Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6685775" data-attributes="member: 6787503">My gut instinct was innocent until proven guilty because that's the paradigm I'm familiar with. That's why I was thinking that without material evidence the PC's accusation might not amount to much. But now that I think about it, it could be more interesting the other way and might jibe better with the witchfinder's methods of interrogation, as well as giving the priest more motivation to bribe him.This is taking place in a kind of quasi-province of Keoland, in Greyhawk, where the sway of official law is very weak. So basically, the local "magistrate" (actually the castellan of an isolated castle owned by an absentee lord) is the law. But since it's Keoland, I'm trying for as generically medieval as possible in most respects. I'm not sure which of those two alternatives was the actual custom in medieval Europe for the most part. As it relates to 17th century witch-hunts past a certain date, I believe there was a requirement to have material proof of being a witch, usually a confession from the accused that they had dealings with the Devil. By the way, the accused in this case really does have a deal with a certain devil.That's a little difficult because the priest is claiming to be a cleric of a deity that no one has heard of, in fact he made it up. He does have a couple of acolytes, but part of their disguise is that they have taken a vow of silence. In a world where the assumption is that folk will worship any of a number of gods, I'm not sure if a separate law system for the clergy is entirely appropriate. The local priest is a cleric of Pelor, however, and so I suppose he could convene a trial, but he is somewhat biased although his acolytes have been fooled by the false priest.My thinking is that the castellan will stand as judge and that the hearing will be convened in his court. He is lawful good and so has much respect for the witchfinder, who has papers that say he is acting upon the authority of the king. In all likelihood, however, he is in fact a charlatan.  The witchfinder is basically the state's prosecutor. I hadn't thought about who would represent the priest, or even if it would have been considered his right to have representation.The one who made the accusation is a wood elf, so that could work against him in this human-dominant community. He is also a recent arrival. Some of the other party members are more well known and could serve as character witnesses. The party also has strong ties to the local merchants' guild, however, because they recently rescued some members of the guild from trouble and have been granted honorary membership, so they should have the guild's backing. The rescue has also gotten them the favorable notice of the castellan. Well, the priest has hidden the offensive holy symbol in the keeping of a nearby tribe of lizardmen who he has made an alliance of sorts with, possibly converting them to devil worship, so there could be an adventure hook to retrieve it, but I'm not sure if it would really prove anything. I think the idea is that the accusations will lead to the appearance of the witchfinder, and that it's his job to come up with proof.</blockquote>

Verification