Law enforcement in fantasy games

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I think the whole "peasants had no rights, nobles had all the rights" thing is often very exaggerated. In the 13th and 14th century, juries in manorial courts in England were more often made up of serfs than of free men. Nothing informal about it, these juries are in the court rolls of the manors.

The alleged rule that there could not be a manorial jury without the presence of at least two free tenants was evidently no longer observed by the fourteenth century and manorial juries were frequently composed entirely of villeins. Indeed there were cases in several manors where free men chosen to serve on a jury objected to doing so on the grounds that they were free.

At the same time, peasants had means to avail themselves of several different kinds of courts.

The common law courts were growing throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, expanding their jurisdiction over civil litigation through the development of the forms of action, but they did not provide quick, simple and accessible justice in minor local disputes. With the decline of the eyre by the fourteenth century, the ability of poor local residents to obtain justice without formality or expense declined, since they would usually lack the means to buy a writ or to cope with the technicalities of the common law, with all its complexities, without legal representation. A case in the manorial court could be commenced by a simple oral plaint or plea, whereas at common law the complainant would need to obtain the correct writ in accordance with the developing knowledge of the forms of action.

This stuff does not point toward a society where summary judgments were handed out by the lord of the manor and the peasants just had to live with it. We're talking jury trials, several different kinds of courts to choose from to press your claim. And everything was not always rigged in the favor of the lord of the manor either.

It is received wisdom that the jury was a salutary counterbalance to the power of the steward in the manorial courts and that the power of the jury decreased in the fourteenth century, as the steward became more powerful, and the use of special juries, summoned to decide a question of the lord’s interests, increased. However the jury was still a living and important part of manorial justice in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, when the rolls continue to report juries exerting their influence over the steward and instances of parties paying for an inquest to decide their case, especially in disputes involving land.
 
I think the whole "peasants had no rights, nobles had all the rights" thing is often very exaggerated.
I have gotten this impression a lot in recent years and it's nice to see actual documentation. I think there are a lot of myths about the barbarity of the Middle Ages which are grossly exaggerated. It's a narrative that goes back to the idea that civilization reached its peak in the so-called Classical Age (i.e. Greek and Roman) and was then put on pause in Europe until gunpowder and vanishing points.
 
raniE raniE I've found often that the "That's what its like in medieval times!" people are often not as accurate as they think.
 
What do you use for law enforcement in your fantasy worlds?
In small villages, with no churches or major centers of worship, I usually go with a variation of mob justice. In towns where secular law is present, whatever the predominant church believes law and justice, which sometimes isn't very just at all.

Cities however, are a different bag. For example, in a city run by merchant princes or guilds, theft could be seen as a crime meriting the death penalty, but murder of a worker is nothing more than a fine, or the exchange of a replacement worker. Some could be as democratic as we are now, most are not.
 
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.

I'm no expert, I like most only play one on the internets, but my understanding from being a bit of French revolution history buff is that a strong sense of nationalism really only came to the fore in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Notions of any 'blood, land' connection are even more modern inventions, growing out of the extremes of nationalism and the attempts to fuse populations into nationstates. In many 'states' the peasantry had only the vaguest sense of belonging to a 'country.' Their concerns were more local. This is what made say, Russia, such an unruly country to try and 'run' for the Czar and later the Communists.
 
I'm no expert, I like most only play one on the internets, but my understanding from being a bit of French revolution history buff is that a strong sense of nationalism really only came to the fore in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Notions of any 'blood, land' connection are even more modern inventions, growing out of the extremes of nationalism and the attempts to fuse populations into nationstates. In many 'states' the peasantry had only the vaguest sense of belonging to a 'country.' Their concerns were more local. This is what made say, Russia, such an unruly country to try and 'run' for the Czar and later the Communists.
That was certainly the case here where only a section of the literary elite had any sense of a common island wide culture. No surprise since only they moved around or travelled in any real sense.

I've read similar for Western France during the Middle Ages, where some would have had more kinship for Catalan speakers living in the same area than other langues d'oïl speakers to the north who were "foreigners" in their eyes despite similar customs and language.
 
Last edited:
I'm no expert, I like most only play one on the internets, but my understanding from being a bit of French revolution history buff is that a strong sense of nationalism really only came to the fore in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Notions of any 'blood, land' connection are even more modern inventions, growing out of the extremes of nationalism and the attempts to fuse populations into nationstates. In many 'states' the peasantry had only the vaguest sense of belonging to a 'country.' Their concerns were more local. This is what made say, Russia, such an unruly country to try and 'run' for the Czar and later the Communists.
A strong sense of nationalism in the sense that "we live in Germany, therefore we are Germans" sure. But there was still a lot of judging people on where they were from and such. It was just a lot more local. If you weren't from the immediate area, you were a foreigner of some kind. This was usually easy to identify as well simply by listening to people. There was no radio, no tv, no movies, nothing to enforce homogeneity of language varieties. People had really strong dialects, so strong that you really get into the whole "what's a language and what's a dialect" thing.

And then a lot of the growth of nationalism happened at different speeds in different places. Some estimate that the hundred years war caused French nationalism to emerge. The religious divide and Reconquista on the Iberian peninsula may have made it easier to sell people on "we're the same because we're Christian, those people are different because they aren't", but it wasn't like it was constant sectarian warfare there either (see El Cid, the great national hero, and how he worked for both Christian and Muslim rulers and ended up ruling a pluralistic city state).
 
Last edited:
What do you use for law enforcement in your fantasy worlds?
I don't base my fantasy worlds off of olde tyme eurolandia.
I base them off of whatever tickles me knickers at the time.

I had a campaign where every settlement had an Oath Stone. When agreements( or disagreements) happened people went to the Oath Stone to swear over it. Even had a major diety (Erus the Oath Lord). You couldn't lie over the Stone and if you broke an agreement bad things happened.

Had plenty of bog standard cops..er guards.

Had a campaign once where people caught doing wrong were compelled to be a guardsmen somewhere else as their prison sentence.

Ran a campaign where a whole NPC race loved being 'cops'
 
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.
Well, ask yourself what were the odds of that same milkmaid meeting those kings and the pope, if she could travel. Then you would know the likely answer:smile:.
 
