Zone of truthOf 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.
Which is as bad for the PCs as it could be.
Did you threaten to burn them? Were your hands on weapons? Did they have reason to fear for their life? Would you kill thugs stealing your home and threatening your family?
And as noted, if you're going to pull Zone of Truth, you're also looking at speak with dead. Five witnesses for the prosecution are pretty damning.
|
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.
Sigh. I would have preferred to avoid this, but it boil down to this: you are reasoning like a US citizen where the Wild West stile of law was invented.
In Europe it didn't work that way and it didn't worked that way in the past. "The right to have a armed militia" is something that was invented with the US (mostly).
Most of the laws were made to protect the nobility or those with money, not to protect the common citizen or the underdog.
A noble was so kind as to take an interest in your daughter and raped her? You could ask for a compensation and maybe get it but if you lifted a finger against him you would be the one to hang from a fork.
Even in the US a black man or a Mexican or a Italian reacting against someone threatening him did run the risk to be lynched by the Anglos without any consequence for them. And that was happening at least till the late 1800.
In most situations if the underdog had the "gall" to react he become the culprit, not the victim.
Your wild west law was working only when you were in a location far away from any authority and had the possibility to hide the corpse.
I'm not sure how 'magic intensive' your world is. Personally, I would avoid using magic for everything. Speak with Dead, Zone of Truth... these take a lot of the FUN out of things.
I personally believe that with the few times a day a priest/wizard can cast their spells... and the overcrowded justice system I doubt VERY highly that all law enforcement/courts would use them very often. For a family of squatters I don't think the 'crime' would be worth the money.
As for court costs... they only get paid if you DON"T execute the convicted. If he's guilty and left to rot or hung... that's a lot of magic that will never get paid for.
If I was a lawyer I'd fight against it at every turn. 1) it DESTROYS any concept of trial by jury. Kills it DEAD. Instead of 12 people deciding your guilt, it's ONE mage. or ONE priest. What they say is suddenly gospel and indisputable.
What fun is that? Why would they even HAVE judges and courts in that case?
2) How trust worthy are these spells? The dead can lie and be decieving. If the orcs DID attack first, and REALLY wanted the adventurers dead... and then a priest asks their spirits what happened? Why WOULDN'T they try for vengence from the grave??
Even if it isn't the Truth, the dead can be spiteful.
3) How trust worthy is the PRIEST?? Instead of summoning the dead... what if he created an illusion? That said whatever he WANTED it to say?
Elaine Cunningham wrote a short story, that involved a murder coverup caused by 'speak with dead' as it's only evidence... It was pretty good :)
|
|
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.
Zone of truth
Which is as bad for the PCs as it could be.Did you threaten to burn them? Were your hands on weapons? Did they have reason to fear for their life? Would you kill thugs stealing your home and threatening your family?
And as noted, if you're going to pull Zone of Truth, you're also looking at speak with dead. Five witnesses for the prosecution are pretty damning.
Again it all depend on the exact sequence of the events.
PC threaten orcs with words -> Orcs pull out weapons and attack -> PC kill them in self defence
The PC have little real trouble. A reputation as violet people, some fine to pay, maybe a few days in jail for menaces.
PC threaten orcs with weapons -> Orcs pull out weapons and attack -> PC kill them
In this scenario the orcs are fully justified by the law.
My first thought would be to play it out in the courts with the dark angle of letting the PCs off easy because the orcs are second-class citizens. Now, as a human being, I hate that idea in principle, but as a storyteller, it makes for a deeper (if darker and more cynical) setting. It gives the players the chance to continue having fun without the whole party put to death, and at the same time saddles them with enough guilt to teach them to hold their tempers next time.
But guilt can be a real fun-killer, too. So on second thought I don't know about that.
Maybe better would be the angle similar to what a few others have said, of making them pay off their debt to society with a dangerous (maybe even certain death) mission (which of course, being superheroes, they have a chance of surviving anyway).
At least you didn't do what one DM did to me once. It was just a quick pick-up game, played off the cuff. But basically, I was playing a really superstitious arabian-themed fighter/thief (2nd Ed), and I had made it perfectly clear that the character was edgy and afraid of magic. Well, first time out, the DM had us in this super-powerful necromancer's castle, where we encountered the BBEG's manservant, a wicked-looking little old man who we suspected was a monster in disguise.
We managed to tie him up, at which point he started telling us how we were going to die and started shouting for his master. I tried to shut him up, but the DM thought it would be funny to make every attempt fail. Basically, he was railroading so that nothing would stay in the guy's mouth, he somehow could not be knocked unconscious, etc., and the whole time he's describing this as if the old man is changing into something else.
So, getting really worried and thinking we were about to be between a necromancer and a shape-shifting demon or djinn or something, I slashed at the old dude with my scimitar. Turns out it was a weak old man with only one or two hit points, who died immediately (strange, though, that clonking him on the head didn't knock him out).
