|
I'm looking to run a sort of skill challenge where my PCs have to prove their organization is operating within the law in a court hearing. However, I've never seen rules for this kind of thing, so I'm hoping for some feedback on a homebrew.
The situation is this:
The 5-6 2nd-level PCs are adventurers in Eleder (in Sargava, in the PFCS). Eleder is renowned for its harsh and baroque legal system, where whether you are hanged or awarded damages is largely determined by the legal finesse of your legal team. The biggest power player in the city, called Lady Daugustana, is also very anti-adventurer, and the PCs have been on her radar (and have been warned against adventuring by the city guard) for some time now. Nevertheless, the PCs decided to try and found an "Explorer's" Guild on a ship they came into possession of. Last session they met with a bureaucrat pawn of Daugustana, and while they tried to allay her suspicion, she still gave them an order to appear for a hearing. There are a bunch of issues that this bureaucrat wants to address, including threats against some of Daugustana's cronies, an issue of the ship's ownership, and whether the Guild is really an adventurer's guild (which is illegal).
Fortunately, the party is friends with a skilled defense attorney (who they liberated from some slavers) and has a trio of real estate barristers on retainer (the Explorer's Guild is basically squatting on the ship, so they anticipated legal troubles). Obviously, I don't want to make the hearing just some NPC lawyers arguing with each other for three hours, so the PCs will also be contributing.
How should the PCs contribute? Sort of inspired by the PFS scenario "Library of the Lion," I'm thinking they'll be able to use any skill, as long as they can explain how it's useful. However, lawyerly skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, Knowledge (local), and Sense Motive will be more useful than the others. Any check the players make may receive a circumstantial bonus for a good argument.
How will the hearing be structured? I'm thinking the three points mentioned above - threats, ownership, and adventuring* - will be the core of the trial. For each point, four checks constitutes a side's argument, and each side is allowed a rebuttal to the other's argument (another check - so 5 checks total, for free). Each check is made against the judge's Diplomacy DC, but again, any skill can be used (with legalistic skills* getting a +5 bonus). Every success is tallied, representing strength of that side's arguments. An objection check can be made at any time with the opposing team's most recent check as a DC, which gives you an opportunity to negate their check (if you succeed), but carries the risk of reducing your argument strength by one success if you fail.
*In addition to Bluff, Diplomacy, Knowledge (local), and Sense Motive, each point has a specific additional skill that counts as "lawyerly": threats is Linguistics because these were threats encoded into the Guild charter for some reason, ownership is Appraise because maybe the ship isn't worth anything anyways, and adventuring is Disguise as the adventurers attempt to hide their nature. Profession (barrister) gets a +5 bonus as well but none of the PCs have it.
(I'm having trouble figuring out how to make sure everyone gets involved - I know some folks will look at their best skill rank and say "yeah I'll just aid." But if I say that everyone has to contribute an argument, it'll strain credibility and make it hard for the Daugustana side to keep up - that side will probably only have the bureaucrat and a couple lawyers on the team. What about something like, everyone in the party rolls a check for each point, and only the best roll is used - and then has to be explained by the roller?)
At the end of each point, the success tallies for that point are compared for each team. If the PCs have a lower tally for any point (aka charge), they lose that point. Losing the threats charge means the Explorer's Guild is ordered to suspend all activities for one year. Losing the ownership charge means their ship is confiscated and placed in the government's hands. Losing the adventuring charge means the guild leader goes to jail (150 gp bail) and everyone associated with the adventuring aspect of the guild (aka all PCs) is charged with at least one count of adventuring-related offense, with a full trial later.
(Are these penalties too harsh? The guild and ship are only a couple sessions old so logically it wouldn't hurt too much to lose them, but the players have high expectations for them. I think I'd make appeals an option, but there would be fees (or bribes).)
How does this look as a system? Too complicated? Too unrealistic? I know a little about the American justice system but 85% of it is just from movies and TV.
Profession: Barrister is the obvious skill, yet what adventurer would actually have that?
