D&D 5E Putting Characters on Trial

[77IM]

The approach I'd take is,

1. Give each judge some sort of motivation or goal that either a) the PCs can help them achieve if found innocent or b) the finding of the PCs' innocence is itself furthering the goal. For an example of a), if there are other dragon problems nearby that need dealing with; for an example of b), if some judge wants to set a precedent for allowing dragon-fighting. Corruption makes this really, really easy, but even those judges on the side of law and justice should have reasons to find the PCs innocent.

2. Make it easy for the PCs to discover these motivations or goals. Ask around, grease some palms, make some die rolls, make some promises -- and get that info into the players' hands.

3. The PCs can now use that information for leverage to persuade the judges.

Resolve it with some Charisma checks. If the players presented strong arguments, then success is innocence, and failure is light punishment, or a commuted severe punishment. If the players presented weak arguments, then success is a light punishment, or a commuted sever punishment, and failure is a severe punishment that gets reduced in exchange for "community service" (i.e. a quest). Of course if the PCs refuse the community service then the campaign shifts to a prison-break scenario...

 

[Platostotle]

So what is the intention of the trial and the other rulers? Are they in league with the cultist and want the PCs removed? If not the question is again why the trial is held. Are dragons protected by the laws of the city and they are accused of murder? If yes, why keep the trial in secret? And if not what would it accomplish?
And how can you even keep a fight with a dragon a secret?

Another question is, why should the PCs submit to the trial instead of murdering everyone and flee?

The ruling council is concerned about retribution leading to further chaos within the city. At least one of them (the one we know is evil) was bribed by the cultists and has concerns about being revealed, and is the main force pushing for their punishment and secrecy, but none are actually affiliated. The city is a port city, and the fight happened in a private dock used for smuggling (the cult was smuggling dragon eggs, one of which the players unwittingly returned to the mother), the city guard did notice the fight, but passed it off as a raid against the smugglers. There is at least one other group that knows the truth, a group of good aligned assassins who target evil nobles who can't be brought to justice by the laws of the city.

The characters are currently outside of the city, but on returning I plan to have them arrested while passing through the gates. The will be trapped between the outer gate and a portcullis with murder holes over head. They could certainly try to fight their way out, but their odds would be slim, and knowing this group I doubt they would try.

 

[Platostotle]

The approach I'd take is,

1. Give each judge some sort of motivation or goal that either a) the PCs can help them achieve if found innocent or b) the finding of the PCs' innocence is itself furthering the goal. For an example of a), if there are other dragon problems nearby that need dealing with; for an example of b), if some judge wants to set a precedent for allowing dragon-fighting. Corruption makes this really, really easy, but even those judges on the side of law and justice should have reasons to find the PCs innocent.

2. Make it easy for the PCs to discover these motivations or goals. Ask around, grease some palms, make some die rolls, make some promises -- and get that info into the players' hands.

3. The PCs can now use that information for leverage to persuade the judges.

Resolve it with some Charisma checks. If the players presented strong arguments, then success is innocence, and failure is light punishment, or a commuted severe punishment. If the players presented weak arguments, then success is a light punishment, or a commuted sever punishment, and failure is a severe punishment that gets reduced in exchange for "community service" (i.e. a quest). Of course if the PCs refuse the community service then the campaign shifts to a prison-break scenario...

Do you think I should use a Zone of Truth during testimony, or allow the players to bluff? I'm not even sure I need it, I expect most of the players to be truthful, but I always try to prepare for the players to surprise me, and act how I think the NPCs would act.

 

[Derren]

The ruling council is concerned about retribution leading to further chaos within the city. At least one of them (the one we know is evil) was bribed by the cultists and has concerns about being revealed, and is the main force pushing for their punishment and secrecy, but none are actually affiliated. The city is a port city, and the fight happened in a private dock used for smuggling (the cult was smuggling dragon eggs, one of which the players unwittingly returned to the mother), the city guard did notice the fight, but passed it off as a raid against the smugglers. There is at least one other group that knows the truth, a group of good aligned assassins who target evil nobles who can't be brought to justice by the laws of the city.

The characters are currently outside of the city, but on returning I plan to have them arrested while passing through the gates. The will be trapped between the outer gate and a portcullis with murder holes over head. They could certainly try to fight their way out, but their odds would be slim, and knowing this group I doubt they would try.

That still leaves the purpose of the trial open. I think instead of trial you mean tribunal. It is not about laws being broken. The tribunal is just there to get the council to agree on something.
So no technicalities like self defense and the law will help them. One councilman wants them dead and tries to convince the others that is the right thing to do.
Basically the PCs don't need to convince the undecided councilmen that they were right, they need to convince them that the councilman who wants them freed is right.

The first order for the PCs would be to identify their ally on their council (shouldn't be too hard), make contact with him and find ways to sway the majority of others to his side while disrupting the influence the evil one has.

 

[Platostotle]

That still leaves the purpose of the trial open. I think instead of trial you mean tribunal. It is not about laws being broken. The tribunal is just there to get the council to agree on something.

Thank you for the distinction. I believe you are right. I still think evidence will help convince the rest of the council, there is a bit of a paper trail left by the cultists and smugglers linking the cult to a more powerful foreign state.

 

[77IM]

Do you think I should use a Zone of Truth during testimony, or allow the players to bluff? I'm not even sure I need it, I expect most of the players to be truthful, but I always try to prepare for the players to surprise me, and act how I think the NPCs would act.

Oh, definitely. But telegraph this -- maybe some shady character warns the PCs and offers them countermeasures, for a price. Or, maybe a non-shady character has a legitimate reason to subvert the "lie detector."

For example, zone of truth allows a saving throw and the caster knows whether you passed or failed. Presumably the council has someone they trust to cast the spell. But what if you had a deal with the caster to announce the wrong outcome?

 

[Beleriphon]

On the mechanics of running the trial, the idea of the 4E skill challenge is a good place to draw inspiration from. A series of skill checks that must be passed before too many fail. The easiest way to accomplish it is with opposed checks against the other party and fixed check against the judges to sway them.

I'd suggest some actions count as automatic "wins" if complete before the trial start, but I'd never allow more than half of the needed successes to be auto win markers though. It allows the characters to build up a buffer so they can't flub the whole thing with a few bad roles, but still allows the actual dice to make a difference.