Question about medieval law

[Celebrim]

I would think that the commoner had no standing to arrest, imprison, or assault anyone - noble or otherwise - regardless of the situation. Commoner has asserted magesterial authority and placed himself above the law. This is unlikely to end well.

Commoner faces whatever punishments are meted out for false imprisonment and assault. At least some of these charges probably don't depend on the noble's guilt! Noble probably asserts that the allegations are false. Court probably finds that lacking any evidence from a credible source - the commoner appearing to be little better than a madman and is certainly a criminal - that no charges are to be brought against noble. Further, noble sues commoner for slandering his character, and lacking evidence of his guilt other than heresay, probably wins.

 

[NN]

My question is about the social status vs. the truth.

In a standard quase-medieval setting, a citizen of no particular social standing overhears a noble saying something incriminating (not as bad as treason or murder, but still something really bad). This law-abiding citizen single-handedly captures the noble and brings him to justice, telling what he has overheard. Noble refutes citizen's claims and claims that the citizen is lying or mistaken. When/if asked to submit to magical interrogation, nobleman refuses based on honor.

This may not be enough information to draw conclusions, but please ask questions.

But my question is: How should this situation should be resolved?

If the noble has powerful enemies, and/or the accusations strike a chord with those in power, then the noble is secretly magically scryed. If this shows guilt, then some convuluted justification for the arrest will be cooked up - that legalises the arrest while preserving the apparant integirty of the feudal system. (Oh look, the commoner was secretly a royal agent all along! And heres the warrant to prove it)

If not, commoner swings from gibbet.

 

[Kzach]

If the noble has powerful enemies, and/or the accusations strike a chord with those in power, then the noble is secretly magically scryed. If this shows guilt, then some convuluted justification for the arrest will be cooked up - that legalises the arrest while preserving the apparant integirty of the feudal system. (Oh look, the commoner was secretly a royal agent all along! And heres the warrant to prove it)

If not, commoner swings from gibbet.

This is sort-of the gist I was going for but got caught up in the minutia of. Essentially I think it would boil down to politics rather than justice or morality.

 

[CuRoi]

I'll answer from my own campaign's perspective.

First - the abducted nobleman would be released and most likely the commoner taken into custody. If the commoner claimed to have overheard some horrible thing, the nobleman would most likely deny he said it. Without witnesses, what was said is immaterial. Therefore, we now only have two crimes abduciton/false imprisonment and perhaps slander. There is no way such a case would move in the direction of magical interrogation of the nobleman based on one individual's word.

The commoner is now the defendant in a legal case with the nobleman as the plaintiff. Each party would need to offer a pledge or surety based on this path. Most likely the nobleman can provide this in gold, the commoner may need to provide it in livestock or a family member or both.

Each pleads their case, the Brehons (judges, most likely druids, possibly other noblemen or chieftains) formulate a verdict and provide support for their reasoning (whether maxim, legal verse, analogy, natural law, etc.) In the end, the commoner very likely loses everything he has, and quite possibly becomes a slave unless they were well-to-do with some assets to give (gold, livestock, etc. - In a case of abduction I would most likely place the ultimate fine at the value of a freeman, approx 21 milk cows...approx 600 gold)

Now IF the nobleman wants to avoid the public scene caused by a trial, say, if that could shed too much light on the "bad deed", the noble could show mercy and decline to prosecute the commoner. Then, naturally, to tie up lose strings, said commoner would very likely end up dying an early death to silence him.

 

[Janx]

No, peasants would bring suit against the baron in his own court, with the baron as judge!

If this was the case, the Commoner would hopefully not be so stupid as to bother arresting him.

I was just watching a the shows Camelot and the Tudors. Both had some disputes being handled.

in a dispute of 2 sides, it seems that the somebody in higher authority presides over it (a noble, or the king).

In the case of H8's divorce, it appears the church presided over that case (albeit, H8 got to assign the judges).

In the case of the peasant rebellion of episode 21, there wasn't a case. The peasants ultimately got to petition the king to change things. thus, the king presided over the matter.

The difference being there was no higher authority than the king for the peasants to sue him in court.

I'd like to see more feedback from the OP. There's been an assumption about bad things happening to the commoner because of his citizen's arrest. This chain of reasoning hinges on the commoner being ignorant of the law and his tactical situation.

Do we really consider that a fair assumption? If the Commoner was a PC and wasn't given ANY clue of the laws of the land he lived in, this outcome would be bad GMing.

