Homework!

[sythyry]

Several of you gave me things to think about. Two of you -- kris_schnee and foomf -- even gave me homework. I shall do this homework, albeit somewhat flippantly. I am not being flippant because the questions are bad or irrelevant -- the questions are quite good, and the answers matter. I am being flippant because I am tired and I do not wish to write very much today.

(By the way, why do fantasy races always seem to be Capitalized? We don't write about "Humans".) The names of prime species are given the markers of respect in the language and orthography in question. The names of non-prime species are not. Actually we are being relatively nice -- some orthographic systems don't capitalize the names of individual non-primes: "Vae" would be "vae" in such systems.

What's the purpose of a city? To provide a place where many primes or (and?) monsters may live comfortably, fashionably, safely, and happily in close proximity.

How is that different from the purpose of a government? Well, flippantly, a government is not a place. Less flippantly, I think governments have other purposes (some of them worthwhile).

Does government and governance require a city? I can't see why it does.

Can there be a form of governance that works for all sentients living in an area? If the area is small enough, yes. For an area that contains two or more sentients, I suspect not.

Why did Primes form cities in the first place? I'll have to ask a relative about that. My vague impression is no more than, "It seemed the thing to do at the time." Mutual defense and all was crucial. It still is.

Why did non-primes form their cities? I have no idea. I don't even know if there's anyone around to ask.

Why did Primes exclude non-primes from their cities? Mostly because non-primes exist to trouble us, and we don't want to be troubled that way at home. This reason still obtains.

What benefits accrue to forming a mixed-prime-and-non-prime city? Vae is a lot happier. Some foolish concept of justice that I seem to want to observe will be satisfied.

What detriments would be inevitable? Trouble. Lots and lots of trouble, of the forms suitable to the non-prime inhabitants.

What detriments would be easily managed? Um ... if we let taptet in, we could outlaw potion-making, I suppose.

Who decides on the form of governance? The founders of the city.

What do the Gods of the World Tree think about all this? I can't see why that could possibly matter. It's not as if they'll be nice to us even if they like it.

Comments

[foomf.livejournal.com]

Homework! Chee! And multi-part answer because I am a wordy barstid.

For my purposes here, I use "sentient" to refer to an entity which is on some level conscious and able to act under the dictates of that consciousness; "sapient" is reserved for sentient entities which have the further ability to think abstractly and to accumulate knowledge deliberately.

What's the purpose of a city? To provide a place where many primes or (and?) monsters may live comfortably, fashionably, safely, and happily in close proximity.

Interestingly close to my first thought, but according to the history of civilization course of my apparently unwasted college years, cities arise whenever or wherever there is a need for the benefits of community outside a single extended family. This happens fairly organically, and starts around scales of industry: resource exploitation (mining or fishing or other things like that on my world), trading posts, agricultural areas, or of course, gathering to collectively defend from actively dangerous things. This appears to be true on the World Tree from what I've read, but with the caveat that the original Primes established a form of rule-by-nobility in their cities as well. Otherwise (as in my world) cities are also started deliberately by colonizers, and there is a non-zero chance of them failing to 'take'.

How is that different from the purpose of a government? Well, flippantly, a government is not a place. Less flippantly, I think governments have other purposes (some of them worthwhile).
My question was ill-formed because I failed to state why I made the connection: government is the abstraction of authority into an organization rather than individuals.
It's one of the key differentiators between the sapient apes on my world and the merely sentient ones, and it happens in part because there is language.
And government, as such, appears only to happen/be needed when people clump together in large enough groups to make it a benefit: either their collective need is best met by a collective contribution to a smaller organization that provides for that need, and their conflicting needs cannot be resolved in a way that is acceptable to the people in general, and the individuals to whom they might defer are not able to address all these conflicts.
The first form, collective need, is typical when defending from enemies or making armies. The second form is more the result of the transition from "local big guy" to "entitled ruler" and the necessary shuffling-off of responsibilities.

Does government and governance require a city? I can't see why it does.
I think that it's moot unless there is a sufficient population to require the benefit of the agency that implements the abstraction.
Can there be a form of governance that works for all sentients living in an area? If the area is small enough, yes. For an area that contains two or more sentients, I suspect not.
That's where the flippant part comes in, eh? Actually, since government tends to happen when there are larger rather than smaller populations, then I would say that there's a complex formula of population density, need, resource, and reach, that determines whether a government will form and how large it will be. I must point out that governments on my world have only been known to form when cities exist, where 'city' mostly means 'group of unrelated families in close proximity living in a fixed location' rather than "there are walls."

