D&D (2024) Greyhawk Confirmed. Tell Me Why.

[Paul Farquhar]

Not anyone can grant probate on a will. Not anyone can witness an affidavit. I'm not sure what the practices were around deeds of assignment of title to land in 17th century England, but I would not be surprised if they were typically witnessed by an official of some sort

You are largely wrong. British law takes the idea that “a gentleman’s word is his bond” seriously. Even more so in the 17th century. Of course children, the insane, and women could not witness legal documents, but no special official was required (or existed). I’ve learned quite a bit about wills and probate recently, dealing with my father’s estate. The UK isn’t the 51st state, it’s another country, we do things differently here.

JRRT does not tell us about its details

Yes he does. He tells us there is NONE. You might find that implausible, but that is what the author explicitly states.

 

[Hussar]

The planes and cosmology are one of D&D’s unique things throwing them away would be dumb.

And the DMG is still the place they should be talked about just later in the book.

Yet, we managed just fine in 1e, Basic/Expert, and 2e. It wasn't until 3e that the planes were detailed in any way in the DMG. ((Note, the 1e PHB did have a VERY brief outline of the Planes - but virtually no details. Just names mostly)) AFAIC, it's a waste of space in the DMG since it's almost never going to get used. So little gaming actually goes planar. I mean, heck, the 5e AP's, while some of the later ones do, spend nearly all their time not going planar. Even Ravenloft isn't really a planar adventure - it's a closed box setting. You don't even need it to be on another plane and the adventure contains advice for setting it in the Sword Coast.

I'm not saying we don't need planes in D&D. I am saying that they aren't all that needed in the DMG where there just isn't enough space to do them justice. A three paragraph blurb and a random table isn't a planar description.

 

[Hussar]

You are largely wrong. British law takes the idea that “a gentleman’s word is his bond” seriously. Even more so in the 17th century. Of course children, the insane, and women could not witness legal documents, but no special official was required (or existed). I’ve learned quite a bit about wills and probate recently, dealing with my father’s estate. The UK isn’t the 51st state, it’s another country, we do things differently here.

Yes he does. He tells us there is NONE. You might find that implausible, but that is what the author explicitly states.

Note, I believe @pemerton is Australian, not American. But, yeah, from what 30 seconds of reading I did, it does seem like Notary Public's deal mostly with stuff crossing borders.

AIR, back in the dark ages, when I first got my passport in Canada, I believe I had to get some of my documents notarized. But, wow, that's a LOOOONG time ago and I could be misremembering.

 

[pemerton]

You are largely wrong. British law takes the idea that “a gentleman’s word is his bond” seriously. Even more so in the 17th century. Of course children, the insane, and women could not witness legal documents, but no special official was required (or existed). I’ve learned quite a bit about wills and probate recently, dealing with my father’s estate. The UK isn’t the 51st state, it’s another country, we do things differently here.

I'm not from the US. I'm a legal academic in Australia. I teach, and have published on, Australian private law which (as I'm sure you appreciate) incorporates significant elements of English law in virtue of the general rules of reception of English law in a "settled" colony.

Unless you're an English lawyer, I'm confident that I know more about English law than you, have read more cases on wills and the transfer of land than you, and have a better grasp of English legal history than you.

Yes he does. He tells us there is NONE. You might find that implausible, but that is what the author explicitly states.

JRRT does not say that there are no public officials in the shire. To the contrary, he tells us that there are some.

How is Sam Gamgee appointed Mayor? The Appendices refer to him being "elected". By whom? And by what process? Certainly not secret ballot, which was invented in Victoria in the mid-19th century and would not have existed in The Shire. By the Shirrifs wandering The Shire and taking the temperature at public meetings? By a public meeting at Hobbiton? By some other method? We can be confident that some method existed, but we don't know what it was.

By the way, Googling Sam Gamgee elected Mayor turned up this: https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Samwise_Gamgee

And from that website I learned that, according to a letter that JRRT wrote, "Soon after his election he [Samwise] established a rule of succession and inheritance in situations such as the headless Baggins family, since Bilbo and Frodo went over the sea and was impossible to presume death." So not only did JRRT recognise that The Shire had a system of private law (which is already obvious from what we are told in the stories), in his letters he was even making up details about how the rules of private law might be changed - namely, by Mayoral decision.

I regard this as consistent with my view that details of the government of a fantasy world can be made up, as needed, based on a combination of established fiction, common sense, and what seems like it would be fun or interesting, without needing to specify it in advance.

 

[pemerton]

Note, I believe @pemerton is Australian, not American. But, yeah, from what 30 seconds of reading I did, it does seem like Notary Public's deal mostly with stuff crossing borders.

AIR, back in the dark ages, when I first got my passport in Canada, I believe I had to get some of my documents notarized. But, wow, that's a LOOOONG time ago and I could be misremembering.

So here is a website that says a bit about the history of probate in England: Wills and administrations before 1858 - The National Archives

Notice this:

Not everyone left a will and not all wills needed to be proved by a court. People leaving small amounts of goods could leave instructions with their family or friends.

