Evidence, trials and proof.

[Manshin]

Im not sure how well this will fit FRC, however Im looking for feedback here.

Whenever something happens and there is an investigation, I always hear: "Do you have any evidence or proof?"

This is a medieval setting. There are no cameras. No recorders, no DNA evidence nor forenzics. So what constituted "proof" in the middle ages?

The word of "tounged ones." People with high rank, or known integrity. The reason why our forefathers put so much weight behind honesty is because in the days that predated foreznic evidence, your "word" was all you had going for you. If you were a known liar, you were essentially @#$%ed in court. A crediable witnesses' testiomny would be the "only" evidence needed to convict you.

Certain casts of society could also demand trial by combat if they wished to contest the word of their social better, though the terms were set by the Lord, and he didn't always exactly set a fair stage for the one forced to ask for trial by combat. In other words, Jo Blow priest would have to face Ser CRUSH, the lord's champion.

So take Forgotten Realms. Truth spells such as Zone of Truth are worthless. Why? Because you have no idea if the subject passed his will save or not. And there is always a 1 in 20 chance he did, even if its Elminster casting it on a 0 level serf. While they would certainly be used during interogation processes, they would not "replace" more traditional methods.

In the middle ages of earth, a priest, a noble, a knight, these people's testimony was considered beyond contestation unless opposed by someone who outranked them. If a thousand peasants testified against a single Oathsworn to a Lord, it wouldn't matter by law. Natrually a lot of corruption came out of this.

But Forgotten Realms would be unlikley to be terribly differant. We have the same problem in that there is no such thing as "evidence." Therefore people who are known to be honest or hold rank would be living, breathing "evidence" in court.

Take a Paladin for example. It is generally known that these men absolutly cannot lie. If they did, they would fall from grace. Thefore, any "just" law system (such as Cormyr's) would consider the word of a Paladin to be beyond contestation. In game terms, any Paladin caught lying by a DM should fall from grace immediatly.

Now imagine the avenues for evil PCs this opens up? Bribe a peer or minor nobleman to vouche for you, and it doesn't matter how many peasants saw you stab that annoying Ilmateri healer to death, the nobleman swears you were with him all afternoon, and you win. No one will dare to believe those annoying dirt farmers over the word of Lord Boobry the III.

[arisnorman1]

my two cents for this one i agree with you. But this is forgotten realms they have odd things that normal midevil ages would not have. this is a magical world. There are spells people can cast to resee events in the past. or future. as for proof unsure how the law would handle it i know you could buy your way out of trouble with enough gold and the right rolls.

[iangallowglas]

I like what your saying, but I'm guessing this would be a nightmare for DMs to deal with. I can personally imagine folks getting PO'd about this and complaining when people get off or get convicted on someone's word. I could see uglier things happen as well, but I'd rather not go into that.

[Thrym]

Feb 15, 2013 17:54:26 GMT -5 Manshin said:

...

So take Forgotten Realms. Truth spells such as Zone of Truth are worthless. Why? Because you have no idea if the subject passed his will save or not. And there is always a 1 in 20 chance he did, even if its Elminster casting it on a 0 level serf. While they would certainly be used during interogation processes, they would not "replace" more traditional methods.
...

In general, I agree with Manshin's sentiment. The fact that they could get a Wizard or Cleric or whatever to divine the truth doesn't mean they'll bother if a respected citizen tells them you commited a crime. After all, that's a hassle for the guard, and they need to wait till tomorrow for that guy to ready a spell, and they might have to pay him to cast it, and it's not like there's a law saying you have a right to all that stuff, so sucks to be you.

But just for clarification:

You actually do know if a creature made it's saving throw against your spell or not.

Quote from link:

"Once you know which creatures (or objects or areas) are affected, and whether those creatures have made successful saving throws (if any were allowed), you can apply whatever results a spell entails. "

Even if you didn't know, you could always cast Dominate Person, check if there's an active Dominate Person spell on the target with Detect Magic (if the spell failed, there's nothing for you to detect), and order the target to tell you the truth.