I think the whole "peasants had no rights, nobles had all the rights" thing is often very exaggerated. In the 13th and 14th century, juries in manorial courts in England were more often made up of serfs than of free men. Nothing informal about it, these juries are in the court rolls of the manors.

Of course Harn has an article covering this. :smile:
Columbia Games
DriveThruRPG
 
Rob Conley's Primer on Fantasy Medieval Law
I will be talking about how I implemented what I read about medieval law. I will be happy to talk about the different reason why I reach my conclusion if anybody wants to know.

Law is Private
Any legal matter is considered to be a private and personal dispute. Even if it is with the king, overlord, or other central authority.

Everybody has a place
Every individual in society has their place. The implementation may be a bit fuzzy in general from high to low, people have an idea of what owed to them and what they owe other. If a matter touches on what they feel is owed them, they will take it personally hence the need for legal customs or a legal system.

Everybody has friends and family
The privilege mentioned above is rarely attached to an individual but to a family or similar group. While it is a baker you stole bread from, it is the baker's family privilege to sell bread you violated and thus not only the baker but their entire family will take offense at the thief.

That same attitude also leads to a family defending a individual accused of a crime. Without custom or legal systems, legal offenses would quickly escalate to family on family violence.

The Adventuring Party
Unless otherwise specified, the adventuring party is for all intents and purpose the character's family for the legal system. Thus the adventuring party as a whole will be held responsible for the behavior of individual if they don't show to answer for any crime. And if an adventurer is a victim of a crime, it is up to the adventuring party to see that it is prosecuted and resolved.

The Peace
A king, baron, or a city council of alderman often consider certain crimes to offenses against them personally irregardless of the victim. Among them murder, assault, grand lacerny, and certain privileges. Which is why you have the King's Sheriff, and the Town Guard. To insure that these crime are identified and brought to justice.

Their motivation for doing so is quite simply it because it good for business. A peaceful realm or town it a place where the harvest is brought in, where there lots of people at the market, and thus all the taxes are collected.

The Collective Will
While at various point the church, king or emperor may have viewed themselves as divinely appointed. The reality of society as a collection of family, clans, and groups meant that informal consensus was the rule not the exception. So often councils, juries, assizes and other collective gathering were utilized. Not as a form of rough democracy but rather let people witness decision being made, to make sure anybody has a place to say what they want to say. In short to keep the peace between the different groups.

Wait a minute!
Doesn't sound a bit like the Godfather and popular depictions of gang disputes. Why yes it does. The earlier you go back to the Fall of Rome, the more like gangs the situation become. The mafia and gangs are the closest modern day analogue to the legal situation of early medieval times. Then as the authority of the king grows the more like the modern era it starts to become.

The Punishment
The adventurer will either be fined or killed. In most cases the worst that will happen is that that a hefty fine is paid. But if the adventurer involved in murder, death is a real possibility. Murder is often enough to view the adventurer as a irredeemable threat that needs to be slaughtered like the monster they are (from the defendent' family and king's point of view).

The good news that is justice is private. So it possible to buy one's way out of murder. However repeat offense may result in the individual or even the entire party being deemed monsters and dealt accordingly.

Wrapping it up
Yes it seems all loose and hard to pin down. Leading to injustices and unfairness. But also to interesting adventures, along with potential useful allies, and ultimately a check on maddog behavior.
 
The big problem I have with the mafia/gangland analogy is that unlike modern criminal organizations, the feudal (or whatever) order was fully legitimate. You don’t get the whole “no snitching” thing or stuff like that, and you get plenty of people involved in the whole thing who in modern times would have left the family business behind as fast as they could.
 
Rob Conley's Primer on Fantasy Medieval Law
I will be talking about how I implemented what I read about medieval law. I will be happy to talk about the different reason why I reach my conclusion if anybody wants to know.

Law is Private
Any legal matter is considered to be a private and personal dispute. Even if it is with the king, overlord, or other central authority.

Everybody has a place
Every individual in society has their place. The implementation may be a bit fuzzy in general from high to low, people have an idea of what owed to them and what they owe other. If a matter touches on what they feel is owed them, they will take it personally hence the need for legal customs or a legal system.

Everybody has friends and family
The privilege mentioned above is rarely attached to an individual but to a family or similar group. While it is a baker you stole bread from, it is the baker's family privilege to sell bread you violated and thus not only the baker but their entire family will take offense at the thief.

That same attitude also leads to a family defending a individual accused of a crime. Without custom or legal systems, legal offenses would quickly escalate to family on family violence.

The Adventuring Party
Unless otherwise specified, the adventuring party is for all intents and purpose the character's family for the legal system. Thus the adventuring party as a whole will be held responsible for the behavior of individual if they don't show to answer for any crime. And if an adventurer is a victim of a crime, it is up to the adventuring party to see that it is prosecuted and resolved.

The Peace
A king, baron, or a city council of alderman often consider certain crimes to offenses against them personally irregardless of the victim. Among them murder, assault, grand lacerny, and certain privileges. Which is why you have the King's Sheriff, and the Town Guard. To insure that these crime are identified and brought to justice.

Their motivation for doing so is quite simply it because it good for business. A peaceful realm or town it a place where the harvest is brought in, where there lots of people at the market, and thus all the taxes are collected.

The Collective Will
While at various point the church, king or emperor may have viewed themselves as divinely appointed. The reality of society as a collection of family, clans, and groups meant that informal consensus was the rule not the exception. So often councils, juries, assizes and other collective gathering were utilized. Not as a form of rough democracy but rather let people witness decision being made, to make sure anybody has a place to say what they want to say. In short to keep the peace between the different groups.

Wait a minute!
Doesn't sound a bit like the Godfather and popular depictions of gang disputes. Why yes it does. The earlier you go back to the Fall of Rome, the more like gangs the situation become. The mafia and gangs are the closest modern day analogue to the legal situation of early medieval times. Then as the authority of the king grows the more like the modern era it starts to become.

The Punishment
The adventurer will either be fined or killed. In most cases the worst that will happen is that that a hefty fine is paid. But if the adventurer involved in murder, death is a real possibility. Murder is often enough to view the adventurer as a irredeemable threat that needs to be slaughtered like the monster they are (from the defendent' family and king's point of view).

