing the king: have a look. You've always got to clean up the rest of resistance, and that can take decades.

Thing is, we have exact examples of foreign organized powers taking lands of unorganized ones. When Rome conquered Britain (or the part they bothered to), there was resistance to Rome, sure, but it amounted to nothing thanks to exactly the lack of organization you're describing here; they didn't organize, and slowly but surely, Rome ate them, AND they eventually laid down for it: you can see that here.

This isn't to say that magic and stuff can't offset this; it's your game after all. Just, for me, if I were in your game, I'd be trying to figure out, sometime last week, why the organized powers around us haven't steamrolled us into oblivion.

P.S. - forgot to hit your other point, about "attacking a people's way of life." Sorry, that's poetic, but it's a tad...well, let me just say that a way of life disappears pretty quickly in the face of organized destruction (for example, the Celtic languages were once spoken from the Spains all the way to the edge of what is now Scotland; the vast majority of those languages are gone, thanks to organized groups "changing the way of people's lives", specifically Rome, though the Kingdom of England helped eventually that process as well).

Well, it's definitely not impossible to take over a land with a cultural aversion to involuntary rule, but Ireland did manage to stay decentralized for a pretty long time, it wasn't conquered until the 17th century. Geographical isolation may be a big factor in why they were able to fend off invasions for so long, but it's still quite a feat.

Anyhow, I was thinking about how the people of the land would react to foreigners. People coming to this land would mainly be traders, smugglers, refugees and criminals, so a measure of suspicion would probably be used. But I'm not sure what that would mean in practice. I don't think people would go so far as to fence in city districts or things like that, but maybe doing business would be harder for foreigners? Their grievances wouldn't be worth as much, some stores could be off-limits to them etc. What do you think?

[Segev]

Also, don't mistake tribalism for anarchy. Most cultures of the sort you're describing are culturally unified but distinct micro-nations (or tribes). They have "ruling bodies" in their local village or nomadic group, whether a headman or a council of elders or just the patriarch (or matriarch) of the central family. Humans do naturally self-organize to some degree, whether formally or not.

A government - when formalized - is really just one thing: a body which has taken upon itself (possibly with, possibly without the consent of the governed) an exclusive monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This need not be absolute - many modern governments recognize a right to self-defense - but it tends to be vastly encompassing. A "good" government, by most modern standards, is one where this exclusive monopoly applies as a means to prevent citizens from taking vengeance on each other and to enforce individual rights in the face of individually stronger foes who would deny one those rights. In less-good governments (again by modern standards), this is an exclusive right to tyranny.

In an anarchy - a true anarchy - every man is responsible for his own personal defense as part of his own well-being. If he organizes with others in a family unit or a mutual protection group, he's already moving into tribalism, but he is gaining the benefits of combining his strength with that of others (and, if his strengths are not military, he's freeing up those whose strengths are in the application of force to specialize in it).

The reason the Irish culture was hard to stamp out is because it was a deeply entrenched tribal one. It wasn't an anarchy; it was hundreds or thousands of micro-nations, each of which had to be conquered individually and which shared enormous amounts of cultural identity. They didn't and couldn't organize on the scale of, say, Rome, but they did and could work together to some extent, and they were already used to operating entirely independently, so the usual tactic of breaking a major focus of political power wouldn't really be a hard blow to the morale and organization of the remainder.

Tribalism is, honestly, the natural state into which man enters when faced with no larger organizing body nor rule set. We band together around or under the strong or the clever, in family units or in gangs. Good - as in skilled - leaders can amass larger tribes, and can even develop them into nations, by force or diplomacy or reason.

In truth, the idealized version of James Madison's Federalism, taken down to a municipal level, is probably the closest you'll get to what you're looking for if you want this "land without rulers" to have the ability to unify around anything - even just its cultural identity - in the face of foreign powers. The whole point of Federalism was to secure for its people the benefits of empire (such as unifying organization in the face of foreign aggression) while retaining the responsiveness and individual determination made possible by being governed locally (i.e. not having to deal with a distant tyrant or even unfeeling bureaucracy, but handling your problems yourself or with your community).

[weenie]

Also, don't mistake tribalism for anarchy. Most cultures of the sort you're describing are culturally unified but distinct micro-nations (or tribes). They have "ruling bodies" in their local village or nomadic group, whether a headman or a council of elders or just the patriarch (or matriarch) of the central family. Humans do naturally self-organize to some degree, whether formally or not.

