5.) I'm not saying Thunderdome in any way meets modern conceptions of justice. It was more of a joke, though frankly many PCs may well prefer trial by test of mettle than role playing through a court room procedural. And if you look at the pivot point White lays out in The Once and Future King between trial by ordeal as opposed to trial by law, well, it's actually trial by Law through which Mordred is first able to strike a blow against Arthurs muddled efforts at a utopia. To go from there to broad strokes, there an argument that as society's bind themselves more to law and flourish in the way a "nation of laws" allows, a society becomes more cynical. So justice can be found as the foundation for a campaign that's not so much United Federation of Planets style enlightenment but more Star Wars fall of the Republic style decadence protected by arrogance.
4.) Wasn't really talking about special operator types, and I'd say PCs are generally mercenaries than something directly within their state's chain of command. I was speaking more of the broader national security establishment, consisting of the intelligence community and mostly people who stare at computers. In the real world most modern states in the liberal democracy mode traditionally drew a distinction between domestic investigative activity (i.e. limit it to truly criminal matters as opposed to outside the state where investigations into non-corrupt political and economic activity are actually the mainstay of intelligence work). You can look at the UK "Troubles" in Northern Ireland as contained example of how a purportedly liberal democracy can heavily blur those lines, and I'm not talking about troops in the streets I'm talking about lack of due process exercised by police agencies in the name of protections of the state. In the U.S. you had a massive realignment of a myriad of traditionally customs and treasury aligned entities gathered under the newly articulated mandate of "Homeland Security" and then a whole bunch of intentionally open ended legal thinking as to what can and can't be done in terms of surveillance powers inside the U.S. What I'm trying to get at for world building or campaign arcs can be summed up with two questions: A.) What happens to your high powered magically informed justice system when the state it maintains justice within enters what it recognizes as existential threat/crisis? B.) Why I discuss the "other side" of criminal justice and policing I think is still best summed up by the Clash's "Guns of Brixton." If you have a high powered magical justice system, does that happen? And if not, what possibly social economic magical systems exist to make sure it doesn't? I guess we're talking literal magical thinking here.
3.) Maybe, maybe not. On the state level I'm thinking of the East German Stassi (good movie depicting how deep their domestic surveillance apparatus went is "The Lives of Others") who got a pretty granular understanding of E. German population in a largely if not entirely pre-digital infrastructure. On a privatized level with magic maybe there's a Candlekeep level librarian style "chronicler" entity in the society. They don't want the throne per se, but they are a power that may well exist above the law with the right motivation.
2.) Most recent tentpole adventure published had a Priest of Torm, who actually wasn't, yet maintained the highest clerical rank in his city state and used it to bring it down, literally. I'm sure there are infernal and other evil divinities more than encouraging to let its clerics infiltrate a "just" system to misguide it. And going to my state in decline arc, a justice system could be set up envisioning its maintenance by the most diligent, learned and holders of the highest integrity ... and then devolves into a system of cynical bureaucratic gamesmanship where corners are cut and rules are flaunted. Maybe not universal in the system, maybe just a precinct or circuit and the PCs get to play internal affairs or inspectors general, because everyone loves those guys. Or they're workers in the system and they're subject to a brutal audit (because the component that sent the auditor wanted to see how the PCs would perform in the crucible to make sure there were Untouchables in a system that was alarmingly corrupt).
1.) If you run your game entirely in Waterdeep, that's fine. However, things could get interestingly complicated if they were agents or investigators on the side of the city's law and their quarry leave the city. Extradition is a perfect example where on the surface similar value holding societies actually come into conflict over matters of law.
0.) Going into foundational grounds inspired by that last mention of extradition. A couple of reasons other states (I mean countries) object/reject extradition proceedings: A.) Country is always a sanctuary to its people and no one will be rendered to the legal system of another state. B.) The law for which the person is being prosecuted in the requesting country isn't a thing in the country harboring the subject of the extradition request. C.) The penalty for the crime in requesting country is considered inhumane or excessive by the laws of the harboring country (usually death penalty or other corporal punishment, but lengthy prison sentences are also grounds). All those points are something that can be engaged within a D&D Law and Order game, but that last point on methods of punishment may be most interesting to explore magic's role in justice/reparation/retribution.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
0.) Going into foundational grounds inspired by that last mention of extradition. A couple of reasons other states (I mean countries) object/reject extradition proceedings: A.) Country is always a sanctuary to its people and no one will be rendered to the legal system of another state. B.) The law for which the person is being prosecuted in the requesting country isn't a thing in the country harboring the subject of the extradition request. C.) The penalty for the crime in requesting country is considered inhumane or excessive by the laws of the harboring country (usually death penalty or other corporal punishment, but lengthy prison sentences are also grounds). All those points are something that can be engaged within a D&D Law and Order game, but that last point on methods of punishment may be most interesting to explore magic's role in justice/reparation/retribution.
The reverse could also be true. Although any crime requiring extradition would probably be severe.
