Law enforcement in fantasy games

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

Altheus

Well-Known Pubber
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
95
Reaction score
219
After a situation where my players were quite surprised to be told that theft was a private matter between them and the thief and that if a thief can keep your goods for a sunrise and a sunset then the goods belong to them and that town guards were there to protect the town rather than the people in it I realised that they were expecting something like a modern policing system.

What do you use for law enforcement in your fantasy worlds?
 
In D&D games I would typically designate a God of Justice whose militant clerics act as travelling peacekeepers. Obviously inter-agency cooperation is often an issue when they encounter local law enforcement :tongue:
 
After a situation where my players were quite surprised to be told that theft was a private matter between them and the thief and that if a thief can keep your goods for a sunrise and a sunset then the goods belong to them and that town guards were there to protect the town rather than the people in it I realised that they were expecting something like a modern policing system.

What do you use for law enforcement in your fantasy worlds?
I let the 1HD town guards behave appropriately.

Same with the retired 8th level ranger constable.
 
I'm more curious where you got the idea that punishment for crimes didn't exist in medieval Europe...

EDIT: To clarify, the town guard might not be law enforcement, but the idea that theft was a "private matter" is a far cry from how crime actually worked in the past.
 
Whatever is appropriate to the location. If civilization exists - there will be security. To what degree - depends on the disposition of the town in question. Is it corrupt? Flourishing? Rebuilding? Just getting along? In Decline?

"Town Guards" only has meaning in relation to me based on the size of the town. If the assumptions of a large city are that this city exists and flourishes - it demands that unless there are mitigating circumstances it most certainly has the power to defend itself against internal and external threats, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

So in the case of your scenario - in a big town/city - stealing goods isn't enough. They have to fence them. That presumes then that the Law is powerful enough to be a serious threat to the criminal element. Whatever criminal elements may exist - the Law will exist in commensurate power to create whatever status-quo exists. The PC's enter *that* picture.

I deal with it accordingly from that perspective. There might be outliers to that formula - NPC's with agendas, resource needs that mitigate things. PC's successfully bribing the "right" people to turn a blind eye. etc.

If you assume that "theft is a private matter" - then you're opening yourself up to an extremely corrupt kleptocracy where the Rogues rule. I find it a little difficult to have such a rule without "special demands" - because essentially you're saying Private Property doesn't matter - yet there are clearly people living in your "town" in what I presume to be "homes" on plots of land that what... are being lived in freely until someone jacks them out of it? There are unspoken premises to these conditions that I can't ignore (but that's just me). I could make it work by having a Thieves Guild running things with "law enforcement" there to just arbitrarily kick the crap out of people. But your carried goods are considered fair-game. Or something. In the end - there is *always* some form of enforcement of order. Whether or not it's some "assumed" government is irrelevant.

I can't see such a location thriving for long term. There is *always* something nastier to test the status-quo. For example - a PC that has until sunrise to "catch" the thief that steals from them... does that mean I, as a PC get to skin that thief alive and post their remains in the town-square as a warning? Does it means I get to cut off their hands? Once that happens a few times, enterprising thieves willing to engage in these activities might dwindle. Of course the Thieves guild - or whomever enforces order might not agree.
 
This is a great question that gives me huge anxiety whenever I think about it too much.

As a GM, I try to give PCs some level of leeway. Especially in modern games, where cameras, lawyers, police and SWAT teams exist. The have a patron in town hall, the police arrive after they leave, unreliable witnesses, or the overwhelming evidence gets tied up and lost in the bureaucracy. I will also give players common sense info before they may do something stupid (i.e. "you saw a camera in the hallway, there might be more, are you sure you want to throw that lady out the window?"). Unless I have some sort of interesting scenario, or it's the main thrust of a game (heists! Orc Lawyers!), I will try to gloss over it as much as I can.

I think this is because, as a player, I've spent way too many sessions escaping from jail, or being falsely accused, or running and hiding from town guards, or appearing in court, that I could do with NEVER having that kind of adventure again. 50/50 it was after saving the town, or doing the right thing. The Spiderman/Batman misunderstood vigilante thing gets old after 30 years at the table.
 
