The PC's in my game are in a lawful neutral city. The powers that be have had decades to work on the laws of the city, with the result being that the law is generally ambiguous and/or contradictory. The rules for collecting evidence have been similarly twisted. The end result is, if you are sufficiently powerful, you can generally get charges against you dismissed by having a favorable judge either rule the evidence inadmissible, or that what you did was not actually against the law.
Similar techniques are often effective at getting someone less powerful than you convicted if you desire to exert your influence against them.
The PC's are about to attempt to take down an operation of questionable legality, and will want to not just go in and kill everyone (as that could lead to murder charges against them) but apprehend and turn them over to the authorities for prosecution. This will require them to collect evidence for the future trial and not break any of the many rules in the process. They have a copy of the rules, which are large, complicated and contradictory. ("Section 6.3.7.4.3 says you must do what section 8.4.5.3.2a appears to forbid.")
What are some good ideas on how to do this?
|
Well, it sounds like you have set up a political scenario in which the faction with the greatest pull can achieve the requisite results. Even, or perhaps especially, in a situation in which the laws are so interpretive public opinion and attitude is a serious constraint. Laws only work so long as the populace feels that, by and large, the legal system works. Thus, even a favorable judge would be restrained against ruling completely against popular opinion too many times. (Otherwise the only way anyone wins a court case is when they buy the judge, and now judges are the only real power in the city, or the men who sponsor and control blocks of them.)
So, how could it be done? The way which leaves the most control to the PC's is to set objectives, both hidden and apparent. The PC's receive a list from the representing legal party of things they need to acquire or people they must detain, etc. Any pertinent details are pointed out "We must get the man holding the money while snorting cocaine off of the stripper, and we need the stripper to corroborate." The hidden details are like bonus objectives that the PC's may or may not be aware of, but they are what the opposing party will use in defense. The more of them the PC's can achieve (maybe a diplomacy gather information or knowledge local check to give them pointers or tips or some such?) the weaker the defense of the opposing legal team. Once it is all said and done, rate the PC's on their success and determine the outcome of the trial.
The advantage here is that you can provide the PC's a tangible list of tasks or objectives which they can pursue and not feel cheated about. You have great interpretive freedom to tell your story based on how the overall result is and even provide dramatic twists (they bust out of jail before the sentence! The trial is attacked! Sudden change of judge! Legal council assassinated when the trial is going so well!) which can push any direction you require.
The disadvantage is that with such a loose legal structure, the PC's are likely to be unsatisfied whatever the result is and especially if they lose. Without the confidence that their actions actually matter (it was a cheap legal trick!) bad feelings will get started and "Kill 'em All" may likely be the next objective. Worse, it will make your players feel marginalized and cheated.