The DM begins to berate me about how "evil" my character is, then stops the game completely to rant on about how he now thinks I might not be a very good person. For days afterward he continued grilling me about whether I'd ever haul off and "kill an innocent man" in real life, and for years after that, he continued to bring it up when it was convenient to him. Needless to say, we never let him DM again.
Sigh. I would have preferred to avoid this, but it boil down to this: you are reasoning like a US citizen where the Wild West stile of law was invented.
In Europe it didn't work that way and it didn't worked that way in the past. "The right to have a armed militia" is something that was invented with the US (mostly).
Most of the laws were made to protect the nobility or those with money, not to protect the common citizen or the underdog.
I'm completely and fully aware of that. Having been to college, gotten a degree, completed an advanced degree, and actually happening to like BBC America, I actually not only have read a good bit about the time period during college (minor in English Lit), but also have actually worked in London several times and had interesting discussions with people there about history.
I'm simply ignoring that because, if you read the OPs posts, because it's a Victorian setting. One of the major differences between what you're talking about and Victorian, is that the Rule of Law was very well established by then. You do realize that the Victorian Era was mid 1800's right? Horseless carriages, steam locomotives, etc? Yes, you still had second class citizens, but the PCs are not nobility either. So what you have are 6 non-noble thugs attacking and killing a family of second class citizens.
The Victorian Era was one of the periods where liberal reforms were spreading, that included voting reforms and the idea that humans had to be treated with certain levels of respect, regardless of their station in life. Didn't mean that they thought nobility and second class citizens were equals, only that those second class citizens had to be treated with a modicum of respect. It's entirely possible during the period that 'middle class' citizens would be made examples of for doing things like what the PCs did.
I do agree though, you should have avoided this. You really just made your argument even harder to defend. You might want to do a bit of research on the Victorian Era before you comment on how it was purely nobility with the protections and nobody else. The Reform Acts (1832 and 1867) were the foundation of modern democracy in Britain. These were at the beginning and middle of the Victorian Era, showing that the time period was very much a transition period from the type of outlook you espouse in your post towards something much more liberal and egelatarian in outlook.
Again, not saying that the orcs wouldn't have been having trouble getting the cops to respond to people spitting on them, or charging them more, or basically treating them like dirt. That's expected. However, wholesale slaughter of an entire family, with only one boy surviving who had run off to the cops in the first place complaining that 6, and this is very important, non nobles in the Victorian Era, would result in the 6 thugs being arrested. The very idea of slaughtering second class citizens would have affronted the sensibilities of the Victorian Era judicial system. Not because they cared about the orcs, but because it 'just isn't done'.
I'm not sure how 'magic intensive' your world is. Personally, I would avoid using magic for everything. Speak with Dead, Zone of Truth... these take a lot of the FUN out of things.
+1 (at least to this part)
While yes, technically magic pretty much makes for many many many perfect witnesses... it removes an element of fun role-play. I only use it on a case by case basis.
If you're looking for a quick solution though go the magic route. You know the true specifics of your justice system so pretty much the law will know what happened and punishment can be given fairly. Self-Defense or not, death penalty for the guy that threatened the orcs, time in jail, etc.
Do what's best for the campaign to continue while maintaining some realty. Every choice has consequences.
|
I'm not sure how 'magic intensive' your world is. Personally, I would avoid using magic for everything. Speak with Dead, Zone of Truth... these take a lot of the FUN out of things.
I personally believe that with the few times a day a priest/wizard can cast their spells... and the overcrowded justice system I doubt VERY highly that all law enforcement/courts would use them very often. For a family of squatters I don't think the 'crime' would be worth the money.
As for court costs... they only get paid if you DON"T execute the convicted. If he's guilty and left to rot or hung... that's a lot of magic that will never get paid for.
If I was a lawyer I'd fight against it at every turn. 1) it DESTROYS any concept of trial by jury. Kills it DEAD. Instead of 12 people deciding your guilt, it's ONE mage. or ONE priest. What they say is suddenly gospel and indisputable.
What fun is that? Why would they even HAVE judges and courts in that case?
2) How trust worthy are these spells? The dead can lie and be decieving. If the orcs DID attack first, and REALLY wanted the adventurers dead... and then a priest asks their spirits what happened? Why WOULDN'T they try for vengence from the grave??
Even if it isn't the Truth, the dead can be spiteful.
3) How trust worthy is the PRIEST?? Instead of summoning the dead... what if he created an illusion? That said whatever he WANTED it to say?
Elaine Cunningham wrote a short story, that involved a murder coverup caused by 'speak with dead' as it's only evidence... It was pretty good :)
Another interesting point is, how LEGAL would such magical methods be? Would they be admissable in court?
There are, to use a contemporary example, issues with using lie-detector test results in many jurisdictions.
Or, to really push the fantastic aspects of magical divinations, look at the restrictions telepaths faced in Babylon 5 (an excellent show, if you haven't seen it - check it out on DVD). Basically a sufficiently powerful telepath could view memories directly from the accused's own mind. But such things weren't LEGALLY allowed, as it infringed upon the accused's rights against self-incrimination.
