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

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

If you outlaw potion making only outlaws will have potions?

You could just require them to label their potions with the known side effects and a warning about the ~1% possibility of additional problems. n.n

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

Yea, I would regulate the potions, not outlaw them. That way the sale and trade of them can be taxed! And people will know what they are getting.

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

Let me try to recall a conclusion I had in a descussion with Delight, some time ago, with regards to Taptet.

1.) Many 'monsters' seem to have some aspect about them that innately challenges Primes, in one way or another.

2.) Taptet's main features of note are that they are cute, seem harmless, mostly are harmless most of the time, but can make potions that make them exceedingly good at doing armed uprisings against oppressors.

3.) Taptet generally seem to have most of the same moral and ethical capacity for behaviors as any Prime; there are good ones and bad ones, most of them seem to just want to get by, and be treated with dignity, and have a meaningful voice in affairs that impact them.

4.) It can be inferred that the 'trouble' that comes from Taptet is that they are a Social Puzzle to prime society; the more you treat them deplorably, the more downtrodden they are, the more you oppress them, the more you make their lives miserable, the more you act without respect towards them and treat them as you treat most monsters, the worse it will come back to bite Primes. But if a prime society instead treats them equitably, and doesn't treat them as an underclass, then they have nothing to fear -- they could then let them in walls like they could any Prime.

5.) A Prime society's inability to treat Taptet magnanimously doesn't say anything about Taptet being monstrous or really especially 'oppressible' or anything, it says more about the faults of the Prime society itself.

[delight-in.livejournal.com]

I think the reason almost all prime governments are seated in cities is that city walls get more and harder the bigger you build them so it's not practical to put a wall around a whole Mene. But most Primes want to live inside of walls to keep the very dangerous monsters out. I don't just mean very dangerous nonprimes like Vae but mean dangerous monsters that aren't even sapient like remorshka too. Even if you were going to let in all the not-so-bad nonprimes in (WHICH IS CRAZY TALK) you wouldn't let remorshka or bithorga or whatnot in.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Oh, and you should call the new city The City of ADVENTURE!

Because the added purpose of living there would be to get adventure quick-learning just for being a resident, because your next door neighbor is a nendrai.

[archadia.livejournal.com]

no. it must be Doom. or, more preferably, DOOM.

DOOMTOWN.

[archadia.livejournal.com]

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.
... also perhaps to have a reason for public restrooms, taxes, and panhandlers! =D
The city should make its own holiday! Founders Day of Doomtown! XD

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

Say, what would it take to track down that group of primes that were experimenting with living with monsters? The ones on the floating city thing??

[xolo.livejournal.com]

You need bureaucrats and clerks to run a government, and people like to live near their jobs. Even if you put the seat of government in the country, you'll have a defacto city soon enough.

[xolo.livejournal.com]

non-primes exist to trouble us

Did any of the gods ever say *why* that is? Is there perhaps an actual purpose to troubling you?

[delight-in.livejournal.com]

... it would be kind of nice to get quick-learning just by going about your everyday work

NOOOOOOO THIS WAY LIES MADNESS

[delight-in.livejournal.com]

I think it's for their entertainment? They like watching their creations fight or something.

[xolo.livejournal.com]

Have they said that, though, or does everyone just assume that?

[waywind.livejournal.com]

Hey, yeah, they would have some interesting insights on this idea, if they didn't want to move in. (I've been wanting to see more of them ever since they were introduced. They were intriguing!)

[shurhaian.livejournal.com]

This is all quite significant. The problem with taptet is that they're small and (usually) weak, and thus they get marginalized. They'd rather be protected by larger societies without being subject to them, which is also unfair, but what they usually get is outright subjugated. A middle ground might still see some of them being unreasonable, but it's not as though primes are immune to irrational and/or criminal behavior, either.

To be honest, wherriwheffle probably have bigger problems integrating on an equitable level with a prime society. Their proclivity for grabbing shiny things makes them expensive nuisances, and they have free Mentador spells. Taptet, as long as they have reasonable protected rights, would generally be safe - you just can't treat them like mherobump, who actively need to perform hard labor(and thus are quite useful to many prime cities).

Some people will point to any evidence of troublesome taptet(despite equal treatment) as disproving the whole notion, but by that logic, not a single one of the prime species is safe in a city, either; I'm pretty sure there have been criminals from them all. With the possible exception of Zi Ri due to lack of opportunity, but a troublesome Zi Ri could be fearsome indeed. (Paingang is referred to in our reference material in a way that suggests zie could have been either a Herethroy colover or a Zi Ri; none of the other primes have sexes that don't translate to common standard binary-gender language.)

[shurhaian.livejournal.com]

They wouldn't want to move in, for certain. They had perdithorne living with them, and perdithorne, as a rule, cannot abide Cani. They specifically mentioned that as a problem.

But yes, they might have insights.

[shurhaian.livejournal.com]

(Argh I keep using BBCode.)

Some nonprimes most certainly were put on the world to trouble primes. The cyarr and ulgrane, both long-time enemies(especially the cyarr), both date back to Blyn's Truce, an action which left the gods - and Accanax especially - very displeased with the primes after the near-extinction of the Khtsoyis.

However, not everything that isn't prime was created to trouble primes. Mircannis, according to our material, tends to make beneficial creatures (honeybees, animals with warm pelts, and other such nice things - even if you don't want to irritate the bees, they are generally benign, and useful even beyond their essential function of pollinating crops) as well as healing herbs. Mherobump are a good example of a benign, sentient nonprime. Scawn and cyarr, each in their own way, seem to have been deliberately placed to be foes to the primes. Bonstables are an outright danger, in a devious way. In between, you have such species at the taptet and the wherriwheffle - the one can be a problem if treated badly, and the other have tendencies that make them nuisances but usually aren't any worse. Both have some positive interactions with primes.