Or is this merely a matter of the OP setting up the situation of the guilty Noble and what can happen next, rather than what happens to the commoner.

 

[Celebrim]

There is no way such a case would move in the direction of magical interrogation of the nobleman based on one individual's word.

I would also argue that magical interrogation would be an unusual recourse even in a society that didn't find torture to be objectionable as a means of obtaining a confession.

The legal problem with magical interrogation is that ultimately it falls back to one person's testimony against anothers. In this case it is the testimony of the person versus the testimony of the wizard who is responcible for casting the spell. Magical interrogation is only as reliable as the interrogator. If the person is compelled to tell the truth, couldn't they also be compelled to lie? How trusting will the courts specifically and the society as a whole be that the spellcaster has played fairly and that the spell operates as described. If the spellcaster says, "I've detected evil in this man.", why should the spellcaster be trusted? If the spellcaster says, "When I cast this spell, the guilty party will glow purple?", how do you know he's not a charlatan casting an simple illusion spell? Was it the zone of truth that caused the particular answers in question, or was it a dominate person spell? And if we are going to give total trust to these spells, what about magic that thwarts the magic?

I think it unlikely that ordinary folk would hold much stock in things that they can't understand or control. Trial by ordeal or torture would probably seem inherently more fair than some witch or warlock messing with your brain.

Only societies with absolute trust in some organization are going to allow that organization to arbitrate what is truth. That might happen in some theocracies, or in some cultures where there exists a body of spellcasters whose impartiality and independence is backed by up huge visible sacrifices and ritual that sets them well apart from ordinary affairs and above the influence of any one, but such situations are probably rare in most campaign settings.

 

[prosfilaes]

I would also argue that magical interrogation would be an unusual recourse even in a society that didn't find torture to be objectionable as a means of obtaining a confession.

The legal problem with magical interrogation is that ultimately it falls back to one person's testimony against anothers.

They're an expert witness. When a geologist says that this dirt could only have come from the Mesoretic Deposits in the north of town, that's just like a wizard telling us the results of a spell. We can always have dueling experts, if you can find another paladin to say that this person doesn't detect as evil.

Magic might be a bit harder depending on the society, but I doubt that clerical magic is going to get much skepticism in most D&D worlds, with Eberron being the exception.

 

[Stoat]

They're an expert witness. When a geologist says that this dirt could only have come from the Mesoretic Deposits in the north of town, that's just like a wizard telling us the results of a spell. We can always have dueling experts, if you can find another paladin to say that this person doesn't detect as evil.

Magic might be a bit harder depending on the society, but I doubt that clerical magic is going to get much skepticism in most D&D worlds, with Eberron being the exception.

This is how I would handle it in my game. Testimony from witnesses who cast divination spells is admissible, but the testifying witness is subject to cross examination.

 

[CuRoi]

I'd like to see more feedback from the OP. There's been an assumption about bad things happening to the commoner because of his citizen's arrest. This chain of reasoning hinges on the commoner being ignorant of the law and his tactical situation.

Do we really consider that a fair assumption? If the Commoner was a PC and wasn't given ANY clue of the laws of the land he lived in, this outcome would be bad GMing.

Or is this merely a matter of the OP setting up the situation of the guilty Noble and what can happen next, rather than what happens to the commoner.

You are correct, much more information is needed, I think most people are just responding to what was posted. If the commoner is a player, is this necessarily a bad thing if they get "in trouble" for arresting this guy? Obviously, no Chaotic (Good?) act goes unpunished. Hopefully the DM can pull it off without ruining the game for the player(s) and instead using the tough spot the player is put in to advance the story in a meaningful way.

 

[Janx]

This is how I would handle it in my game. Testimony from witnesses who cast divination spells is admissible, but the testifying witness is subject to cross examination.

It would also stand to reason, that in a region with a dominant religion, that a cleric would be brought in to cast the spell, and his word would be taken at face value, given that he is impartial to the case.

Basically, I would not assume that all courts run with 2 sides who have identical rights and opportunity. thus, the concept of cross examination or bringing in your own experts may not be considered.

In fact, if the court brings in an expert, NOT the defendant or plaintiff, that could be considered more accurate than both sides doing so. For one thing, both sides could pay a expert to agree with their case. Thus negating any benefit to said expert.

Whereas, the court's expert answers only to the court and only supplies 1 answer.