I'm totally confused.
Why doesn't the rest of the party try to bust him out of jail? Sounds like a fantastic and memorable game session to me.
|
|
Sigh. I would have preferred to avoid this, but it boil down to this: you are reasoning like a US citizen where the Wild West stile of law was invented.
In Europe it didn't work that way and it didn't worked that way in the past. "The right to have a armed militia" is something that was invented with the US (mostly).
Most of the laws were made to protect the nobility or those with money, not to protect the common citizen or the underdog.
I'm completely and fully aware of that. Having been to college, gotten a degree, completed an advanced degree, and actually happening to like BBC America, I actually not only have read a good bit about the time period during college (minor in English Lit), but also have actually worked in London several times and had interesting discussions with people there about history.I'm simply ignoring that because, if you read the OPs posts, because it's a Victorian setting. One of the major differences between what you're talking about and Victorian, is that the Rule of Law was very well established by then. You do realize that the Victorian Era was mid 1800's right? Horseless carriages, steam locomotives, etc? Yes, you still had second class citizens, but the PCs are not nobility either. So what you have are 6 non-noble thugs attacking and killing a family of second class citizens.
Maybe you realize that at a cognitive level, but you still react based on your culture.
In Europe, even Victorian Europe you can't "shoot them down like dogs" anyone for menacing you verbally.This is your post at wick I was replying
.."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."
...
So it is Victorian Era when it is convenient for you, Wild West when it is more convenient and Middle Ages at another time?
Victorian era = what count is who has taken the weapons in hand first and who has used them first (rule of law)
Wild West = survivor win during the first stages, then rule of law (but even under "rule of law" the citizen storming a prison to lynch a black man, Mexican, Italian or Chinese accused of a crime very rarely had any trouble)
Middle ages = in most kingdoms you had a rule of law (very different from today, if you were from another country your rights and protections were noticeably reduced). if you were far enough from a civilized location it is survivor win.
Instead of reacting to the first word of that post read it.
In most of the European states reacting with armed force to a perceived danger is not allowed and it wasn't acceptable even in the Victorian era.
"He has entered my property, I thought he was a thief and shot him" fall under excess in self-defence.
Same thing for "He threatened me so I shot him"
In our situation if the orcs where the first to draw weapons and use them (like your example: the PC threaten the orcs and "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?") they become immediately the aggressor with deadly force. It is not even self defence. Menaces are not a sufficient reason to kill someone.
If they really feared that the PC would come later to burn the ship down they should have gone to the local constabulary and denounced them for menaces. That is what the Rule of Law demand.
|
|
Another interesting point is, how LEGAL would such magical methods be? Would they be admissable in court?
Another problem of the magical method is that they can be beaten or are based on the witness of a expert that use the magic, they are not directly verifiable by the judge and jury.
So they would have a value similar to current day DNA tests, Blood group tests and so on.Evidence with the right for the defendant to counter interrogate the expert and to furnish opposing evidence using another expert.
Most spells don't work so well as people will think (depend on your DM ruling too, obviously).
Stone tell: "You gain the ability to speak with stones, which relate to you who or what has touched them as well as revealing what is covered or concealed behind or under them." Very little use.
Speak with plant/animals: they can't understand words and have a different point of view from humanoids. they would be problematic witnesses.
To make an example, dog witness: "the book smelling man was barking, the men smelling of fishes stated to growl then they have taken out sticks and started to beat him."
It could be
- "the wizard was casting a spell on the sailors and they reacted beating him"
or
- "the scribe was asking for direction and the sailors attacked him"
In our situation if the orcs where the first to draw weapons and use them (like your example: the PC threaten the orcs and "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?") they become immediately the aggressor with deadly force. It is not even self defence. Menaces are not a sufficient reason to kill someone.
If they really feared that the PC would come later to burn the ship down they should have gone to the local constabulary and denounced them for menaces. That is what the Rule of Law demand.
My point about wild west and 1000 years earlier was to point out that the times were much simpler as far as laws and response to them go.
You are using modern ideas of jurisprudence that didn't exist in the Victorian Era. It was the beginning of the rule of underclass having rights. There simply wasn't a hundred years of jurisprudence for this kind of thing. A close analogy was the American Civil Rights era. Prior to that, people got away with all sorts of abuse of african american people. It was technically illegal, but the actual enforcement, especially in the south, was spotty at best. If you waited for the constable to come (assuming he did), you might not survive.
However, let's look at that in this scenario. The orcs DID send for the police. When the police arrive, they find 6 people standing over a family of dead orcs, all 6 swearing up and down that 'they drew first'. Your argument is that the orcs drew first, so the 6 supposedly good guys who were threatening them, attempting to steal their home, and who slaughtered them are completely in the right and clear of all bad consequences because they drove someone into defending themselves is ludicrous.