The good news that is justice is private. So it possible to buy one's way out of murder. However repeat offense may result in the individual or even the entire party being deemed monsters and dealt accordingly.

Wrapping it up
Yes it seems all loose and hard to pin down. Leading to injustices and unfairness. But also to interesting adventures, along with potential useful allies, and ultimately a check on maddog behavior.
To see how stuff can degenerate when the legal system fails, and when enforcement is left up to injured parties, just look at the blood feuds in Icelandic sagas. Lots of revenge killings, and eventually someone gets their house burned down (with them still inside).
 
The big problem I have with the mafia/gangland analogy is that unlike modern criminal organizations, the feudal (or whatever) order was fully legitimate. You don’t get the whole “no snitching” thing or stuff like that, and you get plenty of people involved in the whole thing who in modern times would have left the family business behind as fast as they could.

It is a useful analogy in how medieval disputes are resolved. Of course it falls apart when applied to the larger picture. For example is a religious component that the gangland analogy doesn't address. But that and the other points doesn't come into play in how thing were resolved on a day to day basis. Nor does the naunces you mentioned change that like a gang dispute, medieval dispute were viewed as personal disputes and resolved that way up to including war.

For example what happened in Western Europe between the last of the strong Merovingian Kings of the Franks (late 6th century) and the rise of Pepin and Charlemagne (late 8th century). For nearly two centuries, central authority was weak leaving the "law" in the hand of local magnates. The use of Roman Law all but disappeared in favor of a system based on Germanic Tribal Law.

What it would look like to us watching was going on is that a uniform legal system disappearing as a kaleidoscope of local custom and privileges decided on a ad-hoc basis grew in it basis. This new system would have some common element from region to region because it sprung from the germanic culture the rulers shared however the details would vary wildly. We would see the magnates fighting among each other as the king is too weak to enforce his judgment on the great lords of the lands. The king is week because his government is controlled by the mayors of the palace and split among the realms the Franks control (Neustria, Australasia, Aquitaine, Burgundy, etc). The mayor themselves are hereditary and view the offices as personal possessions.
 
And don't discount the effect religion has on a society, even long after it's changes or the people believe they're more 'enlightened'. Take North America, our law codes is still based on the 'Ten Commandments' of yore. Yes, things have been changed and added, but at it's core they are still based on those 10 'laws' handed down by a religion.
 
The big problem I have with the mafia/gangland analogy is that unlike modern criminal organizations, the feudal (or whatever) order was fully legitimate. You don’t get the whole “no snitching” thing or stuff like that, and you get plenty of people involved in the whole thing who in modern times would have left the family business behind as fast as they could.
It pays to remember that the mafia also sees themselves as fuly legitimate:thumbsup:.
 
And don't discount the effect religion has on a society, even long after it's changes or the people believe they're more 'enlightened'. Take North America, our law codes is still based on the 'Ten Commandments' of yore. Yes, things have been changed and added, but at it's core they are still based on those 10 'laws' handed down by a religion.
Yes, Christianity had an influence specific laws and decrees but framework and core concepts were pagan and predate Christianity. Where the religious side showed up is in the structure of privileges and ceremonies the law mandated.

However the defining characteristics of Germanic Tribal law didn't get changed until Roman law was re-introduced into Western Europe via the Byzantines.

And it certainly possible for a code of law to be structured by the culture's dominate religion like Islam's Sharia law. It just didn't happen in Western Europe because of what happen with the Roman Empire.

Western Europe
Roman Law and Germanic tribal customs.

England
Germanic tribal custom

Ireland, and Scotland
Gaelic tribal custom and Roman law.

Roman Catholic Church
Roman Law

Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia
Roman law from the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire.
 
It pays to remember that the mafia also sees themselves as fuly legitimate:thumbsup:.
Maybe so, but they also know they can't operate fully out in the open. If a modern city official asks boss Giovanni "are you a mafiosos" he'll probably say "no, never heard of it". If an early medieval official asks Don Giovanni if he's a nobleman, he might take offence at it not being considered obvious.
 
Yes, Christianity had an influence specific laws and decrees but framework and core concepts were pagan and predate Christianity. Where the religious side showed up is in the structure of privileges and ceremonies the law mandated.

However the defining characteristics of Germanic Tribal law didn't get changed until Roman law was re-introduced into Western Europe via the Byzantines.

And it certainly possible for a code of law to be structured by the culture's dominate religion like Islam's Sharia law. It just didn't happen in Western Europe because of what happen with the Roman Empire.

Western Europe
Roman Law and Germanic tribal customs.

England
Germanic tribal custom

Ireland, and Scotland
Gaelic tribal custom and Roman law.

Roman Catholic Church
Roman Law

Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia
Roman law from the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire.

England wasn't the only place operating pretty much only on Germanic customs, you can throw in all of Scandinavia there as well for most of the Middle Ages.

And just to add to the thing about the influence of the church, one way that it had a lot of influence is that often they were a large part of the governing apparatus. The clergy was educated and literate, which often was not the case with the Germanic ruling class of post-Roman Western Europe. Reading up on the Visigothic kingdom in Hispania (after the Franks kicked them out of Gaul) you keep seeing the kings calling various councils of clergy to settle matters almost wholly secular. Separation of church and state wasn't a thing.
 
There are some arguments to be made in favor of La Cosa Nostra's legitimacy...or at least that the corrupt government and police were la stessa cosa anyway, just in different regalia.:wink:

Having read a modern history of the Mafia in Italy I find that a very hard argument to make.

Unless one considers the assassination of honest civilians, cops, judges and their families, including their kids, ‘legitimate.’ The violence of the Italian mob makes the US mob seem genteel.

A lot of the corruption of the Italian political system is directly tied to organized crime, not in opposition to it.

I’m only vaguely read on the roots of the Mafia but suspect the idea that they were ever ‘protectors’ of the common people is just a mythology they themselves promote. Similar to how modern Dons embraced the image of the cinematic Godfather and imitated it, when it was to their benefit.
 
