Friends, before I begin here let me say one thing. I am not running in Golarion. We're running in a Victorian era nation, with heavy steampunk influence.
One of my Neutral Good players tried to intimidate a family of Orc Nomads, with their more civilized half-orc nephews off of a boat they were squatting on, AFTER the Orcs offered to sell their home.
Basically our fighter didn't like the price the Orcs wanted and tried to bluff that he'd set their home on fire... through roleplay, not rolling.
Now if someone says they're going to burn your house down because you won't give it to them... you're going to react to defend your home.
So a battle ensued, one of the orcs ran for the help of the local constabulary, from the guard station a lil less than a mile away and by the time they returned... the party (mainly the intimidating fighter) had killed the entire lot of Orcs. The fighter was downed, but stable at the end of the fight and thus the city guards, led by the fleeing orc arrested the group for murder and attempted arson.
Normally, I'd just do some court rolls and see what happens, but I'm really at a loss here. Murder is obviously a crime that calls for the prison time, or death. If he hadn't threatened them, the party would have had a few alternatives to getting this boat (which was an optional side-quest).
I know that from one standpoint the ordeal can be just placed on the fighter, but if a player dies in my game (which after a year of running, no one has from roleplaying)... I don't want politics to kill him.
Anyone able to provide some suggestions as to how I should approach this?
The group could all be shanghaied, and "transported" to whatever passes for Botany Bay or Devil's Island in your campaign world, and have to do a dangerous mission under threat of death.
You gotta put a bomb in their neck vein like Snake Plisskin in Escape From New York. to make them carry the mission out; a tiny nanobot type iron golem or something.
GAHHHH.... That's a tough one.
I LOVE the idea that you could roleplay out a whole trial scene, though to be honest, the thought would TERRIFY me... i'm not sure I would be UP to running a trial...
But it could be FUN...
IF the other characters are Chaotic enough... they could establish a jail break... THAT could be a lot of fun too...
Or the PC could stage his own escape...
If your going to have rules and Laws in the setting, then there SHOULD be penalties... and if they want to keep playing that character, he's going to have to address those penalties.
As he's BLATENTLY guilty of murder... I don't think I'd recommend throwing himself on the mercy of the court. I'd suggest becoming an outlaw... Throw some skill points in Disguise and hope the law doesn't meet him again.
Of the common punishments of the times, conscription will allow the game to progress. They can be pressganged into the Navy, drafted into the army, or be sent to a penal colony like australia.
Friends, before I begin here let me say one thing. I am not running in Golarion. We're running in a Victorian era nation, with heavy steampunk influence.
One of my Neutral Good players tried to intimidate a family of Orc Nomads, with their more civilized half-orc nephews off of a boat they were squatting on, AFTER the Orcs offered to sell their home.
Basically our fighter didn't like the price the Orcs wanted and tried to bluff that he'd set their home on fire... through roleplay, not rolling.
Now if someone says they're going to burn your house down because you won't give it to them... you're going to react to defend your home.
So a battle ensued, one of the orcs ran for the help of the local constabulary, from the guard station a lil less than a mile away and by the time they returned... the party (mainly the intimidating fighter) had killed the entire lot of Orcs. The fighter was downed, but stable at the end of the fight and thus the city guards, led by the fleeing orc arrested the group for murder and attempted arson.
Normally, I'd just do some court rolls and see what happens, but I'm really at a loss here. Murder is obviously a crime that calls for the prison time, or death. If he hadn't threatened them, the party would have had a few alternatives to getting this boat (which was an optional side-quest).
I know that from one standpoint the ordeal can be just placed on the fighter, but if a player dies in my game (which after a year of running, no one has from roleplaying)... I don't want politics to kill him.
Anyone able to provide some suggestions as to how I should approach this?
well first of all...
Actions have consequences.So the court trial is a good thing.
As to politics killing him?
Press ganged is an option.
Botany Bay is also an option.
Life in Prison rather than the death sentence.
But under no circumstance should the PC get off lightly. (other wise how will the idea that his actions "could" have detrimental effects on his character really sink in?)
Thanks for all the replies gang. I wasn't sure if I'd have an ear to talk this out with. Awesome!