And, even with all that, self defense even in Victorian Era simply meant you had to feel as if your life were in immediate danger. I would submit a very very good case could be made that if 6 burly well armed and armored thugs were threatening your family and trying to steal your home that you'd feel in immediate danger.
Another interesting point is, how LEGAL would such magical methods be? Would they be admissable in court?
Another problem of the magical method is that they can be beaten or are based on the witness of a expert that use the magic, they are not directly verifiable by the judge and jury.
So they would have a value similar to current day DNA tests, Blood group tests and so on.
Evidence with the right for the defendant to counter interrogate the expert and to furnish opposing evidence using another expert.
And again, we are not dealing with modern jurisprudence, you can't seem to get away from this.
In Victorian Era, most people believed the world was flat and that if you flew faster than the speed of sound, your body would turn to mush.
People, especially 'the common man' in the jury were extremely supersticious, they believed in magic, hexes, gods and devils. And, they had no examples of a guy making a fireball appear, or another guy making wounds go away with a touch.
People who see magic every day will trust it just as much as people who see science every day. Why? Because for your average joe on the street today, science = magic. How many people understand the physics behind TV? How radio waves are modulated to send a signal that's decoded? How many people understand DNA? Most get their science from CSI and NCIS, and most of it's wrong! In fact, prosecutors are having harder times with juries now days because they believe in the magic of DNA more than the reality of DNA. All these common man jurists are so immersed in the idea of DNA via NCIS where they get DNA results in hours from a single hair left on the floor of a kitchen, that they just don't think the experts on the stand know what they're talking about, because it took them days to get their results on the DNA.
People that live with magic every day are going to find it to be just as believable as anything else. We believe video tapes and audio tapes today, they're considered 'SOLID EVIDENCE' even though you can fake up a video or audio tape VERY easily with today's technology. How do we trust it? We have an expert verify it's not been doctored. Same for magic in a world where magic exists. You have a state 'expert' in magic verify that the spell the jury is seeing is real and not faked up.
|
|
Another interesting point is, how LEGAL would such magical methods be? Would they be admissable in court?
Another problem of the magical method is that they can be beaten or are based on the witness of a expert that use the magic, they are not directly verifiable by the judge and jury.
So they would have a value similar to current day DNA tests, Blood group tests and so on.
Evidence with the right for the defendant to counter interrogate the expert and to furnish opposing evidence using another expert.
And again, we are not dealing with modern jurisprudence, you can't seem to get away from this.
In Victorian Era, most people believed the world was flat and that if you flew faster than the speed of sound, your body would turn to mush.
People, especially 'the common man' in the jury were extremely supersticious, they believed in magic, hexes, gods and devils. And, they had no examples of a guy making a fireball appear, or another guy making wounds go away with a touch.
People who see magic every day will trust it just as much as people who see science every day. Why? Because for your average joe on the street today, science = magic. How many people understand the physics behind TV? How radio waves are modulated to send a signal that's decoded? How many people understand DNA? Most get their science from CSI and NCIS, and most of it's wrong! In fact, prosecutors are having harder times with juries now days because they believe in the magic of DNA more than the reality of DNA. All these common man jurists are so immersed in the idea of DNA via NCIS where they get DNA results in hours from a single hair left on the floor of a kitchen, that they just don't think the experts on the stand know what they're talking about, because it took them days to get their results on the DNA.
People who see magic every day will trust it just as much as people who see science every day. Why? Because for your average joe on the street today, science = magic. How many people understand the physics behind TV? How radio waves are modulated to send a signal that's decoded? How many people understand DNA? Most get their science from CSI and NCIS, and most of it's wrong! In fact, prosecutors are having harder times with juries now days because they believe in the magic of DNA more than the reality of DNA. All these common man jurists are so immersed in the idea of DNA via NCIS where they get DNA results in hours from a single hair left on the floor of a kitchen, that they just don't think the experts on the stand know what they're talking about, because it took them days to get their results on the DNA.
People that live with magic every day are going to find it to be just as believable as anything else. We believe video tapes and audio tapes today, they're considered 'SOLID EVIDENCE' even though you can fake up a video or audio tape VERY easily with today's technology. How do we trust it? We have an expert verify it's not been doctored. Same for magic in a world where magic exists. You have a state 'expert' in magic verify that the spell the jury is seeing is real and not faked up.
So the judge in your process would not allow counter interrogation of the magical expert?
Different magical experts giving different magical interpretations?The common people can not know that magic can fail or be defeated, but a competent judge in a murder case will know that.
As Speak with dead work only once/week on the same body the "interrogation" would be done with the presence of both lawyers, that of the accuse and that of the defendant while the spell is cast by a third party chosen by the judge. Possibly it will happen it the tribunal before the jury too.
Attorney: "Who killed you" "The metal man"
Defendant: "who draw first" Will ST, we assume it is failed "Mike"
and so on.