I think the OP isemulating something like England in 17th century.

Me, I prefer to take inspirtion from Imperial Rome and (usually Qing dynasty) China. But way too often, the "rules" change in each city, like between planets in Traveller.
 
I'm more curious where you got the idea that punishment for crimes didn't exist in medieval Europe...

EDIT: To clarify, the town guard might not be law enforcement, but the idea that theft was a "private matter" is a far cry from how crime actually worked in the past.

Rome at some point, I think.
 
Law enforcement: regardless of setting and genre, they are universally mistrusted and and hated by players. No matter how nice I make them, or helpful. Weird.
 
Whatever is appropriate to the location.
Pretty much this along with some historical research for verisimilitude. Since roughly 85% of people in Medieval society have to work the land or everyone starves, a standing force of police or guards is mostly an urban thing.

Here are my notes on law enforcement for my weird fantasy campaign:

The city-state of Khromarium is largely unpoliced, employing a score of constables to run the watch and enforce curfew in select neighborhoods. The watch itself is largely comprised of volunteer guildsmen patrolling their own communities. Upper class and aristocratic neighborhoods typically employ mercenaries as substitutes. Most small businesses pay protection to the Thieves' Guild, an organization so deeply entrenched in the fabric of the city that it is nearly impossible to root out.

As for the court system, I will quote AS&SH 2e:
Although the city is not without the influence of Law, justice seldom is served with any semblance of equality; i.e., the accused had best have the proper connexions, or potentially suffer abuse, shame, or death
 
Yeah! There's lots of ways to skin the cat once you know how "order" is maintained. And Order doesn't mean "just" either. It means - what the rules and *who* enforces those rules? The enforcement part and the "hows and whys" should be based on the conceits of the location.
 
Whatever is appropriate to the location. If civilization exists - there will be security. To what degree - depends on the disposition of the town in question. Is it corrupt? Flourishing? Rebuilding? Just getting along? In Decline?

"Town Guards" only has meaning in relation to me based on the size of the town. If the assumptions of a large city are that this city exists and flourishes - it demands that unless there are mitigating circumstances it most certainly has the power to defend itself against internal and external threats, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

So in the case of your scenario - in a big town/city - stealing goods isn't enough. They have to fence them. That presumes then that the Law is powerful enough to be a serious threat to the criminal element. Whatever criminal elements may exist - the Law will exist in commensurate power to create whatever status-quo exists. The PC's enter *that* picture.

I deal with it accordingly from that perspective. There might be outliers to that formula - NPC's with agendas, resource needs that mitigate things. PC's successfully bribing the "right" people to turn a blind eye. etc.

If you assume that "theft is a private matter" - then you're opening yourself up to an extremely corrupt kleptocracy where the Rogues rule. I find it a little difficult to have such a rule without "special demands" - because essentially you're saying Private Property doesn't matter - yet there are clearly people living in your "town" in what I presume to be "homes" on plots of land that what... are being lived in freely until someone jacks them out of it? There are unspoken premises to these conditions that I can't ignore (but that's just me). I could make it work by having a Thieves Guild running things with "law enforcement" there to just arbitrarily kick the crap out of people. But your carried goods are considered fair-game. Or something. In the end - there is *always* some form of enforcement of order. Whether or not it's some "assumed" government is irrelevant.

I can't see such a location thriving for long term. There is *always* something nastier to test the status-quo. For example - a PC that has until sunrise to "catch" the thief that steals from them... does that mean I, as a PC get to skin that thief alive and post their remains in the town-square as a warning? Does it means I get to cut off their hands? Once that happens a few times, enterprising thieves willing to engage in these activities might dwindle. Of course the Thieves guild - or whomever enforces order might not agree.