The character is a Clockwork race (Think like Warforged, but with human sense), so becoming an outlaw would be rather difficult. Especially with a lack of being disguised (perhaps glamor-ing his shell?). They're level 7 now and have made a name for themselves locally. And then the party would suffer over it.
Right now, I think I'll offer him the ability to retire the character or keep playing and suffer the consequences.
If he retires:
I'd let the rest of the party (who didn't partake in provocation) off with fines and one dangerous "civic duty" task. While he rots in jail.
If he doesn't retire:
I'm thinking conscription into the Queen's service may be best option.
But for how long?
What's an adequate amount of tasks for impassioned murder?
That's quite a serious question of morality and law.
Of the common punishments of the times, conscription will allow the game to progress. They can be pressganged into the Navy, drafted into the army, or be sent to a penal colony like australia.
Murder is most cases was still a capital offense and most were executed. I could see if they were guilty of theft or assault but if the OPs society is Lawful in nature I would think they would try, convict and then execute.
Of the common punishments of the times, conscription will allow the game to progress. They can be pressganged into the Navy, drafted into the army, or be sent to a penal colony like australia.Murder is most cases was still a capital offense and most were executed. I could see if they were guilty of theft or assault but if the OPs society is Lawful in nature I would think they would try, convict and then execute.
Penal colony was also an option for murder; it was tantamount to a death sentence in most cases as the colonies were very harsh. (unless the person murdered was noble; then it was death.)
|
I'm thinking conscription into the Queen's service may be best option.
But for how long?
What's an adequate amount of tasks for impassioned murder?
That's quite a serious question of morality and law.
Nothing will ever be adequate. No amount of time will balance with the lives he took. Service to the crown will square him with society, possibly, but on the moral side of things, he's going to need to earn the forgiveness of the families and loved ones of those he murdered. What it would take to earn that should be no small task. It should require some level of sincere self-sacrifice.
Or he might just dig himself deeper. Who knows?
Hrm ... an interesting question given the clockwork race.
How about permanent non-restorationable negative levels - say, 2 to 4 - due to removal of essential clockwork components as weregild for his heinous act combined with exile?
His associates are guilty-by-association.
|
|
Hrm ... an interesting question given the clockwork race.
How about permanent non-restorationable negative levels - say, 2 to 4 - due to removal of essential clockwork components as weregild for his heinous act combined with exile?
Y'know...worst comes to worst? Clockwork being could be retrofitted into an immobile but still useful public service of some sort, to be placed in whatever neighborhood the orcs or most numerous.
A full century later a half-orc tourguide can explain to gnomish tourists why the locals always spit on that mechanized clock-fountain contraption. Old Penitent, they call it....
And seconding not letting the rest of the party off lightly.
off the top of my head I'd say a ten year service would be average. But as a clockwork race id give this bit of fluff. If he refuses service, the character gets sent to the treadmill. The name originally referred to a large millstone powered by being turned by orphans and convicts. It either ground flour or pumped water from a mill.
In fact combine the two, sentence the character to a penal colony, to spend the rest of his days working the mining pump in a dark corner on the earth. But then give him the opportunity to escape before he gets there. If hes lucky he can become an outlaw pirate, witch is slightly more sustainable then a landlocked outlaw. Finally, send the Royal Navy to chase him. Adventure hook on a silver platter.
Oh, and it might be worth considering alignment shifting the character to True Neutral. Might be a more accurate reflection, and its not like a fighter has alignment restrictions.
|
One of my Neutral Good players
Well, the player might be NG, but his character's alignment should take a shift. After all it looks like he just plain went crazy.
I don't know how all of the party decided to not use nonlethal damage. What was going on there?
Possibilities:
-All go to jail for a few years until a prison break.
-Get some clockwork orange-style brainwipage for the whole party, until some bad dude tries to cause havoc and release them.
-Turns out, the orcs and half-orcs were baby eaters, slavers, plotting treason or something.
-It was a set up all along, and the orc band was paid to try and kill the party.
