Medieval Justice?

[Wolffenjugend]

Getting back to the original point of the post, I've run feudal campaigns and they generally didn't work out well with the players. The modern, western civilization attitude that values freedom so highly and questions authority didn't mesh well with the feudal era. There were times when the players (who were peasants) should have shown respect to nobles and ecclesiastical authorities but instead told them to x@*$^! off, which didn't go over very well. Especially as the party gained levels and could push the authorities around.

You'd probably be better off having the players either be nobles or have them in an area that is not their native land (thus exempting them from many of the duties and obligations they would otherwise have to fulfill). Or perhaps place them in a frontier area where they were "recruited" in exchange for less obligations and duties but greater risk from monsters (hello adventurers!). The local lord could even be killed, leaving the players in charge...

 

[Sarigar]

If the characters are in a setting similar to Medieval Europe they would fare better starting off as knights (fighters, rangers, and paladins), lesser nobles or coming from merchant families (bards, monks, wizards, and clerics), or peasants (barbarians, druids, rogues, and sorcerers). A knights only prerecs were being able to purchase arms and armor. Just have kings and nobles above the PC's and make sure they tax (money, goods, services) the PC's. Doesn't sound too far from classic D & D to me.

 

[Agback]

Oops - forgot about the jury; although AIR the jury was initially more like a group of Witnesses, chosen for their knowledge of the case and the character of the defendant.

They were the people of the manor, at least, those who owed jury service and whose turn it was to serve. As such, they knew the parties and most of hte facts and everyone's cutomary rights.

A bailiff would stand in for a lord, if the lord couldn't be bothered adjudicating petty manborial disputes, but the sources I have say the lord would also do it himself - maybe it depends on the time period, and also the size of the manor of course.

And on how many scattered manors the lord owned. And on whether the lord was of age. And on whether the lord was a man or a woman. And on whether the lord was a single person or a corporate body such as an abbey, convent, college, or chapter. A knight who owned one or two manors might preside in his own court: but if he did it would be because he was trying to save on the cost of hiring a bailliff. Heiresses, widows, minors, corporate bodies, clergymen, and wealthy aristocrats did not sit, or very rarely sat, in manor court. Among them, they owned far more manors than petty landed knights.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thanks guys!!! This stuff is great, keep it coming!

 

[Agback]

A knights only prerecs were being able to purchase arms and armor.

That was true early and in the south of Europe. But late and in the north the 'gently' born tried with considerable success to make knighthood the privilege of their class.

Regards,

 

[Agback]

G'day

Let me put in a really solid plug for Daily Life in Mediaeval Times by Joseph and Frances Gies. This is an omnibus of their successful and worthwhile Life in a Mediaeval Village, Life in a Mediaeval Castle, and Life in a Mediaeval City. Very much worth reading.

Also,, I'll recommend A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman. This is a "life and times" of Enguerrand de Coucy VI, who lived in the second half of the 14th century. As such it contains a lot of very interesting incidental material about life in the Late Middle Ages.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Silveras]

Let me put in a really solid plug for Daily Life in Mediaeval Times by Joseph and Frances Gies. This is an omnibus of their successful and worthwhile Life in a Mediaeval Village, Life in a Mediaeval Castle, and Life in a Mediaeval City. Very much worth reading.

Well, Amazon lists that book for $95 "used and new", so I don't think I will be getting it soon.

In the meantime, I am surprised there has been no mention of A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe. Let's see... how useful would a D&D gaming book about blending in historical life on a manor, including the justice system with a list of crimes and punishments, be to someone asking about that subject ? I dunno, not at all, I guess.

And while we're discussing books on the daily life... how about Gary Gygax's Living Fantasy ? I rather like the assorted brief "day in the life of" capsules. They help get a feel for the daily routine of a merchant, etc.

Both books are excellent resources for homebrew worlds. In MY opinion, of course.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thanks for the book recommendations!

I was also curious as to what heirarchy existed. I can't make sense of where Dukes, Barons, Lords, Earls, etc, fell in relation to one another.

 

[Wombat]

Thanks for the book recommendations!

I was also curious as to what heirarchy existed. I can't make sense of where Dukes, Barons, Lords, Earls, etc, fell in relation to one another.

The hierarchy is "it depends..."

In general the order is something like this: knight, baron, earl/count, duke, prince, king, emperor, with marquis ranking somewhere around the count-to-duke range, but this is only the "ideal". For example, the title of duke (and marquis) didn't exist in England until late in the Middle Ages, while in certain cases a baron might outrank a count, due to age of family or special prerogatives.

Amount of land, age of particular lineage, favour with an overlord, personal skill or prowess, who you were married to (or which of your children you married to whom) could all affect your social status to a wide extent.

Oh, and while the Gies' omnibus book may be out of print, the inidividual books are still very much in print, at least here in the US -- I saw Life in a Medieval Castle and Life in a Medieval Village today at the local Border's. Barbara Tuchman's book is a bit more problematic -- not really her period. For a good general book on the Middle Ages, I would suggest trying to find a copy of the late C. Warren Hollister's textbook Medieval Europe: a Short History. It is short, to the point, and has a wealth of small details that are great to read through. If you are anywhere near a college town, you can probably find a copy on the cheap in a used book store

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

In terms of general principles, one thing you should bear in mind that the legal system went through periods of intense reform, which mostly consisted of attempts to regularize various codes and claims against universal principles rather than an attempt to reorganize everything.

There were several movements to use Roman and Byzantine law as a standard, Church law often proved an effective and consistent standard, and in general people were very big on keeping to contractual relationships, making certain that all property was owned, and keeping to precedent.

Roman Catholic Churchs are named after saints because in the original systems the saints were the official owners of the property. A neat legal compromise which kept all property private without tying the church lands to any system of inheritance which might eventually preclude their use.

This also meant that there were periods where legal systems would be compared against each other or compete in ways that our current systems rarely ever do. The biggest examples of this are the controversies between secular and royal authorities over who would control religious succession, but equally I just read a very good book on the constant struggle to determine where Imperial power came from and who had it.

Basically the same question of hierarchy asked above, but asked by people of the period and answered in all sorts of hideously confusing and conflicting ways.

There were also manifestations of moral principles we would consider very odd. In Germanic cultures, there was a heavy principle of corporate fining. So that someone's cousin might commit murder and then the whole family would pay the fine so that families were encouraged to control their local hot heads. They also did trial by various tests which were nice because they carried high risk either way so that they made a nice compromise in situations where the truth wasn't entirely clear or the punishment proportional. Take the infamous pick the right knife scene in Hunchback of Notre Dame. The king gives her a 50% chance to get away in a situation that appeases various powers who to free or kill the girl.

Similarly, the Byzantines thought execution was un-Christian so they mutilated everyone or put them in situations where they were guaranteed to suffer but might survive somehow.