Wealthy parts of town hire toughs to police the streets, private establishments have toughs as bouncers, artisans sections have groups of apprentices kicking the you-know-what out of villains, poorer parts have ad-hoc vigilantism. This town was specifically built as lawless, so the guard will protect the town buildings but won't investigate if someone is fished out of the harbour, even with lots of injuries on him. There isn't that much actual crime because the vigilantes are quite keen when they catch somone thieving with penalties ranging from a shoeing round the back of the stables to being rowed out in to the bay and dropped in with a rock attached to your feet.
 
In my points of light setting, in anything short of a city, it is self-policed by a militia force that consists of a rotating segment of able-bodied men. They would probably have a couple professional fighting men to train and lead this force.

In a city, I'd replace that with a professional militia. They are pretty much bought and paid for by the high caste citizens, but a modicum of actual law and order does occur. I'm thinking a lot of crimes that PCs would commit would be handled by mob justice before guards arrive, unless they are in full spell-slinging battle mode, in which case they will probably face the entire militia when it arrives.

Since it's a points-of-light campaign, able-bodied men are expected to be ready to stand with their fellows and fight off monsters from palisade walls. In fact the women are often expected to provide support as archers. So they won't be easily cowed even if several die - if they retreated readily, their settlement would have been overrun long ago. Your average peasant may not be terribly skilled, but he will carry at least a dagger if not a one-handed sword. Villagers commonly use bows, pikes and pole-axes, so they can be pretty formidable en masse. Town guard will rely on crossbows and polearms, and generally wear light mail.
 
Rome at some point, I think.
Coming from a position of near total ignorance... I somehow had the idea that the roots of the Mafia go back to Rome not having much in the way of police... that they were gangs selling protection to their neighborhoods.
Then I think of something like the Bow Street Runners... and what things were like leading up to them. So expecting anything like modern police (who still won't do much regarding petty theft) seems likely to disappoint.

Sometimes it's up to the victim to solve the crime...



EDIT: I went and looked it up... so Sicily, not Rome, for the Mafia... but same basic genesis out of local vigilantes.
 
Last edited:
Since it's a points-of-light campaign, able-bodied men are expected to be ready to stand with their fellows and fight off monsters from palisade walls. In fact the women are often expected to provide support as archers. So they won't be easily cowed even if several die - if they retreated readily, their settlement would have been overrun long ago. Your average peasant may not be terribly skilled, but he will carry at least a dagger if not a one-handed sword. Villagers commonly use bows, pikes and pole-axes, so they can be pretty formidable en masse. Town guard will rely on crossbows and polearms, and generally wear light mail.
That's the way to do it. In 5e, a determined peasant militia led by a local lord and his men-at-arms are gonna fuck up some murderhobos; depending on your campaign, local notables might include casters or retired adventurers as well. The militia has experience fighting monsters, bandits, and what have you; they are gonna fight smart and dirty, avoiding conflict in which they do not have a clear advantage. Pull out all the dirty tricks like ambushes, full cover shenanigans, focused attacks on casters, channeling parties into deathtraps with obstructive terrain, decoys, harassment, and my favorite, attacking downed party members ("and they spear you in the head to make sure you're dead!"). If a fight turns against the militia, have an escape plan in mind and execute an orderly retreat. In a points-of-light campaign, this settlement would not have survived if the people weren't resourceful and determined.

Even if the murderhobos manage to corner and destroy the militia, messengers with a description of the party have reached surrounding regions who mobilize their own militias. Mercenaries, attracted by the prospect of looting the party, eventually join the hunt and we can escalate this scenario ad infinitum.
 
Very few places in history lacked laws about theft, murder etc. Very many places in history lacked any sort of enforcement arm for those laws. So if you have no way of enforcing a judgment yourself, or getting someone else to do it for you, then not much is going to happen. Such legal systems will often have punishments like declaring someone an outlaw, thus making it completely legal, encouraged in fact, for anyone to kill them.

With no enforcement system for laws, it can be easy to get PCs into legal shenanigans from either side of the fence. Tired of adventures consisting of the PCs trying to evade justice? Have them be hired, or volunteer, as enforcers of the law.
 