I'm sorry but those last two shouldn't even be on the table at all. That just feels like trying to shift the world in the PCs favor just to make it easier and I definitely feel those would send the wrong message to the players.One of my Neutral Good players-Turns out, the orcs and half-orcs were baby eaters, slavers, plotting treason or something.
-It was a set up all along, and the orc band was paid to try and kill the party.
i'd tend to agree, that it seems kind of cheap...
However if it ends up a choice between 'being cheap' and derailing the entire campaign... I'd be cheap in a heartbeat ;)
|
It is a Victorian setting so:
- death sentence for murder or penal colony for 20 or so years would be the normal sentence if the PC is a commoner.
- modify by social class of convicted/killed people. The Victorian era wasn't an egalitarian period. Killing a squatter could easily be justified in the eye of the law.
- modify for the number of people killed. One squatter is a thing, several another.
- how good he and his friends are at telling lies and how carefully the police will search for clues? After all there is only 1 living witness against him and he can be backed by several friendly witnesses.
"Yes, Lord Judge, I was a bit forceful with those orc squatters, but I never said I would fire their boat, the child was making up things. The become angry and attacked me. I was forced to defend myself. Those orc squatters are savages and no civilized person should be forced to live near them."
If your world is a realistic depiction of the Victorian era and your PC is part of the gentry he would have good chances to get free with some fine and paying damages.
As Diego noted, in a Victorian setting, the status of both the criminal and the victim will have some effect on the punishment.
If the party is konwn and is 'of good stock' and Orcs are generally low-class or second-class citizens, then there is justification for a significantly reduced sentence.
There should still be consequences, but it gives you the flexibility to not completely not wipe out your campaign (I'm guessing here that your party reacted to defend themselves, and it simply never occurred to them to used non-lethal attacks).
Some other specific thoughts...
Someone of high station could intercede to reduce the penalty on their behalf...for a price. The party would then owe a favor to someone whose goals may well be very different from their own, or very questionable.
As a clockwork, perhaps the offenders 'person' status could be revoked, and they could be made the property (and responsibility) of the highest status person in the group (presuming the group in general is not being punished). The property status would be enforced with some sort of geas...this would depend on how well your players can handle this sort of thing.
If the party gets any kind of lighter sentence due to class concerns, make sure that the party ends up very aware of the social injustices involved (watch any police drama dealing with racial issues to get an idea of the reactions of people/press to the difference between white & black victims). Make them feel guilty that they haven't been punished as much as the other defendants in the trial next door, when the only significant difference in the cases is the social status of the victim.
...which leave the question: Does the fighter/the party feel at all guilty for killing a group of people defending their home? If not, a lot of this is moot, and a straight out alignment shift and change in the focus of the campaign is likely warranted.
Friends, before I begin here let me say one thing. I am not running in Golarion. We're running in a Victorian era nation, with heavy steampunk influence.
One of my Neutral Good players tried to intimidate a family of Orc Nomads, with their more civilized half-orc nephews off of a boat they were squatting on, AFTER the Orcs offered to sell their home.
Basically our fighter didn't like the price the Orcs wanted and tried to bluff that he'd set their home on fire... through roleplay, not rolling.
Now if someone says they're going to burn your house down because you won't give it to them... you're going to react to defend your home.
So a battle ensued, one of the orcs ran for the help of the local constabulary, from the guard station a lil less than a mile away and by the time they returned... the party (mainly the intimidating fighter) had killed the entire lot of Orcs. The fighter was downed, but stable at the end of the fight and thus the city guards, led by the fleeing orc arrested the group for murder and attempted arson.
Normally, I'd just do some court rolls and see what happens, but I'm really at a loss here. Murder is obviously a crime that calls for the prison time, or death. If he hadn't threatened them, the party would have had a few alternatives to getting this boat (which was an optional side-quest).
I know that from one standpoint the ordeal can be just placed on the fighter, but if a player dies in my game (which after a year of running, no one has from roleplaying)... I don't want politics to kill him.
Anyone able to provide some suggestions as to how I should approach this?
Out of combat decisions are just as important as in combat ones. I would allow him to try hire a lawyer or one of the PC's with good modifiers in social skills can represent him.