... but then that'd be even more of hassle for the guard to find some level 9 wizard and have him interrogate you. Do you know what pricks those mid-level wizards are and how much money they'll want to cast their fancy pants spell? Unless you're important, it's not very likely they'll bother.

[Grozer]

Feb 15, 2013 17:54:26 GMT -5 Manshin said:

Take a Paladin for example. It is generally known that these men absolutely cannot lie. If they did, they would fall from grace. Therefore, any "just" law system (such as Cormyr's) would consider the word of a Paladin to be beyond contestation. In game terms, any Paladin caught lying by a DM should fall from grace immediately.

In general I agree but would the fall happen immediately, the moment they tell the lie? I ask because if we accept the fall would happen over time then well, at any "point in time" the paladin could actually be telling his first lie. OK I am stretching things a bit but hey for someone trying to "prove" their innocence it could help their defense. Paladins have fallen from grace and will continue to do so they are human and make mistakes... therefore your honor I offer the court that this paladin's word is no better than that of any commoner. Hehe.. .defense rests.

[Manshin]

arisnorma1's point: There are other magical ways yes. Some of them require more powerful spell casting ability, or strange methods that might not widley be known to backwater villages. This could perhaps create nitches for PCs to fill? A cleric of Kelemvor who specializes in speaking with the dead and works for the magistrate? Still, it certainly doesn't detract from the fact that "trust" and "honesty" as well as "rank" in society are and should remain HUGE factors to your average legal proceeding in this kind of setting. The other magical effects could be good ways to counter corrupt nobles from using the system for corruption.

I like what your saying, but I'm guessing this would be a nightmare for DMs to deal with. I can personally imagine folks getting PO'd about this and complaining when people get off or get convicted on someone's word. I could see uglier things happen as well, but I'd rather not go into that.

Sounds like a recipe for some great conflict RP to me. I don't think we should nerf realism just to save poor sports from being butthurt when "what happened" conflicts with what they "want" to have happened.

Thyrm, that link does not say that a caster knows who has passed or failed a save. Its an OOC declairation saying you may apply the effect of the spell once you are told wether they made the save or not. Just look at Zone of Truth:

Zone of Truth Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Clr 2, Pal 2
Components: V, S, DF
Casting time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area: 20-ft.-radius emanation
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes


Creatures within the emanation area (or those who enter it) can’t speak any deliberate and intentional lies. Each potentially affected creature is allowed a save to avoid the effects when the spell is cast or when the creature first enters the emanation area. Affected creatures are aware of this enchantment. Therefore, they may avoid answering questions to which they would normally respond with a lie, or they may be evasive as long as they remain within the boundaries of the truth. Creatures who leave the area are free to speak as they choose.

I see nothing to stop a person who makes his save from making up whatever he wants, and no reason why the caster would know he passed his save.

As for Grozer's point: If im not mistaken, knowingly committing an evil or unlawful act is grounds for an instant fall from grace. Also, if you get into the mindset of a Paladin... they aren't treating good & evil acts as a currency in reguards to their super powers... they are upholding their code out of reverance for their God. It would be the hieght of bad RP for a player to say: "Hmm.. well ive got 2 more lies I can tell before im stripped of Paladinhood... ill spend one to falsly convict Ranan of a crime he didn't commit by lying." Reguardless of the mechanics, Paladins in general would have an OVERWHELMING reputation for honesty in the FR setting. If an occasional fluke happened, fine. Sounds like a recipe for great RP.

[Lady Frost]

Many goods points made.

I'm with the overall idea that things should stay as IC as possible. I think there are ways to get different kinds of evidence based on PC/player creativity but verbal feedback is certainly a strong one and most likely to be easily available. If a Tyrran paladin is claiming someone is innocent, that probably goes a long way.