Last edited:
I think the whole "peasants had no rights, nobles had all the rights" thing is often very exaggerated. In the 13th and 14th century, juries in manorial courts in England were more often made up of serfs than of free men. Nothing informal about it, these juries are in the court rolls of the manors.



At the same time, peasants had means to avail themselves of several different kinds of courts.



This stuff does not point toward a society where summary judgments were handed out by the lord of the manor and the peasants just had to live with it. We're talking jury trials, several different kinds of courts to choose from to press your claim. And everything was not always rigged in the favor of the lord of the manor either.

Depends on what medieval society you are looking at. I’m not that familiar with English medieval history but can tell you that the serfs of Russia had little in the way of rights or protection from abuse right into the 20th century, whatever the laws may have nominally said.
 
Depends on what medieval society you are looking at. I’m not that familiar with English medieval history but can tell you that the serfs of Russia had little in the way of rights or protection from abuse right into the 20th century, whatever the laws may have nominally said.

Kind of my point really. As I mentioned earlier, there's no "way it was" that applies to all places all through the medieval period. Although when it comes to serfs in Russia the real rise of serfdom there didn't happen until the 16th century, when the practice was definitely either dead or dying in many of the countries where it had been strong in the medieval period.

The same goes for everything. Trial by combat? Existed in some places at some times for some crimes. Inheritance laws among the nobility and monarchy? these varied enormously, and disputes over succession would often stem from disagreements over which set of rules to adhere to (especially considering that the Germanic custom was to elect kings, although exactly how these elections worked varied with place and time). Even laws concerning such basic crimes as murder could vary wildly. And often there'll be several different judicial systems operating at the same time in the same place, with sometimes different and sometimes overlapping areas of responsibility.
 
Ireland, and Scotland
Gaelic tribal custom and Roman law.
We had (Roman) Canon law and Brehon law. An individual court case usually consisted of the king sitting with the kingdom's bishop and bard in a back room observing secular judges adjudicating the case. Laywers, plantiffs and defendants are in front of the judges, people vouching for them are either to the right or left depending on the strength of their oath to the defendant/plaintiff. The kingdom's chief historian is to the judges' right.

The case was usually decided by judges via Brehon law, with the bishop ensuring their decision didn't contradict canon law. The judges' knowledge of the law came from knowing a massive poetic text called The Great Tradition by heart. The historian was present in order to detail any local precedent for the case. The bard was present if the case involved poetry, if it required the interpretation of older texts and to check the quality of language in the judges' recollection of the law.

Judgements had an order of quality. Those based on an appeal to the natural order or analogy being the lowest, those directly referencing the Great Tradition being the highest. A judge who decided the case based on a lower category would be fined heavily if an argument in a higher category was later found.

The judge then gave the king, bishop or bard their decision. Their announcement of it made it law. Who announced it depended on the nature of the case. King for secular, bishop for ecclesiastical, bard for academic matters. A bard was prohibited by law from announcing a decision not based on the Great Tradition.

Court typically held on hilltop.
 
As I mentioned earlier, there's no "way it was" that applies to all places all through the medieval period.
Of course not. That said, general rules of thumb and guidelines bring sufficient verisimilitude to most games. The minutiae of Medieval law across the centuries is interesting insofar as it leads to gameable content but impractical from a gamebuilding perspective unless you're a simulationist.
 
Kind of my point really. As I mentioned earlier, there's no "way it was" that applies to all places all through the medieval period. Although when it comes to serfs in Russia the real rise of serfdom there didn't happen until the 16th century, when the practice was definitely either dead or dying in many of the countries where it had been strong in the medieval period.

Yes but on the good news side they were all trying to solve essentially the same issues. Either it was small rural community where generations settled (or roamed in the case of pastoral cultures) or a small (by our standard) urban settlement (except for certain cities at their height like Rome, Alexanderia, Constantinople) Understand that and cherry picking the interesting nuances becomes much easier.
 
We had (Roman) Canon law and Brehon law. An individual court case usually consisted of the king sitting with the kingdom's bishop and bard in a back room observing secular judges adjudicating the case. Laywers, plantiffs and defendants are in front of the judges, people vouching for them are either to the right or left depending on the strength of their oath to the defendant/plaintiff. The kingdom's chief historian is to the judges' right.

The case was usually decided by judges via Brehon law, with the bishop ensuring their decision didn't contradict canon law. The judges' knowledge of the law came from knowing a massive poetic text called The Great Tradition by heart. The historian was present in order to detail any local precedent for the case. The bard was present if the case involved poetry, if it required the interpretation of older texts and to check the quality of language in the judges' recollection of the law.

Judgements had an order of quality. Those based on an appeal to the natural order or analogy being the lowest, those directly referencing the Great Tradition being the highest. A judge who decided the case based on a lower category would be fined heavily if an argument in a higher category was later found.

The judge then gave the king, bishop or bard their decision. Their announcement of it made it law. Who announced it depended on the nature of the case. King for secular, bishop for ecclesiastical, bard for academic matters. A bard was prohibited by law from announcing a decision not based on the Great Tradition.

Court typically held on hilltop.
Court is now in session.
HUCK OF THE IRISH 3.png
 
In my fantasy setting, Namorra, PC's ARE cops members of SMITE (Superior Magic for Investigation and Tactical Enforcement.) Their job was to investigate major crimes (with magic, tech, brains, etc.) then find the responsible party and either jail them or well SMITE them. Though usually, their crimes were above the normal level of enforcement quite a bit. (During a Kobold strike in one game, due to sewer working conditions, players bribed Kobolds with donuts and a promise to take down some of the monsters. Hey, a Kobold who can't handle giant alchemically mutated giant ' gators ain't worth keeping on the job. Thus Kobolds screaming "DONUTS!" became a thing.)

One team's first case was to find out who stole/destroyed a known heavily haunted locale. (Nasty bad necromancer creating a soul bomb--more souls, bigger bomb.) All for politics, they were going to wipe out the opposing party at a rally.

Never got to the next case. (A murder in the TOWER, a completely magic-dead zone, that imprisoned powerful magical nasties.) Someone was going to off a lich (yeah undead didn't NEED magic to function once powered up, but the death was going to be a locked cell mystery, and no--the phylactery was still safe. Plus it appeared to BE magical murder)

I flipped a lot of monster tropes. Had even worked with the players some of the criminal factions (a notable troll crime lord for one.)