PS:Politics won't kill him, but his bad decision did. If you let him off he might do it again. This way might save you some headaches down the road. I say leave it to the court room and the dice gods.
Huh...
Victorian setting.
With multiple sapient creatures.
Who is the ruling species?
What are the attitudes towards the other sapient species?
Are any considered second class citizens? or as vermin? or as a slave race? etc...
The PC is a clockwork creation. (is he even considered free/sapient?)
This in and of itself could have a large impact on your game world.
Before the PC can be tried for murder he would have to be proven sapient.
If he is not proven sapient then he is property. Who is his owner? They are responsible for his actions at that point. (of course he could still be ordered to be dismantled).
The easiest solution is for some high ranking noble to get the party a conditional pardon, with the condition being "and now you work for me." Basically, the party is serving their prison term as servants to whatever noble needs their specialty services.
There should also be lots of scandal about it and the newspapers should reasonably be having a field day. Restitution will also have to be made. Not all that much as the dead are lower class, but enough that society will accept that a penalty was paid.
It would also be useful if the noble was an entirely cynical sort who rather than being some good-time Charlie who exists only to cover up their messes, is completely in it for himself and would happily send them back to prison once they outlive their usefulness or simply prove to be more of a liability than a benefit.
Put them all in the stocks for public humiliation and punishment. People throwing rotting fruit at them, etc.
Put a murderer's mark on all of them. The automaton would likely just be disassembled, I can't see them bothering with salvaging it (or rather, it's parts end up going into the salvage yard for those who are good automatons.
The rest can then be saved from the hangmans noose by the noble, as suggested above. Their reputation is pretty much mud now. It's a lot easier to trash a reputation than it is to build up one.
Interesting possibilities, all, but I see the fundamental issue here as not so much consequences (although that is important) but how to keep from derailing the game at large.
And I think I have to ask for explicit answer to an implicit question: What was the player thinking? A supposedly NG character taking CE action? Something seems wrong there - and if so, then you're trying to solve the character problem when you need to be focusing on the player problem. Fix the player issue, and then decide how to move on with your game (lots of good suggestions above, I must say)
MI
There are two aspects to the problem as I see it. Legal consequences for breaking the law (in game). Moral consequences for breaking alignment (out of game).
As for the legal thing, I think you ought to have a trial in which the party's bard/rogue/ect. could attempt to roleplay being his advocate. If there are plenty of witnesses and the legal system isn't corrupt or racist against goblins, then the odds should be stacked against your PC winning. If on the other hand, goblin squaters are a disenfranchised minority, then the trial might be a little easier. Also the party may be able to call in favors if they have high connections. Assuming he loses, which he probably should, then stage a public execution and let the party try to rescue him. A hanging would probably be best, so that there is ample time. When they save him, he should be wearing little more than rags, so losing all of his equipment and wealth will still be a pretty big punishment. Additonally, the entire party will be fugitive outlaws. And all of this for a used boat. Sounds like fun roleplaying to me.
As for the alignment thing, if this is a game where the players are into exploring moral issues and shades of gray, and your fighter was playing a good character who got swept up in the moment and succumbed to his racial prejudices, then this is great. While he's in jail, give him a loveable and tragic goblin celly, who he will grow attached to, and perhaps he can explore his racism, and learn to be remorseful. Perhaps this incident ignites a series of protests as goblins rise up and demand equal rights, and your fighter realize that he's done something terrible and grows as a character.
If on the other hand, he's just playing a dumb hack and slasher who tries to bully his way through boring roleplay encounters, you should give him the chance to change his alignment to plain neutral. Also if you are unsatisfied with his roleplaying, explain to him that the game you're running isn't just hack and slash, and that the whole point is to imagine a unique character and try to bring him to life as you play him, taking into account his values and morals. If he's resistant to all that then, you should ether take the player out of the game, or take the game into the dungeon, where the only dilemma he has to deal with is whether or not to power attack this round.
I'm confused...was it murder? If I run into someone in the street and threaten to steal their car and then they pull a gun on me and try to shoot me and I kill them I'd say that death was the result of self defense. Am I misunderstanding the sequence of events? Sounds like he threatened them, they responded by attacking, and he killed them. Or did he attack first? If they attacked him in response to his thread (idle or not) then I'd say you could probably legally argue that they brought it on themselves. If he attacked first then there's a case for sure.
