Idea For A Villiage/Town. Is it evil?

[Vaxalon]

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Have you ever read "Farslayer's Tale" by Fred Saberhagen? It's about a magic sword. Its story is well known. The bearer spins in a circle, says a simple rhyme, names someone, and lets the sword fly. It teleports to the named person's location and pierces him through the heart. It's an unstoppable assassination machine, but it leaves the sword in the hands of your enemies.

A noble house in a feud got hold of it. Did they do the rational thing and say, "If we use this, we will kill off everyone in both houses."? No, they started using it. And using it. And using it.

Soon, all that were left of both sides were children who couldn't remember the names of anyone left on the other side, but who still thirsted for vengeance.

Human nature being what it is, this law would result in a very quiet, peaceful town.

The peace of the grave.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -Mahatma Ghandi

The basic problem is that people aren't rational. Given an option for violence and vengeance, they'll TAKE that option, every time. Sad but true.

 

[Vaxalon]

>An armed society is a polite society.

A phrase. No more deep or inherently correct than 'Might makes right' or 'Kill them all, God shall know his own.'

Well, no, I think it is true, it's just incomplete.

An armed society is a polite, dangerous, violent society.

 

[Darklone]

Hehehe

Can't resist: One more little "political" statement:

Guns don't make people polite. Guns make idiots selfassured and arrogant. And if they would make someone polite? What does it help you when you got a town with armed polite guys and one idiot who shoots your wife and kid?

Same thing with this village.

Btw: You can kill a bunch of guys with a knife. And you can shoot at a crowd with a rifle and kill noone. Sure. But aren't we talking about probabilities? Roll the dice.

 

[Wicht]

I have three guns in my house, a shotgun, a hunting rifle and a 22 rifle. I am one of the least violent people I know (despite a prediliction for violent games). Guns do not inherently make people violent. The only state in the union to have no laws forbidding its citizens access to guns is vermont and we all know what a hotbed of violence those guys are right? West Virginia in which I lived has much the same mentality as Texas about guns. And guns are just as prominent a part of life in WV as in Texas if not more so. WV though has the lowest (or did as of two years ago) Crime rate in the union. I suspect that Texas' problem of violence has less to do with its attitudes about guns and more to do with an influx of drugs across its southern border and the presence of large cities. But thats just a guess. I know that statistically, whenever states have lightened up on restrictions of gun ownership, the crime rate is reduced.

As to the town - I still think it is silly the way the law is worded. Having the Sherriff do the killings seems too wierd as well. If there was a law allowing death duels, or a law that allowed you to pay a set fee for an assassination I would find that more believable. In all cases however the one being attacked will normally try and defend themselves if they know what is coming. It is preposterous to think otherwise and the law needs to be written with this in mind.

 

[Wicht]

The basic problem is that people aren't rational. Given an option for violence and vengeance, they'll TAKE that option, every time. Sad but true.

It is not true, I could cite any number of cases where its not true but since you cited one for me I will use him. Ghandi. He had the option for violence but chose not to use it. And people followed him.

 

[med stud]

To make a statement on the village again:
In a village, there is probably one person who wants to commit suicide, or there is one maniac who doesnt think, or there is someone with Int 4 who doesnt think before he steals or kill someone. Any of those above could destroy the entire village.

They say: "Give a fool enough rope and he will strangle himself." In this village they have given each fool in the village enough rope to strangle everyone.

 

[Savage Wombat]

To help keep this (hijacked) thread relevant:

Do those of you who object to firearms use comparable laws in your games?

Most D&D games (especially computer games) assume that heroes are free to wander around town at will in full armor and with weapons - and usually do. And no one even comments on this.

On the other hand, most examples of real-world cities I can think of off-hand allowed weapons to be carried, by nobles anyway - and the only thing that kept them from wearing armor was the weight. In places like Italy, this resulted in noble-family "street gangs" as demonstrated in Romeo and Juliet.

I usually run games with full weapon access, simply because players whine if you take their stuff away. On the other hand, I have run a game in which characters were specifically forbidden from carrying weapons within city limits - and it made some interesting in-city adventures, especially where circumventing the law was involved. Magic was regulated in the same way - spells that existed solely to kill or injure people were "warlockry", and illegal. And the guys who hunted down warlocks were some nasty types, I can tell you.

Gringo's concept is a wonderful example of what happens when you think about these things instead of ignoring them. You get interesting ideas for laws, and towns, and whole civilizations.

 

[Vaxalon]

In the more civilized cities in my games, there is a distinction between "personal" weapons and "battle" weapons.

A quarterstaff, a cudgel, a dagger, a sling... impractical to try to disarm people of these weapons, so they don't bother. A greatsword, a crossbow, that's a battle weapon.

The constabulary assume that someone who's carrying a battle weapon is expecting a fight. If they're expecting to START a fight then they need to be disarmed, and if they're expecting to be attacked then they're insulting the constabulary's ability to keep the peace.

This means that the constabulary will give trouble to anyone who walks around in full battle gear. They're legal to own, but not to carry around. My players have no problem with their PC's stowing their weapons and armor while in the city.

I've heard of people putting together unobtrusive "city wear" for when they're expecting trouble but don't want to draw attention, generally consisting of a chain shirt under their garments, a shortsword sheathed down the back, and a sling and some bullets in the pocket.

Magic is dealt with informally. The city bans arcane spellcasting within the walls, but only enforces it when there's a complaint. Being irresponsible with magic will get your wizard's license revoked, actually committing a crime with it generally causes punishments for the crime made worse. The standard punishment for using magic in the commission of a crime is to have the index fingers of both hands cut off, and having the tongue divided, but burning at the stake is used for serious crimes.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Salutations,

How about an artifact or curse/blessing on the area- it bring bountiful crops and such, but any person who gets a majority of the people living in the area resentful towards them- they die.

There is little need to hunt dangerous criminals that happens to be in the area- just a "public hating". A meeting of the towns people near the site of the curse/blessing/artifact would happen where the events would be described and as the people grew more angry- the source of their anger would be killed.

Now- how would they be killed? Hmm. If a rural area, then some powerful divine creature that lives in the earth and just comes up and swallows the individual.

Or you could go for a good old bolt of lightning from the sky (which could have a dramatic appearance).

This would make an interesting area for players to stumble into- especially if they tend to be abusive.

FD

As for the politics of the situation- I am thankful for the 2nd amendment.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

This reminds of a SF short story I read a long time ago, I think it was by Roger Zelazny. In the story, you could gain the right to commit any crime (once) by serving out the sentence first. Prison sentences were served out on a hell-world, and you could give up and leave any time you wanted to. The story is about the first person ever to stick out and survive 20 years on the hell-planet so that he could commit a murder. I think the logic was that people would try the punishment to be able to legally commit a crime, then see that the punishment was in no way worth it.