It was definitely "What if D&D's monsters weren't bad guys, necessarily, and lived together in the same city.
 
Maybe so, but they also know they can't operate fully out in the open.
That's what you'd imagine...today, sure:thumbsup:!

Have you been to Sicily? I was there over 20 years ago. I can tell you, everybody knew them, it's just that nobody dared to talk about them (or so any point in doing so, really).
How about Tokyo of, say, 10 years ago (and I hear it's not much different today)? Yakuza walk around completely openly, and have allegedly partly fused with the state (which, allegedly, sees them as kinda useful).
Ever read any history on New York's Little Italy in the first half of the past century? When I wrote "legitimacy", I was thinking about that period:shade:.

And I can assure you, the bosses in those places and times would be very much offended if anyone didn't recognize them:thumbsup:!
 
If nobody dares to talk about them, they aren’t really legitimate. The mafia operates as an open secret. The local noble would be the one who automatically receives foreign dignitaries if they show up.

Yakuza might have deep connections with the government, ok (I didn’t notice this when I was in Tokyo visiting, and my two sisters who lived there for a year each never talked about seeing yakuza either). Medieval nobility WAS the government.

Basically, there’s a huge difference between challenging the establishment, even brazenly so, and being said establishment.
 
Basically, there’s a huge difference between challenging the establishment, even brazenly so, and being said establishment.
It seems you were originally objecting to robertsconley robertsconley's analogy between the sensibilities of medieval law and organized crime. I think Robert's point was that you see these particular similarities because both cultures are very clannish. Even though criminal gangs and medieval royalty are not precisely the same thing (or are they...?), analogies are all about showing the consistency of a principle in different situations, so I am able to understand what he is trying to demonstrate.

There is a considerable grey area, but I will concede that there are differences, generally speaking. But is there something you disagree with beyond the analogy itself?
 
The Incident
The PCs are sitting in the Rusty Keg tavern in the City of Eastgate enjoying a meal and a drink after concluding a deal for a map that will lead them to the Barradine Ruins, their current focus. From two tables over, Michael Greene and his friends start mocking one of the party's member, Sigurt the Bold a Northeron. He is a member of the Greene family a local merchant family who works the northern trade routes. Northeron raider are one of the more serious threats that the family has to prepare on their trading voyages. As a result there is little love for Northerons from Micheal or his family.

Michael is drunk and starts making loud comments about SIgurt. His friends join in as well. Finally Sigurt had enough and walks over and just clocks Micheal after deciding that he can take on the whole lot if need be. Micheal jumps on top of Sigurt and the fight is on. Micheal's friend are about to jump but stops when the whole adventuring party stands up. The fight is between Micheal and Sigurt.

A few blows are traded by Sigurt has the upper hand being a veteran warrior. Unfortunately a few rounds in, Sigurt's player rolls a critical hit. Not only Sigurts puts Micheal down but also kills him.

The Aftermath
The tavern goes silent. Corbin, the leader of the party, decides that it is best not to stick around. He gives the barkeep 50 gp for the trouble caused. Then the party leaves and returns to the Wyvern Inn where they have rooms.

The barkeep, who also the owner of the Rusty Keg, goes over to Micheal Greene's friends and tell them to pick up Micheal's body and bring him to a back room. Then the barkeep start questioning Micheal's friend who are they and who is Micheal. Eastgate is large enough that not everybody is recognized on sight. However the Barkeep has heard of the Greene family and is well aware of their status as a merchant family. So the barkeep grabs his son and tell one of Micheal's friends to take his son to the Greene house.

A 1/2 hour later, Aldus Green and his eldest son and heir Marcus Greene arrive at the Rusty Keg. Sad and angered at the death of his younger son, Aldus tells Marcus to start questioning people as to what happened. While a lot of the patrons have left a few remained who saw everything. Between them and Micheal's friends, Aldus and Marcus gets a general description of the party, and along with the name of the person who they met, Lado Thorne a chandler local to the ward.

The Investigation
Aldus and Marcus secure a cart from the Barkeep and transport Micheal's body back to their house. It is almost midnight when this is done. Because it is night time Marcus gather a guard wakes up a handful that work for the family. Picking those who have brawled or can fight. They march through the street towards Lado's shop.

Along the way, a City Guard patrol stops them and asks their business., Marcus explains that his brother was killed and they were on their way to Lado's shop to question him about the identity of the killers. That they intend no violence. The guard corporal in charge of the patrol knows from experience that tempers are high. So he tells Marcus that he may go but only if one of the guard accompany to act as a witness.

Marcus agrees knowing that his family hasn't done anything formal yet. So the guards are well within their authority to order Micheal and his posse to turn back. But the guard corporal knows about the Green family and their status. Since the purpose of the posse is to question Lado it fine as long as it doesn't get out of hand. After Marcus leaves with his posse and the assigned guard.. The corporal sends a runner back to the ward's barrack to let the Sergeant and Lieutenant know that a murder took place and that the Greene family has sent out a posse.

Marcus, the guard, and the posse arrived at Lado's house. After pounding on the door for a few minutes, Lado open a window and ask their business. He becomes a little frightened at the posse below, he calms down a little when he see a guardsman with them. He lets Micheal and the guardsman into his shop and they begin to talk.

As a rule most proprietors including Lado keep quiet about their customer's business. However when Lado learned that Micheal Green was killed in a bar fight after he left. He quickly identifies the adventuring party to Micheal and to the guardsman as a witness. He also happen to know through the dinner conversation with the party that they are staying at the Wyvern Inn.

He doesn't tell Marcus what his business with the group was about. Telling Marcus that his father can talk to Tomas, the guildmaster of the Chandlers if the Greenes want to know. However that discretion doesn't extend to protecting his customer from a murder investigation.

The Writ
It been a long night so far with no end in sight, Marcus leaves Lado's shop. He tells the city guardmen that the Greens are going to keep watch on the Wyvern. The guardsmen acknowledges and asks for an escort back to the barrack. Marcus does this as well as send his own guard and one of other employee to watch on the Inn for the remainder of the night. Afterwards Micheal returns home and spends the remainder of the night comforting his mother.