For the instructions in a will to be carried out by the executors, who would distribute the estate of the testator, the will had to have been proved in a probate court, almost all of which were church courts. . . . before 1858 there were more than 200 other church courts across the country that dealt with probate, each of which kept separate records and registers of wills – there was no central index and this remains the case.​

How are wills proved in The Shire? I've just referred to JRRT's letter discussing the law of inheritance in The Shire - as I've already said, it's obvious that it has one, from the stories. There are no church courts there. Do Shirriffs prove wills?

Googling just turned up this article on stray animals in feudal England: Waifs and Strays: Property Rights in Late Medieval England | Journal of British Studies | Cambridge Core

It discusses how matters concerning stray animals were argued and proved in manorial courts. How does this work in The Shire? Undoubtedly there is a way of sorting this out. But JRRT doesn't tell us what it is. Do Shirriffs hear and determine these matters? The Mayor? The Thain? The Master of Buckland? Any and all of the above?

Suppose that an animal strays in the north or north-east of the North Farthing? Does the disputed animal have to be driven all the way across The Shire for a matter to be heard? Or can a Shirriff travel to the place in question and make a decision?

In the fiction there is an answer. JRRT doesn't tell us what it is. My view is that there is no need for a world sourcebook to do so either. The GM can make something up on the spot if needed, that seems fun or interesting or plausible. It's unlikely to be any weirder than some actual system of law that operated somewhere in the real world at some or other time.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Unless you're an English lawyer, I'm confident that I know more about English law than you, have read more cases on wills and the transfer of land than you, and have a better grasp of English legal history than you

Have you actually dealt with an English will? Seen who witnessed it (a couple of friends). Bought a property in England (it’s registered with the Land Registry, a branch of the civil service)? Signed a contract in England (not actually worth the paper it’s printed on)? I think actual experience trumps what you were taught in some school on the other side of the planet!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It discusses how matters concerning stray animals were argued and proved in manorial courts. How does this work in The Shire? Undoubtedly there is a way of sorting this out. But JRRT doesn't tell us what it is. Do Shirriffs hear and determine these matters? The Mayor? The Thain? The Master of Buckland? Any and all of the

Yes, he does tell us, he tells us it’s the sheriff (a position that in theory can carry considerable power). He also tells us what the thain does - nothing. It’s a purely nominal position that has no actual power or duties. In effect, a constitutional monarch.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Note, I believe @pemerton is Australian, not American. But, yeah, from what 30 seconds of reading I did, it does seem like Notary Public's deal mostly with stuff crossing borders.

AIR, back in the dark ages, when I first got my passport in Canada, I believe I had to get some of my documents notarized. But, wow, that's a LOOOONG time ago and I could be misremembering.

From what I gather, notaries came into existence because much of the population was illiterate. Thus, you would need to employ someone who could read to witness a document. These days, you can have documents notarised as an extra level of security, but this is not a legal requirement.

 

[Pauln6]

“Noble, cultured race”?

That’s not a thing anymore. You have races. Some members of the race might be noble and some might not. I thought we were moving away from the idea of monolithic monoculture races.

It might be a thing if it's a thing in your game world. The rules no longer make assumptions about culture, which doesn't prevent you from making halflings an evil cannibalistic jungle tribe in your campaign if that's what you want.

I don't change Greyhawk every time the rules change like some erroneous Star Trek time travel plot. Dwarven society is not awash with arcane spell casters and Elmshire doesn't have an elite barbarian militia. PC backstory is up to PCS but the world is the world.

 

[Pauln6]

Okay. So... what?

Adventuring party tossing around a dragon's hoard worth of jewels and gold has a fancy robot with them. The townsfolk panic and go to the local lord. The local lord shows up and... what? Murders the entire party and enslaves the robot? Why? Do they attack every powerful mage or warrior who goes through their territory? Seems like a bad idea, seems like that would cause problems for them, seems like something the party might have heard about before.

And how would that be different than say... an elven paladin walking through town? Would the townsfolk in good or evil areas not ALSO react extremely to that? Are there no elven racists (false, the scarlet brotherhood exists)

It just gets... kind of exhausting. All of these assumptions get made about how "oh, you don't look like you are from Lord of the Rings, therefore you will be driven from towns" but people don't start applying similar logic to, well, EVERYTHING. I've never heard of a party finding a desperate villager running down the road, panicked about a demoninc invasion, only to rush in and find three tieflings confusedly looking for somewhere to sleep for the night. It only seems to be that these things happen when someone wants to play a tielfling character, and then every effort is made to force them to regret that choice, so that their next character conforms. Which just... isn't how a world full of so many strange and bizarre things would function.

Well, the erroneous assumption is that you would be applying a monoculture to your NPCS. The story potential is in the different way different people will react. Fictional societies don't have to be polarised any more than the real world.

That said, it's advisable to have a baseline and that baseline should shift based upon the prevailing culture. The baseline does not need to be the same for different settlements due to cultural variations.