[foomf.livejournal.com]

Why did Primes form cities in the first place? I'll have to ask a relative about that. My vague impression is no more than, "It seemed the thing to do at the time." Mutual defense and all was crucial. It still is.
That's what I thought, but more of the 'mutual defense' and 'wait, these beings seem to exist to plague us?! We should keep them out!' rather than simple randomness.

Why did non-primes form their cities? I have no idea. I don't even know if there's anyone around to ask.
I would suspect that Vae might know some of it. I suspect that the reasons were the same as for Primes. I'm not at all sure that there aren't "monster species" which were created to cause Trouble for selected non-Prime sapients, given your collective gods' taste for Trouble.

Why did Primes exclude non-primes from their cities? Mostly because non-primes exist to trouble us, and we don't want to be troubled that way at home. This reason still obtains.
Again, not so sure that ALL non-Primes exist solely to Trouble Primes, but I don't know whose word it was that this was the case. I certainly wouldn't trust your gods to be truthful or complete in anything they say. Not all of them anyway. But in the cases where it is, I suspect that Trouble doesn't just mean 'we will kill, eat, or enslave you.' It may also mean 'our existance requires you to think outside the comfortable and lazy bounds that would otherwise obtain' but then, on my world the non-obvious creator(s?) appear to have given us one another for that purpose without bothering to multi-speciate.

What benefits accrue to forming a mixed-prime-and-non-prime city? Vae is a lot happier. Some foolish concept of justice that I seem to want to observe will be satisfied.
Those are good benefits. A mixed community of sapients, protected by its own version of city walls, for mutual defense from the common mess of uniformly dangerous or hostile creatures.

What detriments would be inevitable? Trouble. Lots and lots of trouble, of the forms suitable to the non-prime inhabitants.
I'm not sure what this means but... I think it means that, on the World Tree, there are only a tiny handful of sapients who do not have specific Trouble laid on them as a blessing of the gods, and that for most of them, the Trouble is wrapped in the form of weaknesses or compulsions that relate to something involving interactions with others. From the outside, it looks like the gods have a contest going, but I'm suspecting that in fact there might be a much more complicated reason related to balancing the magical operations of the World Tree; creating a small set of sapients who have a magerium reflecting the entire structure of the Tree would be a strong corrective while other species, sapient or otherwise, are being continually added with partial mageria that

What detriments would be easily managed? Um ... if we let taptet in, we could outlaw potion-making, I suppose.
The answer there, while flippant, can be generalized. With the application of contemplative wisdom, the obvious traps should be averted by the creation of law that, without being oppressive, limits the harm done by aforementioned blessings of gods. In a few felicitous cases they may even be able to completely suborn the torment. This is the most delicious part: when one discovers a set of sapients whose specific blessings contain traps that are mutually remedial. But even if the ironic does not pertain to any or most of the Trouble, in a community with the support of others, it should be possible to manage the Trouble. The strictures of the law should be phrased to be most merciful to those sapients whose Trouble is truly inevitable, most strongly unjust, or most difficult to overcome, but must recognize the limits of the community to cope with all things.

[foomf.livejournal.com]

Who decides on the form of governance? The founders of the city.
This is the mistake. It is a truism here that the ones who decide the form of governance are not those in authority nor those who found the city or the state, but rather, the governed. On the World Tree, in the absence of compulsive mentador, this appears to be the case as well; there have been wars and insurrections there, if your history serves. In the very short term, the personally powerful can sway this, but the force of collective action can be turned against them with unexpected suddenness should the governed decide that they are tyrants and monsters and must be taken down. The most successful states begin by deciding a form of governance which is as close to the ideals of the governed as possible, and then fine-tune it. There are, of course, the equivalent of bonstables in our world who like to sleaze in and stealthily repurpose the common good to mean 'their personal good' but again, those tend to be recognized as monsters sooner or later.

What do the Gods of the World Tree think about all this? I can't see why that could possibly matter. It's not as if they'll be nice to us even if they like it.
Well, it would matter if they decided to outright forbid it. It would matter if they thought it was worthwhile and so chose to encourage it. But no, not likely to be 'nice' because that's boring and a bit too much effort. Way too much effort.