On the other side of this though, which I'm not sure I've seen before, is lack of testimony or false testimony turning a trial against an innocent person and that person being convicted. ((However executing and then taking all that XP when you know OOC they're innocent would be hard to not get emotional about and most people would probably complain more than it'd be worth.))

[Deleted]

Feb 15, 2013 21:43:20 GMT -5 Lady Frost said:

On the other side of this though, which I'm not sure I've seen before, is lack of testimony or false testimony turning a trial against an innocent person and that person being convicted. ((However executing and then taking all that XP when you know OOC they're innocent would be hard to not get emotional about and most people would probably complain more than it'd be worth.))

I can see that being a big mess to deal with if one were to simply go and deliver the punishment. But I think it could make a great plot for a group of PC's to try and solve, so long as what ever DM(s) were driving the unjust ruling also gave time, attention, and support to the act of undoing the injustice. Player buy-in to the plot would be a major factor, too. A player who was into it could make something great, but a player who wanted no part of it could be a disaster.

I think it's also a great plot idea if it centered around an NPC who was wrongfully convicted, and there were perhaps both legal risk in the form of getting in trouble oneself, and physical risk, in the form of pissing off the real guilty party, if PC's took the case and investigated it. Anything that might tick off players to have befall their PC might be great plot fodder if it happens to an NPC created for the purpose.

[Thrym]

With some further investigation I've found the actually relevant passage. I remembered the caster knows whether the target fails or succeeds a save, but hadn't found the right passage during a brief search.

Succeeding on a Saving Throw

A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.

Apparently it only applies to single target spells, so you are correct in that Zone of Truth is a really bad spell for this purpose and should not qualify as evidence.

Dominate Person and similiar spells on the other hand, I'd argue would qualify if cast by in Cormyr say a War Wizard, but that's much more powerful magic and I rather doubt use of it will be considered outside of 'important' cases. As said, I agree with you in general on this topic, the word of respectable witnesses should be all the 'evidence' in most common cases.

[breadandcircuses]

I really like where this is going.

One thing that always seriously irks me is the modernist humanist approach to law often applied in roleplay servers.

"You need evidence". Ok. What evidence? Blood is useless; all it shows is blood. The best 'forensics' your going to get is a healer or veteran warrior maybe recognizing the type of weapon used on a corpse.

I was in a guard on another server that took this approach (the humanist modern day crap), and unless evil characters were in the habit of writing down their plans and signing it and leaving it somewhere to be found, it was essentially IMPOSSIBLE to catch a villain unless they chose to give themselves up or be caught...usually in preparation for a gank, but that's unrelated.

As far as purely social, non-magical stuff, I agree with everything Manshin said, especially considering Cormyr is one of the actual few Kingdoms around, actual kingdoms with a monarchy and nobles rather then the standard 'merchant-prince' types that run thing nearly everywhere else.

The rack and the club are both probably viable ways of getting 'evidence' in these times, even in a lawful kingdom. And I think Cormyr is LN as far as being a state goes?

As for magical stuff, the only other eal spell you could really use that I can think of off the top of my head is www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithDead.htm , which makes the villian just have to A: Not be seen BEFORE killing the victim (they can only answer questions they knew the answer to in life), or cut off the head, or hide the body really well, or any number of other ways to make Speak with Dead useless as a crime solver.

Also, before anyone says 'Well that gives Paladins to much power'...just because the peasants and other folk hold paladins in a sort of awe doesn't mean a noble gives a crap, especially if someone just dropped 5,000 coins on their lap. Even if their known never to law, a good noble would know how to twist it around; especially in Cormyr. At the end of the day it boils down to the individuals involved. You don't even need to bribe a noble, you could bribe a guard for cheaper and 'overpower them' and escape.

If you've ever read the novel it's basically 'Game of Thrones Lite: Forgotten Realms Version". Very nasty stuff.

