"You touched on the very issue yourself, everyone has their own idea of what is good, where basics of right and wrong are. We all draw our own moral lines. But that leads to chaos. It leads to what one person sees as justice being seen as revenge by another. Or maybe even as unprovoked. These rules and laws do not presuppose that no one can tell good from evil, but they give everyone a common baseline. It is a guideline. And it is built upon and adjusted by the leaders with help from their advisors over time, so that the laws represent generations of, what one hopes is increasing wisdom. And the laws include within them legal and proper ways to challenge a law that one sees as wrong. In some cases because it always was, in other cases because the situation has changed so drastically. But then there are systems in place, routine to follow, to ensure that no one, not even those in charge, change the laws with impunity upon their whims. It may seem thus from the outside sometimes, and a situation like the one we find ourselves in now is unusual, to be sure, but it is there for the general good."
"If the leaders of the humans where you were were truly as you say than they were not themselves good leaders. However even poor leaders can become good and strong ones with proper guidance and a fair but firm hand. The way of goodness is not always straightforward. And might rarely is what makes right."
"Back to the law specifically, however, let us say that the law says that if you steal from someone they take your hand. I will point out that is a historical law that has since been changed. But it had once been a law in one distant part of what is now Auradon, though it was not Auradon then. If the law says the penalty for theft is the loss of your hand, and someone steals from you, you were not allowed to cut off their hand. If you did they would be guilty of theft still, yes, but you would be guilty of assault. The proper route would be to report the thief to the guards. But few found that satisfactory, for some reason. So with the law even if the law says that action A has consequence B, that does not allow the victim to mete out the punishment. And there are a number of reasons for this. One of them I suspect you would find sympathy with. The person who was stolen from is too close to the crime, they see that they were stolen from, but might not see or care why. A proper magistrate, however, would find that out. And should the theft have been one of desperation... say they stole food because their children were starving. The magistrate would have the authority to choose leniency. The person stolen from would still have to be compensated for the loss, of course. But rather than taking the thief's hand, the magistrate might choose to set the thief to hard work. Work that they would not chose for themselves, perhaps, but at which they would earn wage enough to feed their family. The best governments do most of their best work where few see them, seeking neither fame nor reward. But this is why the people can trust them. Because word of good leaders spread as swiftly as word of bad ones do. Look to the people, hear what they have to say of their leaders when they think you are not listening. In that way you begin to understand the rulers of their land."
no subject
"Take for example," he stroked his beard, "an issue that arose not long before the clash of magics that sent everyone from this world and brought all of you to it. King Ben fell under the spell of a desperate young lady, then seen as a villain. She used a spell on him, when magic was illegal, to make him think that he was in love with her. And she made him, under that spell, agree to take down the barrier around the Isle, to allow all those who resided here to come and go as they please. Under her thrall he ordered Fairy Godmother, the only one at the time with such a power, to take down the barrier. She knew that she was within her rights to refuse. And of course when the young king was freed from the spell, he thought differently. But the topic stayed with him, and he worked with his parents - the former king and queen, as well as his fiancé, the current queen though she was not then, as well as speaking to his councils and advisors. They tried various things, had multiple discussions. I am, of course minimizing and grossly oversimplifying a complicated situation. But in the end, just before all off you arrived, a new law was passed. All the children of the Isle would be given a chance under probation to learn the laws of Auradon and try to learn to live there. Those who were originally banished here for their own actions would be able to earn a chance at forgiveness, but would have to work towards that while remaining here on the Isle. The king and queen had to balance righting an old wrong with doing what was right for the good of all. In the proper order of things, had the situation not become what it was, other laws would change slowly, as needed. But those laws would change with discussions and consideration and care."
"If the leaders of the humans where you were were truly as you say than they were not themselves good leaders. However even poor leaders can become good and strong ones with proper guidance and a fair but firm hand. The way of goodness is not always straightforward. And might rarely is what makes right."
"Back to the law specifically, however, let us say that the law says that if you steal from someone they take your hand. I will point out that is a historical law that has since been changed. But it had once been a law in one distant part of what is now Auradon, though it was not Auradon then. If the law says the penalty for theft is the loss of your hand, and someone steals from you, you were not allowed to cut off their hand. If you did they would be guilty of theft still, yes, but you would be guilty of assault. The proper route would be to report the thief to the guards. But few found that satisfactory, for some reason. So with the law even if the law says that action A has consequence B, that does not allow the victim to mete out the punishment. And there are a number of reasons for this. One of them I suspect you would find sympathy with. The person who was stolen from is too close to the crime, they see that they were stolen from, but might not see or care why. A proper magistrate, however, would find that out. And should the theft have been one of desperation... say they stole food because their children were starving. The magistrate would have the authority to choose leniency. The person stolen from would still have to be compensated for the loss, of course. But rather than taking the thief's hand, the magistrate might choose to set the thief to hard work. Work that they would not chose for themselves, perhaps, but at which they would earn wage enough to feed their family. The best governments do most of their best work where few see them, seeking neither fame nor reward. But this is why the people can trust them. Because word of good leaders spread as swiftly as word of bad ones do. Look to the people, hear what they have to say of their leaders when they think you are not listening. In that way you begin to understand the rulers of their land."