The jury will have faith in magic but they judge, the lawyers and the one speaking with the dead (probably a paid tribunal consultant) will know its limit (and those of the other useful spells) and any good lawyers will use them to get the result he want.
"In Victorian Era, most people believed the world was flat"
In the Victorian era a lot of people did know someone that had sailed to America then Australia and returned to England. Earth is flat people were die hard remnants. they exist even today.
@Diego Rossi
Again, your going back to modern jurisprudence (*sigh* seems like a mantra now).
It would more like work like this :
Judge : Mr. Wizard, please cast the speak dead on the corpse.
MrW : Yes sir. <mumble mumble mumble> Are you here?
Corpse : Yes....
Prosecutor : Who killed you?
Corpse : Machine man...
Defense : Who drew weapons first?
Corpse : I did...
Judge : Why did you draw your weapon?
Corpse : Machine man said he was gonna kill my whole family if I didn't sell him my boat for 30 gold, it was worth at least 500 gold.
Defense : Aha! So you pulled your weapon first!
Corpse : No, they put their hands on their weapons to draw 'em, we drawed and attacked.
Prosecution : Did the machine man and his friends threaten you with harm?
Corpse : Yeah, said they'd burn us all up in the boat, and his friends put their hands on their weapons to pull 'em, we attacked
Judge : So you were in mortal fear of your lives at that point?
Corpse : Yeah, and now dead I am.
Prosecutor : Did you at any time before that day meet the machine man and his friends? Ever have harsh words with them before hand?
Corpse : Nah, never even knew their names.
Defense : But they didn't actually attack you until you attacked first right, just threatened you?
Corpse : Threatened us, put hands on weapons, said they'd kill my baby. He's here too...
Defense : But they didn't actually do anything until you did right, just threatened unless you did what they wanted, and didn't actually get any money or title to the boat yet right?
Corpse : Don't have no title to boat, but yeah, they didn't give us no gold, just killed us.
Remember, the corpse is going to tell the truth as he remembers it. The PCs can swear up and down in a zone of truth that they never intended to go through with the threats, they just wanted to steal from the orcs. But all that does is get them automatically convicted of theft, and then the jury decides if they were responsible for the orcs deaths, and they probably will be found guilty. If not, they still get punished for theft.
|
|
In our situation if the orcs where the first to draw weapons and use them (like your example: the PC threaten the orcs and "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?") they become immediately the aggressor with deadly force. It is not even self defence. Menaces are not a sufficient reason to kill someone.
If they really feared that the PC would come later to burn the ship down they should have gone to the local constabulary and denounced them for menaces. That is what the Rule of Law demand.
My point about wild west and 1000 years earlier was to point out that the times were much simpler as far as laws and response to them go.You are using modern ideas of jurisprudence that didn't exist in the Victorian Era. It was the beginning of the rule of underclass having rights. There simply wasn't a hundred years of jurisprudence for this kind of thing. A close analogy was the American Civil Rights era. Prior to that, people got away with all sorts of abuse of african american people. It was technically illegal, but the actual enforcement, especially in the south, was spotty at best. If you waited for the constable to come (assuming he did), you might not survive.
However, let's look at that in this scenario. The orcs DID send for the police. When the police arrive, they find 6 people standing over a family of dead orcs, all 6 swearing up and down that 'they drew first'. Your argument is that the orcs drew first, so the 6 supposedly good guys who were threatening them, attempting to steal their home, and who slaughtered them are completely in the right and clear of all bad consequences because they drove someone into defending themselves is ludicrous.
And, even with all that, self defense even in Victorian Era simply meant you had to feel as if your life were in immediate danger. I would submit a very very good case could be made that if 6 burly well armed and armored thugs were threatening your family and trying to steal your home that you'd feel in immediate danger.
You are cutting a few corner in that scenario. Like forgetting that the "metal man" was down and stabilized.
You are taking the role of the attorney and refusing any right to defence to the accused. I am saying that the accused has all the right to defend himself.
Where you think the "hundred years of jurisprudence for this kind of thing" come from? By trials like this one. The "metal man" and friends would not come out unscathed, but depending on circumstances they could be convicted for different crimes,from murder in different degrees to manslaughter, with or without extenuating circumstances.
When an altercation with threats escalate to armed violence the guys that first draw the weapons and use them worst position even if there are extenuating circumstances for the previous threats.
As in the OP situation is possible to determine who drew first and used the weapons first thanks to magic the player situation could be very bad (threats and using weapon first) or only passably bad (1 guy threatening the orcs, the other trying to keep him calm, the orcs drawing weapons and attacking).
To repeat it again, not even in the middle ages you had the right to kill someone for verbal threats.
|
|
@Diego Rossi
Again, your going back to modern jurisprudence (*sigh* seems like a mantra now).
It would more like work like this :
Judge : Mr. Wizard, please cast the speak dead on the corpse.
MrW : Yes sir. <mumble mumble mumble> Are you here?
Corpse : Yes....