[Deleted]

If the server is going to go this route, with more lax, by modern standards, rules for what constitutes "proof," then I think there needs to be a much more clear distinction between IC and OOC in connection with punishments for crimes. I'm not really sure enough of the community looks at DM-imposed punishments like XP loss and gold fined by NPC's as a purely IC event/action to go punishing characters for crimes on what we normally consider more flimsy evidence, especially crimes the PC actually potentially didn't commit. I am all for it. I think the potential for RP is great, and I think it would drastically increase the respect people give IC'ly to Cormyrian authorities. But I think the IC/OOC separation with the punishment given needs to be a bit more clear before it starts happening.

Also, experience on another server where the legal authorities routinely punish PC's says that giving the player of the character some say-so as to what becomes of the character is a VERY major concern. That doesn't mean they can dictate what happens, but there are multiple routes such a story can take, and having the end dictated to a player is a great way to cause some real bad feelings.

[abby]

If an enemy kills you in PvP, you loose Xp/gold(if they loot you) even if you didn't deserve it. Death by politics is PvP for the non-combatant or brain over brawn PC. The consequences should be no different.

[Deleted]

Feb 17, 2013 0:31:17 GMT -5 abby said:

If an enemy kills you in PvP, you loose Xp/gold(if they loot you) even if you didn't deserve it. Death by politics is PvP for the non-combatant or brain over brawn PC. The consequences should be no different.

I would absolutely agree. But to me, it can be more challenging to see it that way, not everyone is quite necessarily ready for that, and it can be seen (incorrectly) as the DM's favoring one character/player over another unfairly. I'm all for it. I would just like to see people start slowly with it if it's going to become "a thing" on FRC, so it's not a huge surprise creating tons of headaches all around when it starts happening.

[Rane]

I could have a field day with this. But im going to make it simple.

Keeping it simple on this server is best. The forgotten realms as a whole is not a medieval setting, but cormyr is "sort of" close to it.

A modernized approach would not work. I wish it would, as I am a student of law. But it just wont.

[breadandcircuses]

Feb 17, 2013 0:31:17 GMT -5 abby said:

If an enemy kills you in PvP, you loose Xp/gold(if they loot you) even if you didn't deserve it. Death by politics is PvP for the non-combatant or brain over brawn PC. The consequences should be no different.

I think the only thing there is 'higher stakes, higher risk, high payoff'.

For example, if your character is plotting high treason to seize the throne of cormyr, plans it all while keeping the DM's informed, etc., your character should not simply be slapped with the same type of punishment as a murderer.

One of the major points of why the modern system is better then the old system is because the modern system believes in Re-education and reformation, whereas the old system was about retribution and preventative justice; The punishments tended to either be a slap on the wrist and public humiliation, or a hanging.

To quote pterry, "The punishment for the first offense should be such that their is no chance for a second.".

Let's take the recent attack on greatgaunt. Under the server rules the doer of this is going to, if caught, get a slap on the wrist XP/Gold loss. Realistically (for the setting), he'd be executed, burned, disintegrated, and then have his ashes scattered into the sea to prevent any resurrection.

www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:True_Resurrection This is the most powerful ressurection spell short of a Wish or Miracle spell, they would do everything they could to prevent this type of spell from happening.

Why? Because he didn't just murder a single person, he essentially slapped the crown in the face. Even if you throw out all semblence of justice and speak purely in politics, it makes the crown seem weak, and weak kingdoms get eaten by foreign kingdoms very quickly. If a single lone evil adventurer is capable of tearing chunks out of the crowns authority, what about the political and military machines of Thay and Sembia and Westgate, all of whom have been champing at the bit to knock Cormyr out for years?

If you're going to have a slightly more realistic trial/evidence/proof thing going on, shouldn't the punishments reflect that? Especially when you take into account bribery, witness intimidation, rack-confessions, etc.

On a related note, I've been playing a lot of Crusader Kings 2 lately XD it helps with the political mindset of this sort of era.