A government - when formalized - is really just one thing: a body which has taken upon itself (possibly with, possibly without the consent of the governed) an exclusive monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This need not be absolute - many modern governments recognize a right to self-defense - but it tends to be vastly encompassing. A "good" government, by most modern standards, is one where this exclusive monopoly applies as a means to prevent citizens from taking vengeance on each other and to enforce individual rights in the face of individually stronger foes who would deny one those rights. In less-good governments (again by modern standards), this is an exclusive right to tyranny.

In an anarchy - a true anarchy - every man is responsible for his own personal defense as part of his own well-being. If he organizes with others in a family unit or a mutual protection group, he's already moving into tribalism, but he is gaining the benefits of combining his strength with that of others (and, if his strengths are not military, he's freeing up those whose strengths are in the application of force to specialize in it).

The reason the Irish culture was hard to stamp out is because it was a deeply entrenched tribal one. It wasn't an anarchy; it was hundreds or thousands of micro-nations, each of which had to be conquered individually and which shared enormous amounts of cultural identity. They didn't and couldn't organize on the scale of, say, Rome, but they did and could work together to some extent, and they were already used to operating entirely independently, so the usual tactic of breaking a major focus of political power wouldn't really be a hard blow to the morale and organization of the remainder.

Tribalism is, honestly, the natural state into which man enters when faced with no larger organizing body nor rule set. We band together around or under the strong or the clever, in family units or in gangs. Good - as in skilled - leaders can amass larger tribes, and can even develop them into nations, by force or diplomacy or reason.

In truth, the idealized version of James Madison's Federalism, taken down to a municipal level, is probably the closest you'll get to what you're looking for if you want this "land without rulers" to have the ability to unify around anything - even just its cultural identity - in the face of foreign powers. The whole point of Federalism was to secure for its people the benefits of empire (such as unifying organization in the face of foreign aggression) while retaining the responsiveness and individual determination made possible by being governed locally (i.e. not having to deal with a distant tyrant or even unfeeling bureaucracy, but handling your problems yourself or with your community).

Well, this is more of a comment on political philosophy than on the campaign itself, but it's still an interesting one. I equate anarchy with statelessness, so not having a regional monopoly on the use of force is anarchic enough for me. If people band together to combat a common foe, they haven't really done anything towards establishing a monopoly on the use of force. Having a multitude of microstates is in my opinion also a move towards anarchy, since if everybody was his own state, that would pretty much equal to anarchy in my definition. Some call that panarchy, but I find it's just a difference of semantics.

Now another concept I was thinking about was slavery. To me it could be conceivable that such a society would accept as valid contracts where one person sells himself to another, or that slavery could be deemed a just compensation for murder. What do you think?

[Segev]

Slavery is something that happens in anarchies and tribalism unless there is some incredibly strong shared cultural taboo against it. The line between a "slave" and a "servant" in tribal cultures is relatively thin and often based on interpersonal dynamics.

Formal slavery practices would actually be a strong move away from "anarchy," because it implies a legal construct. Cultural slavery practices will tend to be on the neutral to evil end of the moral spectrum; usually, they are simply the ultimate form of force-used-for-theft: "do what I say or I'll punish/kill you; you're too weak to stop me."

Cultural mores surrounding it tend to make it more "honorable warrior race guy" sorts of things where a "slave" is less property and more working off the shame of defeat.

In short, slavery is either a legal or a cultural construct, and in the latter case, it will be something either formalized by virtue of how they view things, or it will be a fact of life for those under the thumb of tyrants.

[LibraryOgre]

I'll add that this would probably be a better system in a non-leveled game. When your level determines your skill caps directly, someone can Diplomance themselves into kingship by the rules, which somewhat defeats the purpose.

[Sith_Happens]

That's a great idea. A foreign invasion would be very interesting to play out. Then it could be up to the players on how they would fight it, uniting all the security organizations against the foreign threat, not opposing the conquest directly, but sabotaging any attempt to collect taxes on the people covertly or maybe something entirely different, that I haven't even thought of yet.

Successfully uniting the region's military/security apparatus against an organized foreign threat seems like a quick way to end up as a warlord when all's said and done.