Prosecutor : Who killed you?
Corpse : Machine man...
Defense : Who drew weapons first?
Corpse : I did...
Judge : Why did you draw your weapon?
Corpse : Machine man said he was gonna kill my whole family if I didn't sell him my boat for 30 gold, it was worth at least 500 gold.
Defense : Aha! So you pulled your weapon first!
Corpse : No, they put their hands on their weapons to draw 'em, we drawed and attacked.
Prosecution : Did the machine man and his friends threaten you with harm?
Corpse : Yeah, said they'd burn us all up in the boat, and his friends put their hands on their weapons to pull 'em, we attacked
Judge : So you were in mortal fear of your lives at that point?
Corpse : Yeah, and now dead I am.
Prosecutor : Did you at any time before that day meet the machine man and his friends? Ever have harsh words with them before hand?
Corpse : Nah, never even knew their names.
Defense : But they didn't actually attack you until you attacked first right, just threatened you?
Corpse : Threatened us, put hands on weapons, said they'd kill my baby. He's here too...
Defense : But they didn't actually do anything until you did right, just threatened unless you did what they wanted, and didn't actually get any money or title to the boat yet right?
Corpse : Don't have no title to boat, but yeah, they didn't give us no gold, just killed us.Remember, the corpse is going to tell the truth as he remembers it. The PCs can swear up and down in a zone of truth that they never intended to go through with the threats, they just wanted to steal from the orcs. But all that does is get them automatically convicted of theft, and then the jury decides if they were responsible for the orcs deaths, and they probably will be found...
You put a good prosecutor against a bad defender as it help your position. Let's reverse it:
(BTW the corpse say what it know, not its interpretation of it, unless it make his ST)Judge : Mr. Wizard, please cast the speak dead on the corpse.
MrW : Yes sir. <mumble mumble mumble> Are you here?
Corpse : Yes....
Prosecutor : Who killed you?
Corpse : Machine man...
Defense : Who drew weapons first?
Corpse : I did...
Prosecutor : Why did you draw your weapon?
Corpse : Machine man threatened my family (and that is already a fairly long reply for the spell, to quote it "Answers are brief, cryptic, or repetitive")
Defense : Aha! So you pulled your weapon first!
Corpse : they put their hands on their weapons to draw 'em,
Prosecutor : Did the machine man and his friends threaten you with harm?
Corpse : Yeah, said they'd burn us all
Defense: Let's return to the "draw weapon" part. You drew the weapon first and attacked. Who did throw the fist attack?
Corpse: Mike
Prosecutor: Who spilled the first blood?
Corpse: Machine man (almost certainly the PC where higher level and better protected so it is highly probable)
Defense: Machine man friend attacked you immediately after you drew the weapons or tried to speak?
Corpde: (depend on what happened in the OP campaign)
Prosecutor : So you were in mortal fear of your lives when youd rew the weapons?
Corpse : Yeah.
Defense: they were threatening you saying they would burn your house. They had torches out? Other burning objects?
Corpse: No
Prosecutor : Did you at any time before that day meet the machine man and his friends? Ever have harsh words with them before hand?
Corpse : Nah.
Defense : But they didn't actually attack you until you attacked first right, just said they would do you ham?
Corpse : Threatened us,
and so on.
Conclusions:
- The PC threatened the orcs
- The orcs drew first and attacked first. The orcs had sufficient motivations to feel in danger and if they had win they would probably get a sentence for excessive self defence or manslaughter
- the PC at that point had all the reasons to feel threatened (several armed guys trying to hit them) too and reacted [badly]
- as the PC had threatened the orcs before the start of the combat they will not get out with a "self defence" justification but it is not premeditated murder. Probably they will get a manslaughter charge.
You can go on as long as you wish but "I fell threatened so I draw a killing weapon and start using it" don't work today and didn't worked in the past.
Ha... This thread reminds me of the last time i ran my game that consists of a party of rogues.
My party had recently been appointed to be "the help" for a rich old lady who was blind, I think you all know what ended up happening there.
So one of the characters decides to run streight to the market place to sell his ill gotten goods, one of which happened to be a rather large chunk of adamantite.
So he meanders on over to the traveling gem merchant, who word had was a rather rich one at that, and offers to sell the gem. The guy asks how much he was looking to sell it for and the rogue quickly responds with a few thousand gold pieces.
So after a few rolls later the merchent widdles him down to 250 gold pieces for the gem. As the character walks away i tell him to make a perception check. He passes, he hears the the guy say under his breath "hehe sucker" and the sound of a dimensonal pocket open up and close.
So he whirls around and puts a knife to the guys throat, to which the gem salesman quickly responds "guards help! this man is trying to rob me!"
The guards come rushing in and order the rogue to put down the weapon. He says that the guy ripped him off but the guards dont believe him because he has no proof.
So because the player knew that he was going to go to jail, he decided to go for broke... He was hoping he could one shot the guy so at least he would feel a little better about being ripped off. Sadly for him, he missed and was quickly dispatched by the guards and hauled off to jail.