Rob's Note: Aldus doesn't authorize Marcus or any of those who work for them to go into the Inn and grab the party as the Inn is the property of a innkeeper who in good standing with the innkeeper's guild. Innkeeper are expected to protect their guests and safeguard their property as one of their responsibilities. With a writ from a Alderman, the Greenes have no recourse to wait until they secure one. However if Sigurt or the party steps out of the Inn then they are fair game.

In the morning the party wakes up and has breakfast and plans the day's shopping in order to prepare to leave for the Barradine Ruins the following day.

At the earliest possible hour, Aldus Greene and his son Marcus head over to Alderman Angus Mallory's house. The Mallory family have long been friends of the Greens. The Mallorys own one of the largest weaving establishments in Eastgate and the Greenes often ship their linen and wool to distant ports.

Aldus reports the murder and has his son Marcus swear to the particulars. Alderman Mallory is more than willing to accept their sworn oaths and issues a writ authorizing the Greene to seize Sigurt's person and transport him to the nearest jail to await a hearing. The writ further allows the Greene to call on the CIty Guard as the accused is reputed to be a member of an adventuring party. Aldus pays the Alderman two shillings (24 sp) for the writ.

While the party is eating breakfast and planning their day. Aldus and his son Marcus are gathering every guard and employee they have along with sending a runner to the ward barracks to ask for a patrol to be on hand.

This takes time so the party conclude breakfast and break up to go shopping and prepare for the expedition. The two men that the Greene station see this and start to follow Sigurt. Sigurt is in the company of Thil the Cowled, a mage, and their job is purchase rations and other consumables for the expedition. Ironically they head over to Lado's shop.
 
Last edited:
The Arrest
As Sigurt and Thil enter Lado's shop, the one of the two Greene men following them runs to tell Aldus and Marcus where Sigurt is. Unfortunately for Sigurt, the Greene has gathered everybody and ready to move. Several minutes later everybody arrives at Lado's shop.

Lado was successful at covering his discomfort at the arrival of Sigurt and Thil and managed not to tip them off that something was amiss. Their conversation about provision was interrupted by a loud insistent knock at the door. When Lado answered he see Marcus with his posse backed by a City Guard patrol standing nearby.

Marcus presents his writ and then turns to Sigurt and Thil announcing he is here to arrest Sigurt for the murder of his brother. Sigurt puts his hand on his weapon but Thil noticing the posse and the guards stops the Northeron. Thil examine the writ and finds it in good order. Sigurt and Thil get in to a heated argument until Thil pointed out the dozen or so armed individuals outside in the street. Thil will take Sigurt's gear and get back to Corbin to see what can be done. But for now they are out numbered.

To everybody's relief, Sigurt surrenders after giving his gear to Thil. Marcus, the city guard, and his posse take Sigurt to the nearest Jails and has Sigurt locked up. The writ is signed by the Jailor indicating that the arrest has been made.

The Trial
Aldus and Marcus Green return to Alderman Mallory and present him with the signed writ. Aldus requests that Sigurt be tried at the next assizes for the murder of his son. Alderman Mallory agrees and issues a Writ to compel Sigurt to appear before the commission of oyer and terminer when it assembled in 18 days at the monthly assize to answer for his crimes. Aldus pays the Alderman another two shilling for this writ.

Rob's Notes: Eastgate as a freetown is not allow to try capital crimes. The king holds monthly assize in where felonies can be heard and adjudicated. In this fantasy kingdom, the Grand Jury is a group at the assize that issues indictments requiring the named individuals to appear at the next assize. Indictments can be presented to the Sheriff or Aldermans to secure a writ to arrest the named individual to force them to appear.

The Commission of Oyer and Terminer, actually hears the case and renders a verdict. To have the commission hear a case the plantiff has to secure a writ in order to be put on the schedule or docket.

It is quite possible that the indictment step is skipped as in the case of Sigurt. In which case, if a suitable authority, like an Alderman or a Sheriff, issues a writ to put the case on the docket.
End Note:

In the 18 days that follows these things happen.

Both the Greenes, and the Adventuring Party gather witnesses who would swear an account of the events that led to the death of Micheal. The Adventuring Party has a hard time of it due to the Greenes better connections. However they manage to find a merchant who was present during the incident who happened to be a rival to the Greenes.

Sigurt sits in jail and one of the adventuring party makes sure that he has food, water, and clothing each day. Medieval Jails provide minimal food and water. The expectation is that the family will keep the prisoner supplied. Luckily none of the jailers wants to mess with the Adventuring Party after the first visit so Sigurt is able to get everything that the party delivers until the assize.

When the day of the assizes arrives, Sigurt and the other prisoners to be tried are escorted by the city guard to the commons where the tents and the commission's benches are set up. It is cloudy day with rain drizzling off and on so everybody is in a foul mood and ready to get this over with.

At first the trial goes badly for Sigurt as the Greene line up an array of witnesses swearing that Sigurt instigated the fight with no provocation. And other testifying to Micheal's good character. However prior to the trial Thil managed to find out that one of the commissioners was a knight whose son got in trouble because of Micheal's rowdy ways. Thil's investigation and persuasion abilities (along with a few quiet Charm Persons) allows him to highlight Micheal's rowdiness.

At the conclusion of the trails, the commission finds Sigurt guilty of manslaughter not murder and fines him double weregild (400 shilling or 4,800 sp) for Micheal's death. The Greene family wanted death is not happy with the verdict. The party pays Sigurt's fine and quickly leaves Eastgate on their long delayed expedition to the Barradine Ruins. It unlikely the Greenes will be able to exact any type of vengeance unless the party returns to Eastgate.

Wrapping it up
I deliberately made the resolution more peaceful than would likely be the case. Odds are that Thil and Sigurt would have made a scene at Lado's shop. Either fleeing through the back of Lado's shop or attempting to take on the posse and the guard. Each with their own negative consequences.

