The problem with Evil races is not what you think

[Hussar]

Highly unlikely, in that - in the sad event one needs such - in this case there's far too many other single words that say-imply-mean exactly the same thing.

But, can't the same be said for pretty much any English language word? If you want to use primitive without the connotative ickyness, you could use something like "The huts are roughly decorated with giant crab shells".

Or, better yet, "The huts are decorated with giant crab shells" and leave the descriptor off entirely. As was mentioned, in the module, describing the refugee huts as primitive isn't terribly problematic since it's obviously not a comment on a culture - it's simply that the makeshift homes are not very sturdy. However, when you're looking at their regular homes and use the term "Primitive", you start getting problems. I mean, good grief, a house in a fishing community being decorated with shells? How is that primitive at all? You see that NOW in homes that are very much anything but "primitive".

 

[Hussar]

If that's how that society rolls then so be it - off with 'is 'ead. That said, it's more likely a noble than a Paladin would do this, as a Pally still has to answer to her code of honour which is likely to include words to the effect of the weak are to be protected rather than slain.

True; in that many settings are trying to incorporate and-or quasi-replicate elements of many real-world eras, ranging from ancient Egypt through to the Renaissance, and so the laws and-or morals are likely to vary quite widely from place to place.

That said, it's very highly likely that the one type of law that won't be encountered is the tentacled horror known as the 21st-century western legal system.

If you think the 21st century western legal system is a "tentacled horror" you haven't looked into historical legal systems too much. Vikings were far, far more likely to sue you than beat you over the head with an axe. The body of law and what was legal and illegal back in the day is both horrifying and hillarious at the same time.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you think the 21st century western legal system is a "tentacled horror" you haven't looked into historical legal systems too much. Vikings were far, far more likely to sue you than beat you over the head with an axe. The body of law and what was legal and illegal back in the day is both horrifying and hillarious at the same time.

“From the fury of the Norsemen’s legal team, oh Lord, deliver us!”

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem with trying to use "in game society" being the determinant is that the "in game society" is likely very much a modern society anyway. Unless you have no problems with that player's paladin killing an inn keeper for failing to be properly deferential. Most games are not based on anything even approximating medieval laws.

Well, and any argument for why such a society was structured in any given way by its author is our old friend the Thermian Argument.

I doubt most people can even imagine medieval laws, let alone play by them. I'm no legal scholar, but I bet I could tell you 10 things about law in the 11th Century that pretty much everyone in this thread would be astounded by. Here's one, authorities in this time period divided up the peasantry (which is 97% of society, literally) into 'tens'. If one misbehaved, all of them were guilty. There was no notion that this was unfair or unjust in any sense whatsoever. The general conception was that everyone was assigned (presumably by God, though I'm sure 'fate' or whatever would do equally well) to their specific 'place', and if one stepped out, then the others must be lacking too. So if someone ran off, their friends would simply be beaten until they returned, or everyone they knew was gone.

 

[pemerton]

I doubt most people can even imagine medieval laws, let alone play by them. I'm no legal scholar, but I bet I could tell you 10 things about law in the 11th Century that pretty much everyone in this thread would be astounded by. Here's one, authorities in this time period divided up the peasantry (which is 97% of society, literally) into 'tens'. If one misbehaved, all of them were guilty.

A further thing, which I think is underappreciated in a lot of FRPG world-building, is what is encompassed by authorities. I think it can be hard, for those who haven't experienced it or really intellectually engaged with it, to imagine the radical difference between the reach and the capacity of (say) the contemporary American state and the reach of (say) an 11th century central European noble.

One reason for structuring liability in group terms is simply that anything more fine-grained was not technically feasible.

 

[Aldarc]

My point is that I don't see a risk of reproducing harmful concepts. I only game with adults, and their opinions are already formed.

This is utter nonsense! It proposes and connects the idea that adult opinions somehow don't or can't change or be affected. And it is so easily disproven by adults of all ages getting roped into conspiracy theory nonsense and more.

 

[Hussar]

I wonder how many players would accept an npc noble walking up and demanding they hand over their holy avenger simply because they aren’t nobles and don’t deserve to carry such a fine weapon.

And then being told that they are breaking the law if they refuse.

Hell I had players that totally lost their poop when told there is no self defence laws in Waterdeep. You kill someone, you are guilty of murder no matter what. Their argument was that no society would ever have such a law.

 

[pemerton]

I had players that totally lost their poop when told there is no self defence laws in Waterdeep. You kill someone, you are guilty of murder no matter what. Their argument was that no society would ever have such a law.

In fairness, that's a strange situation. Is there a historical precdent?

 

[Ixal]

In many places there wouldn't be many, if any, codified laws, instead it depending entirely on what the ruling noble decides.
In the case of self defence it would depend on status (and money). If a noble killed a peasant it was obviously self defence. If it was the other way around it was murder. If it was between peasants it was whatever the noble decides it was.

 

[Hussar]

According to the Code Legal for Waterdeep, Murder comes in two forms: Murdering a citizen without justification: penalty death or hard labor (plus some other stuff and; Murdering a citizen with justification: Exile up to 5 years or hard labor up to 3 years or damages up to 1000 gp paid to victims next of kin.

Note, it does specify citizens there.

As far as historical precendent? Well, in Edo Japan, simply being of Samurai status was enough to remove any charges of murder against someone of lower status. You simply couldn't be accused of murdering someone. And, obviously, anyone killing someone of higher status would automatically be guilty of murder and put to death, regardless of circumstance. So, while not a direct analogue, it does kinda fit.

One could also look at situations where you have slavery, for example too. An owner who kills a slave isn't guilty of anything. A slave who kills an owner is guilty of murder, regardless of situation.

Note, self defense laws vary a lot between countries even in modern times. What counts as self-defense in some parts of America would be second degree murder in Canada, for example. ((Sorry, this is treading REALLY close to politics, so, I don't want to elaborate more))

I will admit, however, to not being any sort of legal historian, so, I really don't know. I'm just spitballing.