I like using bounties/bounty hunters. Bounties make for good side-quests in sandbox games. And if player-characters are wanted by the law having bounty hunters pursue them can be fun. NPC bounty hunters, even though they are operating within the law, can be real scumbags and make for good recurring villains. No disintegrations! :smile:
 
I think the key thing is to have a logical way of enforcing the law, but make it fit the genre. If we are dealing with a Fantasy world, you don't have to go strictly historical--but do at least keep in mind that modern sensibilities to law enforcement shouldn't apply. For instance, in a Kingdom there are usually no judges or jury, you get arrested and you appear before the monach, and peasants had less rights than gentry, etc.

One thing that always gets me is when I see modules suggesting that weapons like swords or daggers get "tied up" as a sort of modern take on "gun control" in a large city. (Sometimes they try to do that to Wizards as well). That really doesn't fit the genre.
 
Law enforcement: regardless of setting and genre, they are universally mistrusted and and hated by players. No matter how nice I make them, or helpful. Weird.
There are a number of law enforcement NPCs in Masks of Nyartlathotep. One time that I ran it, my players made a point of working with all the law enforcement characters over the course of the campaign (one of the PCs was a homicide detective, so he had an easier time establishing a sense of camaraderie with local authorities) , and every single one of them got killed. It became a running joke. It wasn't even like I was going out of my way to use them as sacrificial NPCs to raise the horror stakes or have them take a hit instead of the PCs. It was just the way the dice fell.
 
Last edited:
One thing that always gets me is when I see modules suggesting that weapons like swords or daggers get "tied up" as a sort of modern take on "gun control" in a large city. (Sometimes they try to do that to Wizards as well). That really doesn't fit the genre.

I think it is more of a gaming concession. What is historical and also has literary antecedents, is to surrender your weapons on entry.

Most players balk at that.
 
I think the key thing is to have a logical way of enforcing the law, but make it fit the genre. If we are dealing with a Fantasy world, you don't have to go strictly historical--but do at least keep in mind that modern sensibilities to law enforcement shouldn't apply. For instance, in a Kingdom there are usually no judges or jury, you get arrested and you appear before the monach, and peasants had less rights than gentry, etc.

One thing that always gets me is when I see modules suggesting that weapons like swords or daggers get "tied up" as a sort of modern take on "gun control" in a large city. (Sometimes they try to do that to Wizards as well). That really doesn't fit the genre.
Unless the kingdom is really small the king is hardly going to have time to hear all cases, so some other form of judge is going to be present. And juries of course grew out of various Germanic legal traditions which coincided with monarchies.

Common people may also have had fewer legal rights than the nobility, or at least less means to exercise those rights, but they certainly had a lot of rights in many/most places.

There’s a whole lot of litigation and trials going back in history. The Icelandic sagas have lots of legal procedures and trials in between the blood feuds and murders. Lots of peoples that would be considered barbarians by the Roman or Chinese empires had highly developed legal codes, and the people took them quite seriously.

And yes, weapon control in cities was common in the Middle Ages, and many other time periods as well.
 
Common people may also have had fewer legal rights than the nobility, or at least less means to exercise those rights, but they certainly had a lot of rights in many/most places.
If your peasants are openly stealing from each other and engaging in unending blood feuds, it's not going to be good for the prosperity of your realm and and your tax revenue. It just makes pragmatic sense to provide them with some level of legal protection.
 
For the most part, petty feudal lords preside over judgements and might cede a small garrison of armed men, drawn from levy militia, to act as bailiffs or guards.

These guards don’t actively investigate crimes but may enforce laws against theft, murder, etc. when presented with credible evidence from an important citizen (just who constitutes an “important citizen” is another matter). They are very proactive with maintaining the public order, though, from catching marketplace cutpurses to crowd control.

I’m not quite sure how “historical” this is but it jives with the sword-and-sorcery Western feel I usually go for in my fantasy games.
 