[The Tallest Dwarf]

Here's an idea and it's likely to prove controversial and unpopular but:What if it was scripted so that PCs who have been exiled, executed, etc from certain towns and settlements were denied access by the NPC guards who had their descriptions on file? To oppose this, there could be an automatic roll against the person's bluff or persuade and if they succeeded then they either fooled or bribed the guards to let them inside the gates. If they failed the roll then they'd get a message saying "The guards deny you entry" and then transitioned OUT of the town, unable to try again until a reset, perhaps.

This way the 'Crown did something' and it would be a little more realistic imho.

[Fluffy the Mad]

It works. Perhaps a token with an OnEnter script attached to it, and set DCs for certain ones. (Say, worse crime==higher DC) If a character wants to sneak in invisibly or with a spell, they can contact a DM to handle it by temporarily removing the token. Better than having no penalty for a flimsy or nonexistent disguise.

[Lady Frost]

as some dude once said...

... and lead us not into temptation ...


Lets avoid diving into the mechanics of making the above work. It's not a bad idea and a separate thread detailing the specifics might be interesting but I don't think that fits into the whole idea of this roleplay inspired thread. Thanks in advance!

[Fluffy the Mad]

Feb 17, 2013 20:49:56 GMT -5 Lady Frost said:

as some dude once said...

... and lead us not into temptation ...


Lets avoid diving into the mechanics of making the above work. It's not a bad idea and a separate thread detailing the specifics might be interesting but I don't think that fits into the whole idea of this roleplay inspired thread. Thanks in advance!

Implementing an idea is a part of putting it into play. They are linked, not separate issues. What works one way might not work another. So let's at least consider both aspects.

[Lady Frost]

*calm*
I was referring to the thread being about the RP'ing of evidence and proof for trials. Not how to implement punishments for those convicted.

[Savoie Faire]

Very few PC's are entitled to a trial under the Law of Cormyr. Those few would have been knighted by the crown.

Low Justice is dispensed by the local lord, and there is no appeals process. If the local lord whose authority your character flaunted desires to investigate, he may assign someone to do so, but this is not a right of the commoner and especially not a right of the foriegn adventurer.

To go farther in this explanation would be to give away information best learned by trial and error, so I will stop here. However, the concepts of evidence and proof depend largely upon the person hearing them, and not an arbitrarily established code which is uniform across the kingdom.

[Manshin]

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't the whim of the particular lord hearing evidence and deciding which "rights" he's going to allow his dirty peasants today be the definition of "arbitrary" as opposed to an established code of law which is practiced across the kingdom?

If a Magna Carta style document which would give a right to a trial to commoners exists anywhere in FR, it would be Cormyr (Camelot knockoff). Still, for my part, I much prefer the dark age system of lordly rights for RP purposes here.

If there is anything I think could improve FRC, it would be more political development to make the setting "feel" like a real place with an established way of things. I love that game of thrones feel where you do NOT mess with Lords.

[The Tallest Dwarf]

One reason I enjoy Cormyr and rping in its setting-within-a setting is for some of the reasons listed above.


I agree with what SF posted as well, for the most part. Though I can cite examples of Tyr-worshipping lawyers and judges overseeing 'common' courts in the lore, for serious offenses I think the punishment would follow what I suggested and what D&R went and tested.

[Munroe]

Feb 18, 2013 16:01:33 GMT -5 Manshin said:

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't the whim of the particular lord hearing evidence and deciding which "rights" he's going to allow his dirty peasants today be the definition of "arbitrary" as opposed to an established code of law which is practiced across the kingdom?

If a Magna Carta style document which would give a right to a trial to commoners exists anywhere in FR, it would be Cormyr (Camelot knockoff). Still, for my part, I much prefer the dark age system of lordly rights for RP purposes here.

If there is anything I think could improve FRC, it would be more political development to make the setting "feel" like a real place with an established way of things. I love that game of thrones feel where you do NOT mess with Lords.