But the scenario path I opted for allowed me to illustrate each part of how medieval style justice would work in a fantasy RPG campaign. The key to Sigurt paying a fine and not hanging from a noose is Thil clever work in discovering that others were negatively by Micheal. Thus painting the incident as one where a crime has been committed, manslaughter, but caused by Micheal's history of drunkenness. However because the Adventuring Party had no local ties it was a uphill battle at every step.
 
If nobody dares to talk about them, they aren’t really legitimate. The mafia operates as an open secret. The local noble would be the one who automatically receives foreign dignitaries if they show up.
So how does that differ from automatically receiving people that mean to start a business in the area, before they even file with the gouvernment:smile:? Which is what was going on.

Yakuza might have deep connections with the government, ok (I didn’t notice this when I was in Tokyo visiting, and my two sisters who lived there for a year each never talked about seeing yakuza either).
That would depend, admittedly, on which parts of Tokyo you were visiting...and for what goal:wink:. You probably never talked to a Tokyo Police Detective, either. But you knew they're there if needed, right?

Medieval nobility WAS the government.
The Department of Business Regulations isn't THE government, but there's no doubt it's legit, right?

Basically, there’s a huge difference between challenging the establishment, even brazenly so, and being said establishment.
In most places, they're merely part of the government.
And then there's those other places:devil:.
 
The Incident
The PCs are sitting in the Rusty Keg tavern in the City of Eastgate enjoying a meal and a drink after concluding a deal for a map that will lead them to the Barradine Ruins, their current focus. From two tables over, Michael Greene and his friends start mocking one of the party's member, Sigurt the Bold a Northeron. He is a member of the Greene family a local merchant family who works the northern trade routes. Northeron raider are one of the more serious threats that the family has to prepare on their trading voyages. As a result there is little love for Northerons from Micheal or his family.

Michael is drunk and starts making loud comments about SIgurt. His friends join in as well. Finally Sigurt had enough and walks over and just clocks Micheal after deciding that he can take on the whole lot if need be. Micheal jumps on top of Sigurt and the fight is on. Micheal's friend are about to jump but stops when the whole adventuring party stands up. The fight is between Micheal and Sigurt.

A few blows are traded by Sigurt has the upper hand being a veteran warrior. Unfortunately a few rounds in, Sigurt's player rolls a critical hit. Not only Sigurts puts Micheal down but also kills him.

The Aftermath
The tavern goes silent. Corbin, the leader of the party, decides that it is best not to stick around. He gives the barkeep 50 gp for the trouble caused. Then the party leaves and returns to the Wyvern Inn where they have rooms.

The barkeep, who also the owner of the Rusty Keg, goes over to Micheal Greene's friends and tell them to pick up Micheal's body and bring him to a back room. Then the barkeep start questioning Micheal's friend who are they and who is Micheal. Eastgate is large enough that not everybody is recognized on sight. However the Barkeep has heard of the Greene family and is well aware of their status as a merchant family. So the barkeep grabs his son and tell one of Micheal's friends to take his son to the Greene house.

A 1/2 hour later, Aldus Green and his eldest son and heir Marcus Greene arrive at the Rusty Keg. Sad and angered at the death of his younger son, Aldus tells Marcus to start questioning people as to what happened. While a lot of the patrons have left a few remained who saw everything. Between them and Micheal's friends, Aldus and Marcus gets a general description of the party, and along with the name of the person who they met, Lado Thorne a chandler local to the ward.

The Investigation
Aldus and Marcus secure a cart from the Barkeep and transport Micheal's body back to their house. It is almost midnight when this is done. Because it is night time Marcus gather a guard wakes up a handful that work for the family. Picking those who have brawled or can fight. They march through the street towards Lado's shop.

Along the way, a City Guard patrol stops them and asks their business., Marcus explains that his brother was killed and they were on their way to Lado's shop to question him about the identity of the killers. That they intend no violence. The guard corporal in charge of the patrol knows from experience that tempers are high. So he tells Marcus that he may go but only if one of the guard accompany to act as a witness.

Marcus agrees knowing that his family hasn't done anything formal yet. So the guards are well within their authority to order Micheal and his posse to turn back. But the guard corporal knows about the Green family and their status. Since the purpose of the posse is to question Lado it fine as long as it doesn't get out of hand. After Marcus leaves with his posse and the assigned guard.. The corporal sends a runner back to the ward's barrack to let the Sergeant and Lieutenant know that a murder took place and that the Greene family has sent out a posse.

Marcus, the guard, and the posse arrived at Lado's house. After pounding on the door for a few minutes, Lado open a window and ask their business. He becomes a little frightened at the posse below, he calms down a little when he see a guardsman with them. He lets Micheal and the guardsman into his shop and they begin to talk.

As a rule most proprietors including Lado keep quiet about their customer's business. However when Lado learned that Micheal Green was killed in a bar fight after he left. He quickly identifies the adventuring party to Micheal and to the guardsman as a witness. He also happen to know through the dinner conversation with the party that they are staying at the Wyvern Inn.

He doesn't tell Marcus what his business with the group was about. Telling Marcus that his father can talk to Tomas, the guildmaster of the Chandlers if the Greenes want to know. However that discretion doesn't extend to protecting his customer from a murder investigation.

The Writ
It been a long night so far with no end in sight, Marcus leaves Lado's shop. He tells the city guardmen that the Greens are going to keep watch on the Wyvern. The guardsmen acknowledges and asks for an escort back to the barrack. Marcus does this as well as send his own guard and one of other employee to watch on the Inn for the remainder of the night. Afterwards Micheal returns home and spends the remainder of the night comforting his mother.

Rob's Note: Aldus doesn't authorize Marcus or any of those who work for them to go into the Inn and grab the party as the Inn is the property of a innkeeper who in good standing with the innkeeper's guild. Innkeeper are expected to protect their guests and safeguard their property as one of their responsibilities. With a writ from a Alderman, the Greenes have no recourse to wait until they secure one. However if Sigurt or the party steps out of the Inn then they are fair game.

In the morning the party wakes up and has breakfast and plans the day's shopping in order to prepare to leave for the Barradine Ruins the following day.

At the earliest possible hour, Aldus Greene and his son Marcus head over to Alderman Angus Mallory's house. The Mallory family have long been friends of the Greens. The Mallorys own one of the largest weaving establishments in Eastgate and the Greenes often ship their linen and wool to distant ports.

