Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Endur" data-source="post: 2954962" data-attributes="member: 3346">If this were a magical version of the 21st century (i.e. today) then yes, I think that would be an appropriate law.However, if it is a magical medieval society, I think the law will be a bit different.  Medieval trials as well as modern trials were very focused on credibility, but in a medieval society credibility was much more likely to be determined by who you were (social status) and how well the jury and judge knew you.Example: If you are the Duke's brother, the social status will help you considerably in a trial against a commoner.  If you are the local bartender, the jury of your peers probably knows you much better than some wandering adventurer they had never heard of.  Modern juries seek jurors who know nothing (The Sgt. Schultz from Hogan's Heroes as a joror).  Medieval juries sought people who knew both sides of the conflict and who could be trusted to reach a fair verdict.Under this approach, if King's Court Wizard told the jury what his divinations were, the jury is likely to accept it as fact.  If some wandering cleric of a god nobody has ever heard of gives testimony on divinations, the jury is likely to discount the testimony.So, I'd follow the medieval magical society idea, and let all testimony in.On the other hand, magic is relatively rare and expensive, so my Judges wouldn't hire their own spellcasters for divinations (except for very important cases).  Only private parties in a lawsuit might use their money on magical divinations (i.e. the PCs, etc.), just as they might hire their own attorney instead of defending themself.</blockquote>

Verification