These guards don’t actively investigate crimes but may enforce laws against theft, murder, etc. when presented with credible evidence from an important citizen (just who constitutes an “important citizen” is another matter). They are very proactive with maintaining the public order, though, from catching marketplace cutpurses to crowd control.
In most of my campaigns, the PCs are from out of town, which always works against you when dealing with informal justice. I figure a lot of rural cases are handled by a hastily-convened bunch of notables, and if the accused has no local ties, nobody is going to care much about protocol.
 
If your peasants are openly stealing from each other and engaging in unending blood feuds, it's not going to be good for the prosperity of your realm and and your tax revenue. It just makes pragmatic sense to provide them with some level of legal protection.
A lot of the time protection and influence for lower classes came from periods before too much formal hierarchy though (like a lot of the Germanic tribal laws), or had to be won through hardball tactics (like the Roman secession of the plebs or Social wars). They weren’t gifts from rulers on high, but stuff worked out between roughly equals, or won through hard struggles.
 
Unless the kingdom is really small the king is hardly going to have time to hear all cases, so some other form of judge is going to be present. And juries of course grew out of various Germanic legal traditions which coincided with monarchies.

Yes, but in many cases it follow the feudal system, so a duke, knight, or some other vassals hear it. For large kingdoms, reeves or baillifs executed court orders. Again, this is following the middle ages tradition. Basically, anybody who can hold "court" could rule. It's not just the monarch. If a kingdom has, say 100 knights, each of those knights were judges in their assigned territories.

Common people may also have had fewer legal rights than the nobility, or at least less means to exercise those rights, but they certainly had a lot of rights in many/most places.

Agreed--but there was a pecking order that also should be acknowledged, depending on how you've setup your campaign. It was clear that serfs had limited rights, and peasants aren't likely to get a jury trial--that kind of stuff is saved for nobility.

And yes, weapon control in cities was common in the Middle Ages, and many other time periods as well.

Yes, but again, there should be some historical references for that. The stuff I was complaining about is the thought that a knight can go into a city and they want to tie his sword with a peaceknot when visiting the city. It would be an insult to an aristocrat or gentry, and even merchants and free people would usually be allowed to carry at least a dagger for self-defense. From my understanding, most weapon controls were about not giving peasant farmers weapons, and expensive weapons (like a sword) would be allowed for aristocrats.

Again, I've no problem with specific issues if they make sense. Can't bring weapons or armor to a noble's party, that makes sense. I'm more against stuff like having the paladin of the party give up his sword at the gate, or the free-person giving up all weapons (even a small dagger).
 
Last edited:
In most of my campaigns, the PCs are from out of town, which always works against you when dealing with informal justice. I figure a lot of rural cases are handled by a hastily-convened bunch of notables, and if the accused has no local ties, nobody is going to care much about protocol.

A lot of times they probably would care about protocol, but the protocol itself would put much less value on outsiders. Kill a local man and pay a hefty fine. Kill a foreigner, the fine would be much lower.
 
Yes, but in many cases it follow the feudal system, so a duke, knight, or some other vassals hear it. For large kingdoms, reeves or baillifs executed court orders. Again, this is following the middle ages tradition. Basically, anybody who can hold "court" could rule. It's not just the monarch. If a kingdom has, say 100 knights, each of those knights were judges in their assigned territories.



Agreed--but there was a pecking order that also should be acknowledged, depending on how you've setup your campaign. It was clear that serfs had limited rights, and peasants aren't likely to get a jury trial--that kind of stuff is saved for nobility.



Yes, but again, there should be some historical references for that. The stuff I was complaining about is the thought that a knight can go into a city and they want to tie his sword with a peaceknot when visiting the city. It would be an insult to an aristocrat or gentry, and even merchants and free people would usually be allowed to carry at least a dagger for self-defense. From my understanding, most weapon controls were about not giving peasant farmers weapons, and expensive weapons (like a sword) would be .

Again, I've no problem with specific issues if they make sense. Can't bring weapons or armor to a noble's party, that makes sense. I'm more against stuff like having the paladin of the party give up his sword at the gate, or the free-person giving up all weapons (even a small dagger).