[Poppyseed45]

Successfully uniting the region's military/security apparatus against an organized foreign threat seems like a quick way to end up as a warlord when all's said and done.

Or, you know, a king.

[valadil]

A land without rules? That sounds horrible. How would anyone measure anything?

[Sith_Happens]

Or, you know, a king.

They're pretty much the same thing when you think about it.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

'Organized' does not mean 'effective', any more than 'disorganized' means 'ineffective'. William beat Harald in part because the Saxons were worn down from having just - as in, less than a month before, and marched straight to meet William FROM doing so - beaten off Viking raiders. Harald was king of the majority of England, but his barons had significant rights, honors, and power themselves - the destruction of which situation they fought, apparently for years to come, forcing William to break them individually instead of conquering them collectively.

Having a thing-based government - in which any citizen can stand and debate, though in which the holders of more land do have more influence as a practical matter - is a very workable situation, and though it can lead to aristocracies as the more charismatic or wealthy individuals charm or bribe others to follow/support them, if kept in line by a non-ruling oversight body (your 'judges', for example, who achieve the post by approval of their just and honest works and decisions) is highly workable.

It should be noted that a republic is, functionally, a thing-based government. The early Romans believed strongly in government of, by, and for the people; it is a popular opinion (at least among early historians) that the good emperors of Rome were ones who were judged by the current Emperor to be good, upright, and honest men, and who were deliberately adopted to inherit, and that those who inherited by birth were right bastards who brought about the Empire's downfall. The Emperor concept is itself an evolution of the concept of dictator - a temporary leader, assigned absolute power for usually six months, in order to take care of a pressing situation. Of good example is Cincinnatus:

Cincinnatus was regarded by the Romans, especially the aristocratic patrician class, as one of the heroes of early Rome and as a model of Roman virtue and simplicity. ... When his son, Caeso Quinctius, was convicted and condemned to death, Cincinnatus was forced to live in humble circumstances, working on his own small farm, until an invasion caused him to be called to serve Rome as dictator, an office which he resigned two weeks later, after completing his task of defeating the rivaling tribes of the Aequians, Sabines, and Volscians.

In short, kings happen when the people get complacent and enforcement of the ideals of a society break down.

However, I will point out that your typical law structure will not work through a thing-based quasi-medieval government; the thing meets irregularly and/or rarely, and a killing needs to be taken care of quickly. You might consider taking a look at parts of Salic Law, which includes among its concepts weregild (death-compensation). I'd wreck the 'no female may inherit' portion, especially since strong female characters are pretty important in a fantasy campaign ...

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

'Organized' does not mean 'effective', any more than 'disorganized' means 'ineffective'. William beat Harald in part because the Saxons were worn down from having just - as in, less than a month before, and marched straight to meet William FROM doing so - beaten off Viking raiders. Harald was king of the majority of England, but his barons had significant rights, honors, and power themselves - the destruction of which situation they fought, apparently for years to come, forcing William to break them individually instead of conquering them collectively.

Having a thing-based government - in which any citizen can stand and debate, though in which the holders of more land do have more influence as a practical matter - is a very workable situation, and though it can lead to aristocracies as the more charismatic or wealthy individuals charm or bribe others to follow/support them, if kept in line by a non-ruling oversight body (your 'judges', for example, who achieve the post by approval of their just and honest works and decisions) is highly workable.

It should be noted that a republic is, functionally, a thing-based government. The early Romans believed strongly in government of, by, and for the people; it is a popular opinion (at least among early historians) that the good emperors of Rome were ones who were judged by the current Emperor to be good, upright, and honest men, and who were deliberately adopted to inherit, and that those who inherited by birth were right bastards who brought about the Empire's downfall. The Emperor concept is itself an evolution of the concept of dictator - a temporary leader, assigned absolute power for usually six months, in order to take care of a pressing situation. Of good example is Cincinnatus:

Cincinnatus was regarded by the Romans, especially the aristocratic patrician class, as one of the heroes of early Rome and as a model of Roman virtue and simplicity. ... When his son, Caeso Quinctius, was convicted and condemned to death, Cincinnatus was forced to live in humble circumstances, working on his own small farm, until an invasion caused him to be called to serve Rome as dictator, an office which he resigned two weeks later, after completing his task of defeating the rivaling tribes of the Aequians, Sabines, and Volscians.