Aldus reports the murder and has his son Marcus swear to the particulars. Alderman Mallory is more than willing to accept their sworn oaths and issues a writ authorizing the Greene to seize Sigurt's person and transport him to the nearest jail to await a hearing. The writ further allows the Greene to call on the CIty Guard as the accused is reputed to be a member of an adventuring party. Aldus pays the Alderman two shillings (24 sp) for the writ.

While the party is eating breakfast and planning their day. Aldus and his son Marcus are gathering every guard and employee they have along with sending a runner to the ward barracks to ask for a patrol to be on hand.

This takes time so the party conclude breakfast and break up to go shopping and prepare for the expedition. The two men that the Greene station see this and start to follow Sigurt. Sigurt is in the company of Thil the Cowled, a mage, and their job is purchase rations and other consumables for the expedition. Ironically they head over to Lado's shop.
The Arrest
As Sigurt and Thil enter Lado's shop, the one of the two Greene men following them runs to tell Aldus and Marcus where Sigurt is. Unfortunately for Sigurt, the Greene has gathered everybody and ready to move. Several minutes later everybody arrives at Lado's shop.

Lado was successful at covering his discomfort at the arrival of Sigurt and Thil and managed not to tip them off that something was amiss. Their conversation about provision was interrupted by a loud insistent knock at the door. When Lado answered he see Marcus with his posse backed by a City Guard patrol standing nearby.

Marcus presents his writ and then turns to Sigurt and Thil announcing he is here to arrest Sigurt for the murder of his brother. Sigurt puts his hand on his weapon but Thil noticing the posse and the guards stops the Northeron. Thil examine the writ and finds it in good order. Sigurt and Thil get in to a heated argument until Thil pointed out the dozen or so armed individuals outside in the street. Thil will take Sigurt's gear and get back to Corbin to see what can be done. But for now they are out numbered.

To everybody's relief, Sigurt surrenders after giving his gear to Thil. Marcus, the city guard, and his posse take Sigurt to the nearest Jails and has Sigurt locked up. The writ is signed by the Jailor indicating that the arrest has been made.

The Trial
Aldus and Marcus Green return to Alderman Mallory and present him with the signed writ. Aldus requests that Sigurt be tried at the next assizes for the murder of his son. Alderman Mallory agrees and issues a Writ to compel Sigurt to appear before the commission of oyer and terminer when it assembled in 18 days at the monthly assize to answer for his crimes. Aldus pays the Alderman another two shilling for this writ.

Rob's Notes: Eastgate as a freetown is not allow to try capital crimes. The king holds monthly assize in where felonies can be heard and adjudicated. In this fantasy kingdom, the Grand Jury is a group at the assize that issues indictments requiring the named individuals to appear at the next assize. Indictments can be presented to the Sheriff or Aldermans to secure a writ to arrest the named individual to force them to appear.

The Commission of Oyer and Terminer, actually hears the case and renders a verdict. To have the commission hear a case the plantiff has to secure a writ in order to be put on the schedule or docket.

It is quite possible that the indictment step is skipped as in the case of Sigurt. In which case, if a suitable authority, like an Alderman or a Sheriff, issues a writ to put the case on the docket.
End Note:

In the 18 days that follows these things happen.

Both the Greenes, and the Adventuring Party gather witnesses who would swear an account of the events that led to the death of Micheal. The Adventuring Party has a hard time of it due to the Greenes better connections. However they manage to find a merchant who was present during the incident who happened to be a rival to the Greenes.

Sigurt sits in jail and one of the adventuring party makes sure that he has food, water, and clothing each day. Medieval Jails provide minimal food and water. The expectation is that the family will keep the prisoner supplied. Luckily none of the jailers wants to mess with the Adventuring Party after the first visit so Sigurt is able to get everything that the party delivers until the assize.

When the day of the assizes arrives, Sigurt and the other prisoners to be tried are escorted by the city guard to the commons where the tents and the commission's benches are set up. It is cloudy day with rain drizzling off and on so everybody is in a foul mood and ready to get this over with.

At first the trial goes badly for Sigurt as the Greene line up an array of witnesses swearing that Sigurt instigated the fight with no provocation. And other testifying to Micheal's good character. However prior to the trial Thil managed to find out that one of the commissioners was a knight whose son got in trouble because of Micheal's rowdy ways. Thil's investigation and persuasion abilities (along with a few quiet Charm Persons) allows him to highlight Micheal's rowdiness.

At the conclusion of the trails, the commission finds Sigurt guilty of manslaughter not murder and fines him double weregild (400 shilling or 4,800 sp) for Micheal's death. The Greene family wanted death is not happy with the verdict. The party pays Sigurt's fine and quickly leaves Eastgate on their long delayed expedition to the Barradine Ruins. It unlikely the Greenes will be able to exact any type of vengeance unless the party returns to Eastgate.

Wrapping it up
I deliberately made the resolution more peaceful than would likely be the case. Odds are that Thil and Sigurt would have made a scene at Lado's shop. Either fleeing through the back of Lado's shop or attempting to take on the posse and the guard. Each with their own negative consequences.

But the scenario path I opted for allowed me to illustrate each part of how medieval style justice would work in a fantasy RPG campaign. The key to Sigurt paying a fine and not hanging from a noose is Thil clever work in discovering that others were negatively by Micheal. Thus painting the incident as one where a crime has been committed, manslaughter, but caused by Micheal's history of drunkenness. However because the Adventuring Party had no local ties it was a uphill battle at every step.
...that's too modern, I'm afraid:smile:.
I'd go much rather with something closer to this:
(Especially for a fantasy setting. Granted, the players might assume I'm depicting a lawless den of scum and villainy....
Right until they see my depiction of one of those, that is. Then they'd come to appreciate such a law-abiding place!)

As you can see, killing in a bar brawl, unless they had previous enmity (not mentioned in your post) was manslaughter. And most of those weren't heavily punished:wink:.
That said, the family might have hired someone experienced to arrange that the killer becomes a victim of another manslaughter. But that's grounds for more in-game events, which is fine by me:grin:!
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top