Non RPG games have also had legal systems and done so very successfully - Grand Theft Auto springs to mind.

One thing I''m not so happy about with FFTA is that it''s not always obvious which actions break the ''Laws'' - for instance, I lost several hours play to a rule-set, which forbade "wind" attacks, and allowed "Air Render", but gave me a game over penalty for using my newly acquired "Air Blast". This also ties in to the perennial permadeath debate - a single mistake ending the game, although admittedly with fair warning given (a long time) in advance. This was the third time in about 30 hours play I''d accidentally broken a "law" and the chances of an accidental transgression ending the game appear to be somewhere around 1/6 - and the accidental transgressions could be virtually eliminated simply by putting in a warning notice whenever an illegal action is attempted.

Anyway, back on topic, in practice, every game has (at least) a binary "law" system - either you can do something or you can''t - comprising the game rules. What this thread is really about is moving some of these "laws" into a grey area - introducing relative levels of enforcement. Except in a very general sense, I think laws and reputation are two separate issues - apart from anything else, your criminal status should be distinct from your popularity in situations where the laws are oppressive or unjust (Robin Hood for example). The solution to dishonest itinerant traders isn''t a code of laws (unless you ban itinerant traders altogether and devote a lot of effort to enforcing it) but a reputation system - which probably regards all itinerant traders with suspicion by default, requiring them to earn peoples trust.

The other element worth considering in your legal system is the accessibility of the truth - the modern legal system is designed to... OK, probably to make lawyers and powerful men rich(er), but in theory to give the best chance of determining the truth and responding to it in a fair and standardised manner. If you have, say, a scrying spell capable of replaying the exact events of an (alleged) offence, then the entire court process becomes little more than a waste of time. Ditto truth spells, ditto Big Brother surveillance... In a situation where truth is readily accessible to the authorities, sentencing on the spot becomes feasible (possibly with right to appeal within a set period) and most people will accept assigned penalties without much fuss - like getting a parking ticket or a speeding fine.

My understanding of the feudal system''s legal system is that most "crimes" in a small community would be dealt with within the community anyway - if Uncle Bob''s old sword that his great granddad used in the wars goes missing, then the whole village will go to dogdy Dave''s house and demand it back, and ostracise him until he does return it... travellers passing through, serious offences, intransigent offenders and minor nobility or members of the manorial household would get referred to the local lord of the manor, who would have absolute authority to order whatever punishments he saw fit - except for a right of appeal to the "King''s justice" - the right to spend a couple of weeks on the road in order to present your case before the King, who has relatively little time to hear the case and pass summary judgement - depending on the number of petitioners - as the population increases, and travelling conditions become easier, more petitions come up, and the monarch has less time to spend on each, so the system breaks down...