The problem with this skill challenge is that the judge is already out to get the adventurers, and adventurers are usually not the types to study law, accounting, etc. If adventuring businesses are illegal in Sargava, then the group better think of how to deal with the penalties.
It might be more constructive to lead into things that sidetrack them into other ways to make a difference in the trial. Perhaps someone could try investigating to find out if Lady Daugustana has some misdeeds she wants to keep secret (maybe a rival of hers points the PCs in that direction). If they find it, they might blackmail her to back off for now.
Maybe another politician is willing to lend support - for a price or favor.
Perhaps Lady Daugustana has hired cronies that have falsified evidence? If the PCs can prove it is falsified somehow, it might buy them time.
Reading this, as a PC I'd chuck in 'Define "Adventurer"' and roll with what results from that.
The other thing would be to delay the trial a little. This happens in RL too; motion to gather evidence, research, et cetera. Give the PCs time to do just that, and let those things influence the rolls involve. Barbie the Barbarian isn't going to really use her rage ability in the trial ... but maybe she's able to find tracks of monsters nearby, suggesting the need for a supplement to the town's guard? Or at least another set of eyes looking through a library who just happens to have her Perception skill point her eyes to how that law seems to be written in different ink than the rest from that year, as if it was slipped in or something?
Or she's just there to hold off Daugustana thugs while everyone else finds clues. Either way works.
1) Define adventurers
2) How are they different from mercenaries
3) We're mercenaries
For what it's worth no one could make being "an adventurer" illegal while it being reasonable.
But you could make things that adventurers often do illegal. <-- Note this is what you should really do.
It's just much harder to actually do because your typical good group of adventurers does things that help most countries.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is sort of assuming that it isn't going to be a kangaroo court with the judge and jury in Lady Daugustana's pocket. No one might ever admit to it, but the way you're making this out it's exceedingly unlikely the PC are going to get a fair hearing, and even if they do somehow win, Lady Daugustana isn't going to lay down for it and will probably plant evidence to get them, their lawyer, and anyone else that helped them, hung.
This is sort of assuming that it isn't going to be a kangaroo court with the judge and jury in Lady Daugustana's pocket. No one might ever admit to it, but the way you're making this out it's exceedingly unlikely the PC are going to get a fair hearing, and even if they do somehow win, Lady Daugustana isn't going to lay down for it and will probably plant evidence to get them, their lawyer, and anyone else that helped them, hung.
Even more adventure here. Maybe the PCs can start flexing those social skills (or Charm Person spells) to counter the influence. And if evidence is being planted, then it can be investigated. Or spotted by Barbie the Barbarian who's been sitting bored for a few sessions but made that Perception roll to notice that NPC rogue trying to leave something incriminating behind ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How should the PCs contribute?
I'd suggest a different tack. Let the lawyers argue, and let the PCs "adventure" to produce stuff that can be used to influence the judges (whether formally as evidence, or informally as "influence.") If you're familiar with the Monkey Island series of computer games, think of the panel of judges in the diving competition in the 4th game. One judge needed to be blackmailed, another needed to see something very specific, and so forth.
Perhaps Lady D. has leverage over one of the judges that the PCs can neutralize. Their first task is to determine that this is the case (via social skills); the second is to figure out what the leverage is, which might be social or divination magic. The third task, of course, is to do the actual adventuring, which might involve breaking into Lady D.'s safe and stealing the compromising letters. Once the letters are delivered (privately) to the judge, he will vote in their favor.
Maybe there's another one who simply needs to be made Friendly (or charmed).
And maybe there's a third who will actually look at the evidence and can be persuaded simply by showing that the players aren't "adventurers" under the legal definition.
Repeat until half the judges have been persuaded.
As always, the rule of three should apply -- there should be at least three ways to persuade any given judge: two that you've thought of and a third that you're open to when they go off-script.
Fortunately, traditionally the defense bats last.... which means that Lady D. has to lay out all of her cards on the table before the players need (or get) to say a word, so you can make it very clear exactly what the arguments are and what kind of evidence is necessary.
I have a fairly simple solution for you.
Have you seen the optional performance combat rules?
Change some wording around to make them based on a handful of skills, instead.