Also, how are orcs viewed in your world? Are they second-class citizens or are things pretty equal? Might have something there.
I wouldn't want to reward this sort of behavior in my game...but some shady cats get over in our world solely on technicalities. How about a *really* big fine (maybe one he has to work off over time it's so big) so that the *player* has to think about his actions a little more in the future...but still gets to keep playing?
M
Is it likely they'll be found guilty? It's a "my word against your word" thing, isn't it?
I think it IS murder.
If you perpetrate a violent crime, like "threatening somebody with arson," and they fight back IN SELF DEFENSE, then yes, any mayhem or death that ensues is ultimately YOUR responsibility.
Just think about it: you're at your front door. Kids in their room watching ICarly, minding their own business. Guy's buying your house and doesn't like the price you quoted. So what does he do? He pulls out a flamethrower and starts talking crazy smack? That's b~$$$%~!, man. That's not even right.
Sounds like a case of justified self defense to me.
Is it likely they'll be found guilty? It's a "my word against your word" thing, isn't it?
Well....they do have spells for that sorta thing.....
Is it likely they'll be found guilty? It's a "my word against your word" thing, isn't it?Well....they do have spells for that sorta thing.....
Possibly; I'm not familiar with the guy's campaign.
|
|
I think it IS murder.
If you perpetrate a violent crime, like "threatening somebody with arson," and they fight back IN SELF DEFENSE, then yes, any mayhem or death that ensues is ultimately YOUR responsibility.
Just think about it: you're at your front door. Kids in their room watching ICarly, minding their own business. Guy's buying your house and doesn't like the price you quoted. So what does he do? He pulls out a flamethrower and starts talking crazy smack? That's b*%$!*$~, man. That's not even right.
Sounds like a case of justified self defense to me.
There is the root of the problem. A threat is NOT a violent crime. Attacking someone just because of what he says is not self-defense. It is assault. And if said person defend themselves from your attack and kill you, that is self-defense on their part.
If the orcs are indeed second-class citizens, the PCs should walk away scot-free (pun intended) and the surviving orcs sentenced for wasting the judge's precious time.
How the legality, social class of the characters and the orcs weigh against one another isn't something the OP has really clarified on, so I won't comment on that...
I second KAMs idea above. Whether its a low noble or a grand duke from the Queen's court, the most fun option would be to have the 'person of influence' be completely self-serving in why he/she might have saved the clockwork fighter from the "hangman's noose"/dismantler's wrench.
The scene I've had going through my head has been the one from Going Postal by Terry Pratchett, whether book or movie form. Lord Vetinari gives Moist von Lipwig a choice, between serving him, or to walk out "that" door over there. "That" door happens to have a different circumstance behind it, which could be used in myriad ways in the game.
I wouldn't replicate the scene, but I would let that scene inspire how to run that little scenario.
"Do you believe in angels, Mr. Lipwig?"
There is the root of the problem. A threat is NOT a violent crime. Attacking someone just because of what he says is not self-defense. It is assault. And if said person defend themselves from your attack and kill you, that is self-defense on their part..
Depends on your definition of "violent crime."
Wikipedia:
A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which the offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the victim. This entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder, as well as crimes in which violence is the means to an end, (including criminal ends) such as robbery. Violent crimes include crimes committed with and without weapons. With the exception of rape (which accounts for 6% of all reported violent crimes), males are the primary victims of all forms of violent crime.[1]
Yes, all well and good, but the orcs were the first to use actual violence.
I still think despite what he roleplayed: he should have been roll playing as well.
DM can give bonuses for good roleplay, but he should be using the skills even if PC forgets.
Since you are going for a Victorian feel, I suggest consulting the novel Howard's End (technically late Edwardian, but close enough). Not to give any spoilers, because I know everyone's planning on reading it soon, but toward the climax of the book there is a kind of parallel situation.
Yes, all well and good, but the orcs were the first to use actual violence.