In short, kings happen when the people get complacent and enforcement of the ideals of a society break down.

However, I will point out that your typical law structure will not work through a thing-based quasi-medieval government; the thing meets irregularly and/or rarely, and a killing needs to be taken care of quickly. You might consider taking a look at parts of Salic Law, which includes among its concepts weregild (death-compensation). I'd wreck the 'no female may inherit' portion, especially since strong female characters are pretty important in a fantasy campaign ...

[Alberic Strein]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that, semantic fudging aside, "organised" and "effective" are pretty much the same thing. You want to be effective? You need organisation. You don't have organisation? You'll lose 10 to 1.

As for the setting, well, it seems like a nice embryonic government. It could be something found on an island, which did not get invaded much, and has no experience in war, and hence does not feel the need to unite as a nation. Of course, some nice invaders could stir things up, paving the way for the PCs to become warlords rather easily, as stated.

Don't give this system a background as a 10 000 years strong empire and you're pretty much set, as long as your players are not politics enthusiats.

But yeah, it sounds more like the government of the weak little island that gets invaded by the big badass empire thant the government of the main place for the whole campaign, but hey, being on the son-to-be invaded island can be pretty cool.

Also, going on a tangent there, but you said something about magic being used for communication purposes. DONT. For the love of all that is not campaign breaking, just DONT. That shtick right there is a thousand times more dangerous than a lvl20 cleric who regularly shags his goddess who spoils him with greater wishes.

[The Oni]

They're pretty much the same thing when you think about it.

Well yeah, a king is what happens when the majority of people are OK with the warlord (or his sons).

[Slipperychicken]

Law could be enforced by anyone, which would mean there was nothing preventing violent conflict except the price and risk of it, so I think that separate security organizations would emerge with agreement on which judge will settle their disputes, to prevent unnecessary costs. People could sell their grievances to others, so harming somebody poor could still have repercussions, because even if they can't hire somebody to get restitutions from you, they could sell their grievances toward you to a stronger organization and that organization could then take you to court, or hunt you down if you don't agree to a legal settlement.

What's to stop people from simply forming militias to deal with troublemakers? They have families and communities to protect, and it's not hard to imagine that like-minded citizens would take matters into their own hands once the smattering of lawmen proved inadequate or unreliable.


And what happens if a town doesn't want to obey judge's ruling? Suppose the judge lets the accused go free, and the townsmen lynch the accused anyway. What happens next? Why should the townsfolk even wait for the judge and sheriff to show up anyhow, if they aren't beholden to their verdicts?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Part of the idea is there hardly is a "town". In "Njall's Saga", which is my main source of Icelandic life, the closest thing to an anarchic major society I can think of, there are no Icelandic towns of note. There are major land owners who have small villages but no towns, nothing walled and the Thing is the main market.

[weenie]

What's to stop people from simply forming militias to deal with troublemakers? They have families and communities to protect, and it's not hard to imagine that like-minded citizens would take matters into their own hands once the smattering of lawmen proved inadequate or unreliable.


And what happens if a town doesn't want to obey judge's ruling? Suppose the judge lets the accused go free, and the townsmen lynch the accused anyway. What happens next? Why should the townsfolk even wait for the judge and sheriff to show up anyhow, if they aren't beholden to their verdicts?

Nothing is really stopping them from taking law in their own hands, except custom and not having a personal stake in the matter. And trouble-makers still have friends and allies. Killing one might provoke retribution from somebody else etc. Also if you kill someone people could still take up a grievance against you for purely financial motives. They wouldn't need to really care emotionally about him, they could just be after your stuff.

That's another interesting question, grievances for murder. I was thinking that they would be hereditary, so if somebody kills your parent, you or another member of your family owns the grievance for his murder. What happens in the case of orphans or foreigners though? I guess then people could sell rights to murder grievances to third parties contractually. Or if they didn't do that, the first person to claim the grievance at the scene of the crime owns it. Thoughts?

As for the territorial defense etc, I see no reason why they wouldn't be able to unite in case of an invasion, really. They'll have experience with pirates and all sorts of people, and will probably be armed, since everyone of them is a part time law keeper of sorts. Villages could have militias and towns could have fortifications to withstand sieges, but most of all it would be a kind of Swiss scenario I believe. They are resource rich, but they are armed and geographically protected, and if you attack them, people there might be ready to pay your neighbors to take your land.