And now i have a brand new plot hook because at the conclusion of the night, the player wrote on the top of his character sheet "GET RAT BASTARD!!!"
Well the group is 7th level, I don’t know the campaign being ran so maybe this isn’t viable but if I were in a group and this happened I’d tell the cleric to get some raise dead scrolls and use them on the orcs that were slain. That should reduce the charges to a serious case of assault and battery, after all they aren’t dead so murders out and attempted murder doesn’t make sense if you’re the one that fixed them xP
Giving that the party has a reputation, presumably a good one or this might not apply, I would be willing to let the party go for a mild fine with the exception of the fighter, after all the scrolls themselves are practically punishment enough especially if their are several orcs that need raised. For the fighter, I’d make him personally apologize by court order and fine him especially hard, for that matter if he has the gold he should pay for most of the scrolls. The money would go to the orcs as reparations and I’d make him fork it over personally as part of the apology.
If the party funds are to low to make this a viable scenario a wealthy and well connected “benefactor” could offer to make the problem go away for a price. If they agree, have him deal with raising the orcs but still require the court ordered apology for the fighter (preferably still with a fine for him to drive in the point of think before you act). The benefactor would of course have plans for the party that could perhaps even further your personal campaign goals depending on what they are.
As for the alignment problems for the fighter, doing a bad thing doesn’t make someone evil, if it’s one of those things that basically amount to he had a bad idea, and then it went horribly wrong, I wouldn’t force any kind of alignment change, particularly if he really does play it that way.
On the other hand if he does things like this quite a bit, or even occasionally if they’re this bad, I’d consider talking to him and asking him if he actually wants to play a neutral good character because he really isn’t really acting the part, and if he does let him know you’ll have to shift his alignment to what he appears to be playing if he persists in acting contrary to a neutral good character.
Conclusions:
- The PC threatened the orcs
- The orcs drew first and attacked first. The orcs had sufficient motivations to feel in danger and if they had win they would probably get a sentence for excessive self defence or manslaughter
- the PC at that point had all the reasons to feel threatened (several armed guys trying to hit them) too and reacted [badly]
- as the PC had threatened the orcs before the start of the combat they will not get out with a "self defence" justification but it is not premeditated murder. Probably they will get a manslaughter charge.You can go on as long as you wish but "I fell threatened so I draw a killing weapon and start using it" don't work today and didn't worked in the past.
Ok, I would say I didn't give the prosecutor an unreasonable level of skill, I thought he was pretty average. I did downplay the defense on the idea that the PCs wouldn't be able to afford a good attorney (if they're having to shake down orcs for a house, they don't have a lot of resources). However, let's assume they got a real brainiac defense lawyer by luck or good fortune. I'm perfectly ok with both sides being termed 'in the wrong'. I was under the impression from your posts earlier that you were taking the position that since the orcs drew first, the PCs would be given a walk on 'self defense'.
Unfortunately for the PCs, in Victorian Era europe, there was no such thing as Manslaughter. Manslaughter was enacted in 1957. Prior to that, it was simply a defense against murder, and usually resulted in lesser punishment for murder. The main defense was called (for our purposes) Provocation. That defense fell into two main arguments : subjective and objective. The subjective test was basically whether or not the defendant was provoked, and the loss of control must be sudden and temporary (although it could, with more difficulty, be determined to be a slow burn with a minor 'final straw'). The other half was the Objective, and was the 'reasonable man test'. Would a reasonable man, given the same circumstances, age, sex, and place in life, feel provoked. A reasonable man could not be mentally impaired (either via disease, alcahol, or defect).
In our situation, both groups at the end had a provocation defense, the orcs I feel had both objective and subjective defense. The PCs could be said to have an objective defense (We really didn't intend to kill them, but they took us too seriously and attacked, so we didn't really have a choice at that point, we screwed up).
Either way, the PCs would go down for murder, and receive a murderer's mark. However, due to the possible defense on the 'we didn't actually draw first' they might avoid death or exile, and only do prison time.
Stuff
I believe it's a low magic campaign, but if the raise dead is possible, then I think this may be the best way of performing the 'save the PCs' from their own oops. I keep forgetting about such things. :)
I think the court ordering sale and liquidation of all the PCs belongings to pay for the raisings would work, and punish the PCs. With all remaining funds from the sales being awarded to the orcs as compensation. That would, I think, severely punish the PCs and still keep the campaign going (now bring in a benefactor who offers to re-equip them with lesser equipment in exchange for doing some jobs for them).
Another interesting point...
The Orcs did not BELONG there. In the OP they were squatting on a boat... A boat they offered to SELL, despite the very definition of squatting indicates that it did not BELONG to them...
I'm not saying 'they had it coming...'
but somehow I doubt the law is going to come down too hard on people who killed homeless squatters trafficing in stolen merchandise.
Another interesting point...
