|
|
Post by Munroe on Feb 20, 2013 1:37:54 GMT -5
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. Only the aristocracy/nobility are entitled to a trial by peers in Cormyr. Any trials of non-nobles are purely at the discretion of whatever ruling body controls a region, usually the lord of the territory. (Greatgaunt is presently governed by village council rather than lord.) |
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Feb 20, 2013 16:37:50 GMT -5
I'm sure a wealthy high level could pay for a trial by dropping a gold bar into an official's pocket  |
|
|
|
Post by bentusi16 on Jul 21, 2013 14:18:18 GMT -5
So, for those of you who don't know, I work as a museum guide at a 1650's ish museum in America. Part of our whole thing is justice and law in the area, as that was a big part of the areas job, being the first state capital, and our colonizers had a unique view of things. First: When talking about justice in per-enlightenment societies, throw out all your notions about 'innocent until proven guilty'. This is a historical falsehood. Normally you would not be brought before the court unless they already knew you were guilty. Going before the court gave you the ability to try and argue your position, and for you to receive punishment. Two: Especially in a feudal system, almost everyone does get a trial. What you don't get is a trial by peers; that is reserved for the nobility, most of the time. Instead you would be brought before a magistrate, who would make all judgements himself after hearing the arguments. He would decide if you were guilty, and he would decide what would happen to you. You would, however, still be allowed to argue your case. It just probably won't make a difference. Three: Execution was extremely common. The idea of rehabilitation is again, not until the real worlds enlightenment. Jail as punishment is also not a thing that comes around until well well past the cultural levels most if not all of Forgotten Realms sits in. (it's hard to find specifics on this but this here: flockhart.virtualave.net/afal/legal.html May be of some help and idea) Four: Reputation. I cannot emphasize how IMPORTANT reputation is in the pre-industrial world. For the most part, people are not moving much. Most communities are not reaching more thena thousand people, and they tend to consist of a 'town' and large, spread out farms. People know eachother, and word gets around, and reputation is very important. This is well before the age of enlightenment, and well before we even begin to have what we think of as 'modern forensics'. I'm sorry, but every time someone goes in game "Well where's your evidence', i want to punch my screen. The evidence is YOUR REPUTATION. Your WORD. The phrase 'My word is my bond' is not taken lightly in the eras before the modern one. Your word is literally all you had. There's no banking credit rating: it's based on your word. There's no real way to check qualifications, except based on your known word. It's why paladins have such tremendous, non mechanical power in DnD. A paladins word is TREMENDOUS. For extremely serious crimes, evidence might be required, but for most laws a paladin saying 'Yeah, he did it' would be enough to get a guilty verdict without a second thought. If the paladin is lying or wrong? Then he is probably going to fall, depending on the nature of the crime (because he just committed a heavily chaotic action in lying to the authority). But even outside paladins, if your character has a reputation for causing trouble? If they are up before the court often? Then your reputation goes down. Your word lessens. Eventually, even if you're telling the truth, people simply wouldn't believe you because reputation is so important. Defamation, as an aside, is considered a very serious crimes, with fines I know of personally to reach into the 10,000's pounds sterling range depending on the defaming. Because defaming damages reputation, and reputation is everything. If you're interested in this kind of stuff, I recommended: www.amazon.com/Punishment-Maryland-Criminology-Enforcement-Problems/dp/087585110Xand here is a little interesting free PDF from the museum: www.smcm.edu/rivergazette/_assets/PDF/nov07/OctNov07p10.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by DM Hawk on Jul 21, 2013 14:48:25 GMT -5
Thank you for this, Bentusi
|
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Jul 21, 2013 21:30:13 GMT -5
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. Bluff rolls vs. ..... This server never did establish what rolls against bluff, did they? |
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Jul 21, 2013 21:37:27 GMT -5
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. Zone of truth works like the lie detector. There's no way the lie detector can detect lies with any accuracy whatsoever. It's like a magician's trick. It works because you believe it does. The operator is actually an illusionist playing "Good cop Bad cop" with you using the machine as the bad cop. He attacks you with question after question all the while looking at the machine as if the machine is telling him that you're a complete fraud. This allows him to treat you with as much disrespect and doubt as he wants because obviously, you're being proven to be a liar- Even though the machine hasn't given any indication that you've told a single lie... Pretty soon, you're spilling your guts confessing to stuff you didn't even do just to end the whole mess. Think the commoner knows that he's got a 1 in 20 chance of beating Zone of Truth? Seriously? The commoner will crack under the mere mention of mind magic! |
|
|
|
Post by Lady Frost on Jul 21, 2013 22:18:27 GMT -5
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. Bluff rolls vs. ..... This server never did establish what rolls against bluff, did they? I'm not sure anything 'official' was said as a rule, but the team and others have given numerous examples of what to roll against it depending on the situation. And I agree that it depends on the situation. To avoid a derailing though I'll avoid specifics here. |
|
Fenix
~
Sleepless Golem, aka Kenny
If you read this, send me a love note.
Posts: 2,183
|
Post by Fenix on Jul 22, 2013 8:33:27 GMT -5
Bluff rolls vs. ..... This server never did establish what rolls against bluff, did they? I'm not sure anything 'official' was said as a rule, but the team and others have given numerous examples of what to roll against it depending on the situation. And I agree that it depends on the situation. To avoid a derailing though I'll avoid specifics here. Any time I have to save VS Bluff I just do Wisdom or Intelligence. They are the most sensible ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz on Jul 22, 2013 8:59:49 GMT -5
I counter bluff with my own bluff or spot/listen. Thing is that stats scale different than skills. There will be a point when you will always lose if you use stats vs skills because skills can be raised to higher levels and more often.
Saves vs skills is more balanced though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Savoie Faire on Jul 24, 2013 7:54:48 GMT -5
One thing I like to think, but this is not actively stated anywhere outside the 1.0 DMG: The world of D&D is not based upon a medieval society, but a modern one evolved with magic in the place of technology.
Arguments of post-Enlightment ideals are not invalid due to the medieval setting. This does not make them valid points on their own, but Cormyr is very much in the position of a pre-industrialized culture at the time of the Enlightenment, wrestling with issues such as ownership of sentient beings and rights of citizens versus the prerogatives of aristocracy.
|
|