[Angelalex242]

Historically, I only know one example of a nation ruled by Judges...and it transformed itself into a Monarchy shortly thereafter. Most kings weren't very good, with a few notable exceptions in that particular monarchy.

That nation, of course, would be 1000 BC Israel, around the time of King David (Before him by a century was the time of the Judges...most famous of which is Samson, the guy who runs screaming from anybody trying to give him a haircut, but had super strength like Hercules otherwise)

[The_Werebear]

You'll have to let me know how that works out. I've considered running something like that before.

One thing I would make sure of is to make sure that the PC's know about the cultural impetus behind the Judges. Social and cultural pressure will be a major force here. If one continuously ignores the rulings of judges they bring in to arbitrate, no one will trade or interact with them, marry into their families, or protect them. They'd slide into outlaw status by default.

[Alberic Strein]

As for the territorial defense etc, I see no reason why they wouldn't be able to unite in case of an invasion, really. They'll have experience with pirates and all sorts of people, and will probably be armed, since everyone of them is a part time law keeper of sorts. Villages could have militias and towns could have fortifications to withstand sieges, but most of all it would be a kind of Swiss scenario I believe. They are resource rich, but they are armed and geographically protected, and if you attack them, people there might be ready to pay your neighbors to take your land.

Before getting into the military aspect, I would like to stress that this system cannot be used if they are resource rich. As the monetary gap between the farmers (etc) and merchants deepens, the merchants will form an oligarchy, since their superior means of buying grievances give them power over the masses, and slowly excludes the many out of the judicial system. And what do merchants want? Political power. So the biggest, baddest ones would form a government, without much fear of retribution. They have the people indebted to them to defend them, and foreign mercenaries are expensive but, in real world at least, very, very good, and would take on militiamen 10 times out of 10.

Now, the military aspect.

Yes, they could unite. There are always people ready to ally with the invaders in the hope of rewards, but if the culture is strong enough, the people will rise to defend it.

The Island has a number of very, very steep advantages : Islands limit the number of invaders, since they must come from boats, boats being f*kin expensive, and a single ship can only hold so many soldiers. Sinking the ship, and islanders are often good with boats, will kill many, many people. Also, knowledge of the terrain cannot be underestimated, it is the keystone of guerilla tactics, and tactics themselves in general, which allow for a smaller force to defeat a bigger one.

Ok, so, the invaders will get schooled, right? Oh yeah, for a whole two minutes, then the island will be invaded faster than you would believe.

Why? What do the invaders bring the militiamen don't have?

"One army."

Militiamen are not an army. Yes, they know which part of the spear goes into the enemy, but how many drills do they perform regularly? What is their day to day training? How many hours a day do they spend with their squadmates? Do they know the chain of command? Who is their boss, and who is the boss of their boss, repeating? Really, there can be military drills about almost anything, and this is military training. Militiamen have a day job, and it's not to train to perform in a war. War is a side job. Is it really anybody's surprise that they would get slaughtered?

Untrained troops break morale and formation easily and cannot be used for advanced strategies.

Worse, your allied army of militiamen is not one, it's a coalition of many groups. Which are HELL to administrate. Why would Drogo the Fierce, Warden of the North, listen to Drogo the Bloodthirsty, Bane of the South? They agree to fight the same enemy, but they won't want to submit to the other. So a chain of command will be hell to establish. Better yet, whomever ends up at the top of said chain has some decent odds to become king real quick once the war is over.

However, for a number of negative point, the allied army of militiamen will behave like a real army. Namely the RP&B department. Groups of militiamen don't need a supply line, an army does. So the army will starve, then turn to the nearby villages and starve them. Which will not sit well with the militamen from that region. That and war crimes have a tendency to happen after a couple of unsuccessful battles and starving soldiers.

So would the militiamen unite to send back the invader? Oh yes.

But they would NOT win against anything more than a few pirate ships.

Ps: No standing army means no warships and no advanced coastal defences, so the invaders would have no issues landing their troops and conquering a coastal village as an advanced base of operations. And since the islanders have no navy, they cannot blockade the invading force and prevent them from receiving supplies and reinforcements.