Trials

[LostSoul]

I thought DMs are supposed to predetermine the verdic.

You can, but if the players want to influence the outcome of the trial, they might get upset.

Anyway, part of what brought this on is the revelation in the History of the Forgotten Realms book that the new King of Cormyr is apparently pushing for juries and trials by juries. This feels wrong for the setting.

I am disappointed by the lack of republic and democracies in official settings (though they make an appearance in home-brew games) and the relative praise of tyrants and autocrats as good guys in the settings.

However, things should be consistent. Cormyr is a deeply feudal kingdom with lords, wizards and so forth. Its new King going all liberal and wanting “trials by juries” is just jumping it off the tracks.

What if they had a "jury of peers of the realm" - feudal lords, knights, nobles, etc.?

Anyways, make it a plot point in your game. The King wants this thing, but I bet some of the entrenched nobility won't. Assassinations, coups, riots, civil war! Which side will the PCs take?

As always, the PC's actions will determine how things roll out.

(Run it by the players first - they might not be interested in that kind of thing.)

 

[Oryan77]

One of my best sessions ever involved the PCs on trial. However, this was a Planescape campaign and the judge was a nalfeshnee demon, the prosecutor was a bigoted eladrin, the PCs' defense lawyer was a Xaositect,

That's funny, my only trial I had in my game was this exact same scenario minus the animal witnesses. It sounds like you used Judge Gabberslug in the Court of Woe and had Sly Nye as the PC's defense attorney just like I did

The lvl 4 PC Wizard player who was on trial actually told me after the session that he was thinking about attacking Gabberslug. I guess he wasn't intimidated by the picture and size of the Nalfeshnee and the description of the guards in the court :\

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, the key thing is: How do you know the diviner is telling the truth? And the person verifying that diviner?

If the judge uses the divination, there's no issue. He/she's the one who would be deciding who's telling the truth otherwise.

 

[davidschwartznz]

That's funny, my only trial I had in my game was this exact same scenario minus the animal witnesses. It sounds like you used Judge Gabberslug in the Court of Woe and had Sly Nye as the PC's defense attorney just like I did

Indeed. That book was worth its weight in gold.

Advice to anyone putting their PCs on trial: 'community service' is just another word for 'plot hook'.

(Of course, demons have a slightly different definition of 'community service'. )

 

[Lanefan]

What if they had a "jury of peers of the realm" - feudal lords, knights, nobles, etc.?

Or a "jury" comprised of the whole village, like the Norse did it?

Lanefan

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

If the judge uses the divination, there's no issue. He/she's the one who would be deciding who's telling the truth otherwise.

That presumes a very specific sort of legal system - with either a wizard, or more likely, a cleric as the judge. In a religiously pluralistic society, one religion might not want a cleric of another diety judging members of his own faith, and temporal rulers might not want to give up that sort of power to the clergy. Also, just because the judge says it is so, does not mean that the people will accept it. It's not like corrupt judges, or corrupt clerics are unknown. The legal system will not always match what is (from a game rule standpoint) the "best" system, which is not to say that this system might not exist somewhere, but that a DM should feel free to have it not exist if it makes sense.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I thought DMs are supposed to predetermine the verdic.

Why do you say that?

 

[Aholibamah]

I thought DMs are supposed to predetermine the verdic.

Anyway, part of what brought this on is the revelation in the History of the Forgotten Realms book that the new King of Cormyr is apparently pushing for juries and trials by juries. This feels wrong for the setting.

I am disappointed by the lack of republic and democracies in official settings (though they make an appearance in home-brew games) and the relative praise of tyrants and autocrats as good guys in the settings.

However, things should be consistent. Cormyr is a deeply feudal kingdom with lords, wizards and so forth. Its new King going all liberal and wanting “trials by juries” is just jumping it off the tracks.

I don't think it is so much a Plato-like approval of tyranny as it is attempting to present a medieval/renaissance style government. In my homebrew the main nation focused on is a republic--but even republics have their problems.

In my game there is a Great Council, which includes several councils that deal with specific areas of government. One such council is the Council of Guardians, who are all the highest ranking judges. Interestingly my pcs have developed a great deal of respect for this body, who tend to be older men and women chosen for their wisdom and knowledge of the law. In major crimes cases they choose some of their number as a kind of panel and these then sit in judgement of the cases which are conducted in an open court with witnesses. The Guardians are elected from the main council body after proving themselves in years of service.

I am kind of proud of this because the pcs in my game will actually submit disputes to them of their own free will, believing they will get a fair hearing.

 

[AnonymousOne]

Simple case. For each witness/testimony/objection!/whatever, make a check:
...*Snip*

I love this... thank you. Yoinked for future implementation.

 

[MojoGM]

But how, as a DM, do you maintain controll over the trail without determing the verdict and the course before hand?

The Kenzer Co game ACES & EIGHTS actually has a mini game to simulate a trial and swaying jurys.

It's a wild west game, but I think you could adapt it to a D&D setting.