I don't know what to say. I guess the orcs should've waited to actually get stabbed before they defended themselves.
{edit} let me take this back because it sounds borderline snotty.
I guess I see where this issue probably needs actual lawyers to have a court case to figure out what's right, instead of a gaggle of internet scholars.....self included.....
What might be useful for the DM is the players get "kangaroo court" convicted, into having to do an extremely dangerous job a la the French Foreign Legion to redeem themselves.
I think it's kinda cute actually; "haw haw....we got shanghaied into doing this suicide mission. All for killing some lousy orcs. Whoda thunk it?..." I think it has pizzazz anyway's.
Who ever got adventure hooked on accounta whacking some goofy orcs?
I don't know what to say. I guess the orcs should've waited to actually get stabbed before they defended themselves.Yes, all well and good, but the orcs were the first to use actual violence.
Here's the right response to that.
If the orcs had threatened to burn the character's house down, would they have felt fully justified in putting the orcs down as a defensive measure? If so, the same applies to the PCs. If not, then why?
|
|
Yes, all well and good, but the orcs were the first to use actual violence.
I don't know what to say. I guess the orcs should've waited to actually get stabbed before they defended themselves.
Almost.
"If you don't accept my price I would bur your boat" is not sufficient reason to attack someone with deadly force. Words don't equate to actions.
If it was "See, this is a bottle of alchemy fire. Accept my price or I will throw it and burn your house" the orcs would have been perfectly in their right to use deadly force.
In the former scenario the fighter would not get out scot free but it would be very far away from a death sentence.
Almost."If you don't accept my price I would bur your boat" is not sufficient reason to attack someone with deadly force. Words don't equate to actions.
If it was "See, this is a bottle of alchemy fire. Accept my price or I will throw it and burn your house" the orcs would have been perfectly in their right to use deadly force.
In the former scenario the fighter would not get out scot free but it would be very far away from a death sentence.
Let's try that again.
6 big rowdy thugs rouse you and your whole family out of your house boat. One of them has absolutely no emotional expression on his face at all, his eyes are cold and lifeless as stone. The spokesman for the group speaks, while the other five stand around looking menacing with hands on weapons.
"Look you, the boat we're buying. You'll take 10gp for it and get your stupid <insert ethnic slur here> butts off it, or me and my friends are gonna burn it down around your ears with you and your kids on it!"
Now, imagine that you are not in the modern world (which is what you are assuming, with modern laws). You are instead in the Old West. Your family has their guns to hand. Do you wait until they come back and burn you down, or do you shoot them down like dogs?
Now take that back another 1000 years. The laws are basically very simple. "You threaten someone and they kill you, your own bloody fault". Or, "You threaten someone and then kill them, you are a murderer."
That's pretty much what happened to the orcs. Five big nasty humans and a machine (which obviously has no concept of living) says they're going to steal your home from you and pay you a pittance of it's worth in order to make it 'legal', and if you don't go along with it, they're going to burn you and your family up.
|
|
Victorian age had laws and the OP's setting has both laws and a rather efficient police and justice system (considering how quickly the guards arrived).
Also the lawless Old West-style mentality where people always take the law in their own hands can only happen when most people have the means to escape the consequences of their actions. It was not that common in the Middle Ages or Antiquity, at least in the places with a strong governing structure (ie Feudal system, Empire ...).
The orcs should have waited at least for the PCs to draw their weapons first so that it could be considered self-defense (a "law" that was also adhered to in the Old West BTW).
Victorian age had laws and the OP's setting has both laws and a rather efficient police and justice system (considering how quickly the guards arrived).
Also the lawless Old West-style mentality where people always take the law in their own hands can only happen when most people have the means to escape the consequences of their actions. It was not that common in the Middle Ages or Antiquity, at least in the places with a strong governing structure (ie Feudal system, Empire ...).
The orcs should have waited at least for the PCs to draw their weapons first so that it could be considered self-defense (a "law" that was also adhered to in the Old West BTW).
Ah, ok, missed the victorian thing.
Regardless, the police show up, you've got a kid saying 6 people were threatening his family, and here are six people, covered in blood, with the family all dead.