The one most important thing to remember is there is no one set of rules that represents everywhere, or even a majority of cases. There was no Middle Ages tradition. Serfdom for instance? Didn’t exist in Sweden (slavery yes, serfdom no). Nobles? Not a thing in Norway after the Black Death. And what nobles did, what rights they had etc varied wildly from place to place. Northern Italy in 1350 is vastly different from England in the same time period, much less England in 1050.

As for juries, as far as I can tell, in later medieval England the right to a trial by your peers was extended to all free men. And in Viking-age Scandinavia, anyone (well, any free man at least) could show up at the thing and argue their case.

Here’s an interesting thread from another forum on weaponry laws in medieval Europe (mostly England and Burgundy)

And yeah, “peace-bonding” weapons seems to be an entirely modern phenomenon.
 
The one most important thing to remember is there is no one set of rules that represents everywhere, or even a majority of cases.
I think this is the key takeaway. If you're not trying to simulate a specific place and time, I think you have a lot of latitude to come up with someone that seems reasonable for the setting. If there's a lot of magic, non-human races and such, then the GM may want to think about how those affect things. What is the standing of an adventurer in court? etc.
 
What is the standing of an adventurer in court? etc.
Depends. Is the adventuer a foreign noble? Then "foreign noble".
Is the adventurer a serf who decided to grab arms and better his lot in life? "Scum of the earth" would be appropriate, if you consider the etymology of the word "villain".
 
Depends. Is the adventuer a foreign noble? Then "foreign noble".
Is the adventurer a serf who decided to grab arms and better his lot in life? "Scum of the earth" would be appropriate, if you consider the etymology of the word "villain".
Exactly. And in a world without driver's licenses, a lot might depend on your demeanor and knowledge of heraldry.
 
What is the standing of an adventurer in court? etc.
It depends on social class more than anything else. In most cases, a penniless, landless noble is going to get more justice than a wealthy commoner.
 
In most cases, a penniless, landless noble is going to get more justice than a wealthy commoner.
You might be right, but I'm really not sure. I think in general there's a big advantage to being a local. If you're a peasant, you are tied to the land and the lord and have certain rights. If this landless noble is from another country, I see it as a real wild card. What would happen if a samurai killed the miller's wife in 15th century France? I don't presume to know.
 
You might be right, but I'm really not sure. I think in general there's a big advantage to being a local. If you're a peasant, you are tied to the land and the lord and have certain rights. If this landless noble is from another country, I see it as a real wild card. What would happen if a samurai killed the miller's wife in 15th century France? I don't presume to know.
Matters of race, religion, and politics greatly complicate dealings with foreign nobility, which is kind of beyond the scope of my statement. The answer would depend on the particular campaign world.

Incidentally, in the early 17th century samurai traveled to Spain, Italy, and France meeting Kings and the Pope but I really couldn't say what would have happened if one of them killed a local milkmaid.
 
Matters of race, religion, and politics greatly complicate dealings with foreign nobility, which is kind of beyond the scope of my statement. The answer would depend on the particular campaign world.
That's absolutely true. I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole, but my larger point is that there can be a ton of complicating factors once you cross national boundaries. I feel like people would be pretty distrustful without an easy means of verification. I'm guessing at the very least they would drag you in front of the local lord unless they went full lynch mob.

As I side note, my sense is that medieval culture was pretty tribal to the point of conflating blood, land, nationhood, faith, etc. They seemed to have a much more fine-grained sense of race, so the samurai in France might be distinct as a matter of degree. But like Donnie, I'm way out of my league, here.

But one thing I can say for sure is that in a lot of fantasy campaigns, a samurai would be one of the more normal things on the random encounter table for France.
 
Agreed--but there was a pecking order that also should be acknowledged, depending on how you've setup your campaign. It was clear that serfs had limited rights, and peasants aren't likely to get a jury trial--that kind of stuff is saved for nobility.
Although in the sense of trial by a "jury of your peers" a lot of peasants would have had something similar on an informal basis. You don't want to bring stuff like theft to your lord's attention if you can help it. You certainly don't want to tell him about Bob sleeping with Dave's wife.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top