Part of the issue is a tendency - and this is not unique to World Tree prime species - to pigeonhole things. Some members of this species are unsafe, so treat the whole species as an inherent danger. Some nonprime species are dangerous, so forbid all of them. Our own legal system may not have species to discriminate against, but the way of most legal systems is still to paint things in broad, clear strokes rather than worry about the fiddly details - which is grossly unfair to the edge cases. Sometimes it can be considered an acceptable sacrifice in the name of (relatively) efficient, expedient law. Sometimes it's a travesty.

[shurhaian.livejournal.com]

Even Mircannis?

[shurhaian.livejournal.com]

The gods haven't even said why they created the world, alas, much less why they create individual aspects of it. It is the task of many, many theologians to try to come up with plausible guesses and insights about those reasons.

[delight-in.livejournal.com]

Uh-huh kinda. I mean she's a god so it's not like their motives are exactly normal by Prime standards or necessarily explicable but I think she figures it'd be boooooring without fighting. Even in the Elfimel heaven she let them fight and it WAS boring why do you think she left it?

[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.

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

The danger is that someone would instantly pitch that last phrase as a sitcom with a laugh track. (What would that be, Cr Ai 5, "The Vapid Laughter"?)

Hmm, I don't think anyone's mentioned blee here. (For others -- non-anthro canines with four arms on their backs, intelligent and non-evil but they get more magical arts if they kill a prime.)

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

One other difference between the Tree and our world is that the Tree still has plenty of room for people to colonize. Short of colonizing the sea (which some of us are working on), we're trapped under existing governments, most of which are at best moderately oppressive.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

My mean GM said that weffles cost cley, just because it doesn't say that they don't.

[shurhaian.livejournal.com]

((I asked about this a while back. Obviously GMs might house-rule things, but I believe the official response was that they can use any verb with those specific nouns, no cley. I wish I could find where I'd asked this...))

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

Mircannis clearly is pleased when her creations enjoy themselves, as we saw in her Heaven. But she does seem to enjoy them fighting -- or, for whatever reason, she permits and encourage them to fight -- as observed in the dagger room in Mircannis' Heaven. Presumably the two are not incompatible.

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

They've said a wide variety of things. They lie a lot, you know.

[shurhaian.livejournal.com]

The thing that gets me there is exactly that they [i]do[/i] enjoy themselves (barring the specific ones who don't want things to be quite so static - even they were miserable at first on leaving Heaven, no?), whereas most primes don't seem to enjoy being slaughtered by remorshka, as far as I'm aware.

Now, I will grant that not everything Mircannis does is [i]nice.[/i] But even the plagues that afflict primes are gentle, and relatively easy to cure(compared to the high-complexity spells for getting rid of the diseases that Accanax and Gnarn made for nonprimes). And bees have their stingers. Still, she seems, at least, to be the most likely of the World Tree gods to not enjoy [i]suffering.[/i]

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Raspberry says: We enjoy fighting remorshka, though. As long as we win. Or at least, as long as we live to try again later. And Mircannis made that pretty easy, especially against stupid monsters like remorshka.

Ulgrane, now -- they're a pain.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Another official response was that official responses were not official. n.n

There are lots of things that I clearly remember hearing officially that turn out not to actually be in the rules per se. Like levitate being attended whenever you use it to move (only fly like a bird specifies that) or triumph 6 giving you two critical hit options. Or scawn being extra annoying by using magical traps.

[shurhaian.livejournal.com]

Adventurers, however, are very much the minority among primes. I don't think the Herethroy villagers that get torn up by the marauding remorshka would agree with that enjoyment.

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

Another thing -- you could probably let Blee in. You would just have to remove the temptation for them to *murder* from within your city. The clause of them gaining nouns just requires them to strike the deathblow on a Prime or a few others, right? It doesn't require them to *murder* in particular, right? The prime can be resurrected as normal, right? And the blee would still have the connection?

Then just put them in your system of criminal justice. Make a waiting list for the local blee to sign up for, if they want to be executioner, or whatever.

Alternatively, establish the social precedent that the local Blee can, you know, PAY -- as in currency or in a certain amount of time of servitude, or whatever -- for the privilege, inconvenience, and resurrection involved in getting a noun connection. Basically, create a creative, social solution to the 'Blee temptation' problem.

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

I think that a blee needs to kill a prime for real to get a new Noun. Killing with resurrection does not, as far as I know, do the job. I admit to no great expertise about blee, however.

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

Ah. Maybe if the resurrection has sufficient delay? What's the longest delay a resurrection can be managed, without permanent negative side effects, that you know of?

Also, from a legal standpoint, how common is capital punishment without resurrection at the end?

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

There's resurrection before the mind and spirit have separated and wandered off, which has mostly temporary side effects, and must be done quickly ... some variable handful of minutes. Resurrection after that time is a different matter altogether, much harder and unchancier.

Death without resurrection is an extreme punishment.

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

I wonder if the Blee connection can happen as a result of a death with a resurrection done at the 'longer' end of those handful of minutes, mostly. Oh, a related question -- if the Blee does manage to gain the connection, about how long does it take between the act happening and the connection being granted? Maybe that has something to do with it. And yes, death without resurrection is definitely an extreme punishment, but it has to happen from time to time; I was mostly asking for what sorts of things that punishment is given.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

I doubt they get the connection before the prime's soul reaches their creator's domain. If you wanted to restrict it to 'actually killing' people that's a bright line to use.

Or they might get it instantly at death and lose it again if the prime is resurrected, for that matter.

[heavenscalyx.livejournal.com]

I was going to propose "Doomnation". Because then other cities' officials could, for instance, intone, "Hell and Doomnation!" from time to time.