I'm not sure about this. You're basing the idea of a D&D 'Lawful' society on modern Western legal systems' approach to the rule of law. Unfortunately, D&D societies are generally based on ancient or medieval ones where the equality of individuals and seperation of powers were hardly common features of the legal system.
I'm not too sure about the relevance of Separation of Powers to ancient/medieval societies either (I'm not even sure it actually derives from the concept of the Rule of Law so much as the desireability of checks and balances). However, the concept of the Rule of Law is one that is important to other societies too. The Persian emperor was bound by his proclomations. The English Barons made sure that when they came to restate what they regarded as the ancient rights and freedoms in Magna Carter they included the rules that gave birth to Habeus Corpus and as clause 29 they ensured due process:
Quote:
NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
These are a couple of clear examples of the principle of the Rule of Law being important to medieval and ancient societies. Most societies do recognise it, in one way or another. A significant amount of medieval and ancient philosophy dealt with the structuring of society - the recognition that despotism and rule by whim was not a valid way of living was central. None of which is to say that these principles were always kept to - but they would be recognised, never-the-less.
I'm afraid I am also joining the chorus of those who found the content of this article a bit misinformed.
I want first to distinguish the D&D conception of Law versus Chaos from what we mean by a lawful society and the rule of law. In D&D alignments, Law is the belief that society matters most, chaos is the belief that individual rights matter most. On balance, pure democracies are among the most chaotic of legal systems, dictatorships among the most lawful. Our representational democracies, whether the complex American form with distinct power balances between branches or the more popular parliamentary form in which the executive is in essence identical to the ruling party in the legislature, are a step less chaotic than democracy, but are still strongly toward the chaotic side. Jefferson's insistence that the United States be built in such a way that the citizens could choose to dismantle it is a reflection of our strongly chaotic heritage. We are not the example of Law in D&D terms. In fact, the Law-Chaos tension in the twentieth century was between socialist/communist states on the lawful side (in which the individual exists to serve the nation) and democratic states on the other (in which the rights of individuals are defended above the will of the majority).
Setting that aside, however, there are still significant problems in the conception you offer. Feudal Japan, at least as understood by its eighteenth century participants, was an extremely lawful nation, with very strict structures; however, there is no hint of equality as part of the system. Even Magna Carta was not about equality of all men, but about the rights of the nobles before the King, the peasants having a different and significantly lower set of rights. Those who were illiterate were often disqualified from testifying in court, because they were deemed less capable of giving accurate testimony; the court testimony of a nobleman was presumed accurate against the testimony of any number of his inferiors as a matter of law, such that if they contradicted him their testimony was disallowed. An arrested nobleman would be released on his own recognizance automatically, while the arrested peasant would not be released unless someone with stature was willing to take responsibility for him. (This applied in international affairs as well. When King Richard was being held prisoner in Germany, he had the freedom of the palace and grounds, because as a nobleman his word that he would not dishonor himself by attempting to escape was sufficient bond to keep him there.) The rule of law had nothing to do with equality of individuals, nor even equality before the law. It only meant that the law applied to everyone, including the King. The mention of the Medo-Persion Empire is significant, as this is generally recognized as the first empire in which the emperor could make the law but could not repeal it or excuse anyone from it; that is foundational for the story recorded in the book of Esther and celebrated at Purim. Similarly, the tension in the dramatic story Camelot is about whether King Arthur can pardon Guenivere and Lancelot for their treasonous liason, or whether he, too, must abide by the law he has made. By the rule of law, the law is applied to everyone equally; but the law may still be created such that it applies to different layers of society differently, such as one law for slaves, another for peasants, and another for nobles.
These have been good so far; this one was very weak. I trust that the next will be a bit more carefully considered.
Hmm, I'm really not sure that the RUle of Law necessarily implies that the law must apply equally, does it? Although, the original column does tend to suggest this, I agree.
I'm not sure about this. You're basing the idea of a D&D 'Lawful' society on modern Western legal systems' approach to the rule of law. Unfortunately, D&D societies are generally based on ancient or medieval ones where the equality of individuals and seperation of powers were hardly common features of the legal system.
Not quite.
You're correct that the Middle Ages weren't precisely keen on equality in the modern sense. I must disagree, however, on the issue of "separation of powers".
It wasn't until the "Sun King" Louis XIV that monarchs became absolute rulers. Throughout the Middle Ages, kings found their power routinely constrained and hobbled by parliaments. Admittedly, these included in the main the monied classes, and were not the modern, permanent bodies with which we are familiar, but John I Lackland and Henry IV of Germany would have been deeply surprised at your suggestion that they had absolute power. German medieval history in particular is a perfect case study of what happens when central authority is too weak.
Medieval law, where actually codified, leaned heavily on concepts that originated with the Romans, specifically the Corpus Juris Civilis, aka the Codex Iustinianus. Two of these remain the cornerstones of modern law throughout the Western world:
Nulla poena sine lege - No punishment without law.
This is the basic premise that unless an act is formally outlawed, one cannot be punished for performing that act.
In dubio pro reo - In doubt, for the accused.
Or, in modern parlance, the presumption of innocence. Note that even the Inquisition followed this principle. They simply used then-accepted methods of "strict questioning" to arrive at a confession, as did all legal systems of the era.
IIRC, both these concepts predate the Codex Justinianus by a fair margin.
Note that Roman law was openly sexist (females were considered the property of their fathers and then their husbands), as well as permitting both debt and chattel slavery. Although slaves could be manumitted, they were never truly "equal" under Roman law to a man born a Roman citizen. That was fine and dandy with them, but would be considered evil nowadays.
But it is lawful.
Linear Mode
