Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5629039" data-attributes="member: 8835">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.</blockquote>