In 1384 DR (Year of Three Streams Blooded), King Azoun V will, according to canon (Grand History of the Realms), attempt to make official a decree that will give freemen trial by their peers, but the aristocrats of Cormyr will resist the decree so he won't follow through with it. He will put them on notice that some day he will enact such a decree no matter their resistance.

So while he will try to do that once he's in power, we're only in 1377 DR.

[Lady Frost]

Feb 19, 2013 4:24:37 GMT -5 Munroe said:

Feb 18, 2013 16:01:33 GMT -5 Manshin said:

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't the whim of the particular lord hearing evidence and deciding which "rights" he's going to allow his dirty peasants today be the definition of "arbitrary" as opposed to an established code of law which is practiced across the kingdom?

If a Magna Carta style document which would give a right to a trial to commoners exists anywhere in FR, it would be Cormyr (Camelot knockoff). Still, for my part, I much prefer the dark age system of lordly rights for RP purposes here.

If there is anything I think could improve FRC, it would be more political development to make the setting "feel" like a real place with an established way of things. I love that game of thrones feel where you do NOT mess with Lords.

In 1384 DR (Year of Three Streams Blooded), King Azoun V will, according to canon (Grand History of the Realms), attempt to make official a decree that will give freemen trial by their peers, but the aristocrats of Cormyr will resist the decree so he won't follow through with it. He will put them on notice that some day he will enact such a decree no matter their resistance.

So while he will try to do that once he's in power, we're only in 1377 DR.

I don't think he passes it until right before he dies, which is a long time later.

[Manshin]

Fantastic. That means arbitrary rule of whatever douche-bag magistrate/lord you are standing in front of, and peasants/adventurers don't get crap for rights unless they have political pull, influencial allies or are incredibly lucky in which noble judge they are standing in front of.

Being known for honesty or great accomplishments (esspecially those outside of just being a good warrior) will probably go a long way, as well as being the sort who makes valuable allies and has influence on the payroll.

[Grozer]

Feb 19, 2013 16:58:25 GMT -5 Manshin said:

Fantastic. That means arbitrary rule of whatever douche-bag magistrate/lord you are standing in front of, and peasants/adventurers don't get crap for rights unless they have political pull, influencial allies or are incredibly lucky in which noble judge they are standing in front of.

Being known for honesty or great accomplishments (esspecially those outside of just being a good warrior) will probably go a long way, as well as being the sort who makes valuable allies and has influence on the payroll.

Heh yes I would agree, but what I also take from this is the blanket assumption that Cormyr is a such a righteous realm in which the rulers would stamp out any and all evil might not be completely accurate. If local lords are responsible for their "areas" and dispensing some of the justice, its very likely their rule might overlook certain activities they themselves don't find particularly offensive or perhaps those activities could be potentially profitable to them. You might even have lords that turn a blind eye toward individuals residing in their towns that have reprehensible reputations because they might need to call on their "services" one day.

[Manshin]

Any society which opperates off of arbitrary law instead of solid rule of law is going to be filled to the brim with corruption and evil who put on a "nice" face publically, but flog the flesh off of their political enemies behind closed doors.

Seeing as Cormyr lets individual Lords make the choice of who gets a trial and who doesnt... and what the rules will be, you can bet your hairy ass Grozer that there is "plenty" of dirt-baggery going on in Cormyr.

[Rane]

Feb 19, 2013 17:22:20 GMT -5 Manshin said:

Any society which opperates off of arbitrary law instead of solid rule of law is going to be filled to the brim with corruption and evil who put on a "nice" face publically, but flog the flesh off of their political enemies behind closed doors.

Seeing as Cormyr lets individual Lords make the choice of who gets a trial and who doesnt... and what the rules will be, you can bet your hairy ass Grozer that there is "plenty" of dirt-baggery going on in Cormyr.

Amen

[The Tallest Dwarf]

Though FR isn't Medieval and pre-Rennaisance Europe, I love this book and think everyone's understanding of these matters would be enhanced by reading even just some of the relevant chapters.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Distant_Mirror