The Orcs did not BELONG there. In the OP they were squatting on a boat... A boat they offered to SELL, despite the very definition of squatting indicates that it did not BELONG to them...
I'm not saying 'they had it coming...'
but somehow I doubt the law is going to come down too hard on people who killed homeless squatters trafficing in stolen merchandise.
I think it's kind of ambiguous as to whether it was their boat. They were nomads. They could have tied up their boat illegally or they could have found an unoccupied boat that was legally docked in a marina somewhere and started squatting on it.
In the former case, they're docking without paying fees, and in the second, they're squatting on someone else's boat. In both cases, the party is still legally in the wrong because threatening people to sell their property for less than its worth is frowned upon in civilized societies, and similarly just because someone is sitting on a boat they don't own doesn't give you legal right to it even if you give them money.
And if it was not the orcs' boat, but they were not willing to commit fraud (by selling property that was not theirs) and the party was ready to steal a boat that did not belong to them either?
I think the judge can make an easy case for executions without society being overly troubled. The party has made the short list of those "who never will be missed." Short of the intervention of powerful friends or patrons or a prison break, they should hang.
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.
I second this sentiment. I don’t think that if someone threatens to burn down your house and it is reasonable (what is ‘reasonable’ is determined by a judge) to take them seriously, you have to wait for them to actually begin committing the arson for attacking that person to be self-defense. In the situation described, I’d call it self-defense on the orcs’ part, not the party’s.
The least game-breaking way for it to play out, I think, is for the instigating PC to be retired. Give the player the choice of outlaw, death, prison camp – whatever flavor of ‘exile’ is preferred. For the rest of the party, assuming they are all equally culpable (all were aware of the lead-up to the combat and participated in the fighting anyway) I’d give them a lesser sentence. Have them convicted of being accomplices to murder, pay a hefty fine and do some jail time or other appropriate punishment for a period of time determined by how well the ‘trial rolls’ go.
‘Montage’ the incarceration with a short description. Then, pick-up the story with them being released from custody, with a new fighter.
However if everyone wants to pretend it never happened: The fighter wakes up in sweats from a disturbing dream… (hopefully a little less racist).
We should keep in mind that the PCs do not necessarily live in a fair world. People are arguing modern English jurisprudence here, when historically-- and in most of the world today-- the accused might not have the right to counsel or even the right to trial. By the same token, the society may not consider the killing of orcs-- or the poor, or foreigners-- to be murder and the PCs might not even be charged with a crime, much less convicted. We take these things for granted, but they're not even commonplace, much less guaranteed.
The outcome of this situation depends entirely on the society in question, and their attitude toward self defense, supernatural evidence, and race relations.
And, really, the outcome should depend on you and your group and whether you consider it more important that the-- supposedly heroic-- PCs be held responsible for their actions or that they're free to act outside the constraints of society.
What's going to be more fun for you?
|
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.
+1
Im also in favor of the trial idea.
And, since its a steampunk setting:
If the character is a machine he probably doesnt die of old age, he could be sentence press into "the queen's service" for a number of decades. His "software" would be reprogramed and for gaming purposes he would be like constantly under the effect of a geas spell.
Or, still following the robot concept, he could have his personality erased. You would reset his mental atributes, skills, feats, aligment and all his memories. The player would them completely redo his character using point buy for the atributes. It could open some interesting roleplaying possibilitys.
You can, of corse, use all the ideas of this thread combined to come out with the more "out of the box" campaign ever created...
:P
|
|
In our situation, both groups at the end had a provocation defense, the orcs I feel had both objective and subjective defense. The PCs could be said to have an objective defense (We really didn't intend to kill them, but they took us too seriously and attacked, so we didn't really have a choice at that point, we screwed up).
Either way, the PCs would go down for murder, and receive a murderer's mark. However, due to the possible defense on the 'we didn't actually draw first' they might avoid death or exile, and only do prison time.
It has taken us many words to discover we are reasonably close in our positions. But that is the problem of internet, some nuances are lost.
I have a tendency to be blunt in stating my opinion but at the same time add a lot of specification so sometime a missed word or a imprecise term (English isn't my first language) will make my position unclear.
My apologies if I have offended you.
In our situation, both groups at the end had a provocation defense, the orcs I feel had both objective and subjective defense. The PCs could be said to have an objective defense (We really didn't intend to kill them, but they took us too seriously and attacked, so we didn't really have a choice at that point, we screwed up).
Either way, the PCs would go down for murder, and receive a murderer's mark. However, due to the possible defense on the 'we didn't actually draw first' they might avoid death or exile, and only do prison time.
It has taken us many words to discover we are reasonably close in our positions. But that is the problem of internet, some nuances are lost.
I have a tendency to be blunt in stating my opinion but at the same time add a lot of specification so sometime a missed word or a imprecise term (English isn't my first language) will make my position unclear.
My apologies if I have offended you.
LOL
No worries. Believe me, you were not offensive. :)