Of course they're going to say the orcs attacked them first.
Of course, if this is the orc quarter, then there's going to be dozens of orcs saying they attacked the orc family first.
|
|
I'm still at a loss on this PC being NG. What about the rest of the party? How do they feel about taking part in such an act? Did any of them try subdual takedowns at all?
And I think I have to ask for explicit answer to an implicit question: What was the player thinking?
This is well worth taking up with the player.
I'm still at a loss on this PC being NG. What about the rest of the party? How do they feel about taking part in such an act? Did any of them try subdual takedowns at all?
And I think I have to ask for explicit answer to an implicit question: What was the player thinking?This is well worth taking up with the player.
I think the players all fell victim to the pitfall of 'Orc = Evil' despite the GM telling them that's not the case in his campaign.
People get in ruts, and one of those can be 'Orc! Kill it!'.
In our modern world, there are gradations of crime levels in killing someone. "Murder One" or first-degree murder, is the cold-blooded, premeditated variety. I am not sure of the distinctions with second- and third-degree.
Below that is "manslaughter", which corresponds to "the person did not have the intent to kill someone, but that was the result of their dangerous actions"
Below that, of course, is self-defense.
The character's actions are probably 3rd degree at the worst and self-defense at the kindest, depending upon the exact laws of the land. Even with self-defense, he should be punished for making the threats.
With our overworked court systems, it is not uncommon for the court to accept a plea to manslaughter in place of going to trial for murder.
My suggestion is to run the preliminary court scene and allow the party to plead to manslaughter. Then run one whole adventure with them in prison in preparation for being shipped off to Botany Bay... no components, all weapons are improvised, movement is greatly restricted and, most of all, no treasure. I don't have an idea for the plot, but if I think of one, I'll send it along.
Then they can either escape or go off to Botany Bay, which becomes your new plot arc.
Victorian age had laws and the OP's setting has both laws and a rather efficient police and justice system (considering how quickly the guards arrived).
Also the lawless Old West-style mentality where people always take the law in their own hands can only happen when most people have the means to escape the consequences of their actions. It was not that common in the Middle Ages or Antiquity, at least in the places with a strong governing structure (ie Feudal system, Empire ...).
The orcs should have waited at least for the PCs to draw their weapons first so that it could be considered self-defense (a "law" that was also adhered to in the Old West BTW).
Ah, ok, missed the victorian thing.
Regardless, the police show up, you've got a kid saying 6 people were threatening his family, and here are six people, covered in blood, with the family all dead.
Of course they're going to say the orcs attacked them first.
Of course, if this is the orc quarter, then there's going to be dozens of orcs saying they attacked the orc family first.
Oh, with the Victorian thing, the police would think this is very easy for investigation. Five corpses? That's five Speak with Deads, perfectly reasonable in a Victorian setting since there'd be a spirit medium on retainer for the local police department.
But wait, don't those cost money? Sure. Those are court costs that can be applied to the guilty party after the sentencing, which is why the police would be suggesting that a swift confession would save the adventurers a lot of time and expense.
The claims of innocence and guilt really go out the window when you have "Dead Man's Word" as a pretty much unimpeachable source. Yes, the medium would admit that it's possible for the dead to lie, but it would be exceedingly unlikely for five corpses to all lie and more than that somehow have their stories straight.
Add in a few other magics, including speak with plant, speak with animal and stone tell? Lots of witnesses. The willow tree, the cat, and the cobblestone all tell the same story as the boy and the corpses. The cost for these spells will also be added to the court costs.
I'd say the party is pretty much hosed. Short of someone calling in favors directly from the Crown, there'd be no way out, and the Crown would need a really compelling reason to get itself involved in this unpleasantness.
At best, the lawyer could claim that these nice people were attempting to be lawful when their automaton went berserk, leading to this exceedingly unfortunate situation. The automaton will be dismantled and the rest of the adventurers will be paying the boy an absurd wrongful death suit, suitable to see to him being sent to Eaton and Oxford, which would be a better lot than a half-orc might reasonably expect.
Short of intervention from the GM in the form of intervening nobles, or a prison break, there's really not much the party can do.