Not only is the party tasked with finding this fugitive, once the government discovers why they need this person, the government declares that the fugitive should suffer their brand of justice which is extremely more punishing than what would be applied "at home". So does the party let it happen, or do they now rescue the criminal?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
0.) Going into foundational grounds inspired by that last mention of extradition. A couple of reasons other states (I mean countries) object/reject extradition proceedings: A.) Country is always a sanctuary to its people and no one will be rendered to the legal system of another state. B.) The law for which the person is being prosecuted in the requesting country isn't a thing in the country harboring the subject of the extradition request. C.) The penalty for the crime in requesting country is considered inhumane or excessive by the laws of the harboring country (usually death penalty or other corporal punishment, but lengthy prison sentences are also grounds). All those points are something that can be engaged within a D&D Law and Order game, but that last point on methods of punishment may be most interesting to explore magic's role in justice/reparation/retribution.
The reverse could also be true. Although any crime requiring extradition would probably be severe.
Not only is the party tasked with finding this fugitive, once the government discovers why they need this person, the government declares that the fugitive should suffer their brand of justice which is extremely more punishing than what would be applied "at home". So does the party let it happen, or do they now rescue the criminal?
If a country is housing someone and another country requests that country to turn them over for a trial and the country housing them refuses then there is nothing that the country wanting them can do about it legally.
If a country is housing someone and another country requests that country to turn them over for a trial and the country housing them refuses then there is nothing that the country wanting them can do about it legally.
Not being able to legally do anything is not the same as not being able to do anything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If a country is housing someone and another country requests that country to turn them over for a trial and the country housing them refuses then there is nothing that the country wanting them can do about it legally.
Not being able to legally do anything is not the same as not being able to do anything.
Well I mean they can take political action against said country. Country holding criminal doesn't want to give it to Country A? then Country A says the ambassador that has been living a life of luxury in the palace now has to live in the city and find their own housing. If the criminal is returned Country A claims they will reverse this course of action. Unless the world as an over arching body that governs countries, this action is in fact legal so long as it follows Country A's laws.
If there is a "zone of truth" style court, speaking justice, how do they investigate convicts or witnesses that have been told only parts of the story or lies, so that they actually belive in their best knowledge, that a lie is actually true, without having any information that it isn't... this is actually not lying, while still telling something that is not the truth.
If there is a "zone of truth" style court, speaking justice, how do they investigate convicts or witnesses that have been told only parts of the story or lies, so that they actually belive in their best knowledge, that a lie is actually true, without having any information that it isn't... this is actually not lying, while still telling something that is not the truth.
In criminal investigation, prosecution, or a civil matter, the utility of such a witness could be dismissed as "hearsay" to a material fact regardless since the testimony you're presenting is that "so and so told me x". If this is the sort of case predicated on a criminal informant (aka "Jailhouse Snitch"), much of the additional testimony and evidence would have to corroborate what the informant's heard.
But the utility of "truth" being examined here is "I heard someone say this." That doesn't mean what was being heard was truthful, just the fact that the witness heard those words, or "understood" those words to mean (say in the existence of Thieves can't, cooperating witnesses are sometime brought into a trial to explain what coded language may mean within a criminal organization like "toothpaste" could mean cocaine base, etc.).
What pushes the utility of Zone of Truth in interrogating an eye witness as opposed to a defendant further would be illusion magic the witness did not realize was illusory. In that case what the witness saw with their eyes is reported as "what they saw". The character isn't lying. In most modern courtrooms, the job of the opposition is to cast doubt on the witness through two means: 1.) attacking the overall credibility of the witness ("you've got a history of lying") and 2.) challenging that perception (you really saw all that on a moonless and starless night?).
For most of human history, eyewitness accounts have been considered the most accurate form of evidence. In reality they tend to be extremely inaccurate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If a country is housing someone and another country requests that country to turn them over for a trial and the country housing them refuses then there is nothing that the country wanting them can do about it legally.
Not being able to legally do anything is not the same as not being able to do anything.
Well I mean they can take political action against said country. Country holding criminal doesn't want to give it to Country A? then Country A says the ambassador that has been living a life of luxury in the palace now has to live in the city and find their own housing. If the criminal is returned Country A claims they will reverse this course of action. Unless the world as an over arching body that governs countries, this action is in fact legal so long as it follows Country A's laws.
If a country is housing someone and another country requests that country to turn them over for a trial and the country housing them refuses then there is nothing that the country wanting them can do about it legally.
Not being able to legally do anything is not the same as not being able to do anything.
Well I mean they can take political action against said country. Country holding criminal doesn't want to give it to Country A? then Country A says the ambassador that has been living a life of luxury in the palace now has to live in the city and find their own housing. If the criminal is returned Country A claims they will reverse this course of action. Unless the world as an over arching body that governs countries, this action is in fact legal so long as it follows Country A's laws.
I don't think it was a direct or stated factor but an indictment and warrant for the arrest of Noriega played into America invading Panama "Just Cause" (they could).
In an even more grey area, and giving more a PC party to do if they're comfortable look into the legal reasoning behind "extraordinary rendition" (which literally means "this is not normal" "delivery into custody").
Re: a fugitive trying to take sanctuary/amnesty in a country where the penalties for the crime are harsher than the country wherein they offended ... if the fugitive is of means, that's just not smart. But it does happen. Another thing that can happen to non citizens is expulsion but not extradition (though diplomatic channels may be worked to give intelligence on the date of expulsion and known means/conveyance being use to expel the individual).
Diplomatic or political fall out for one regime harboring a fugitive? That depends on the power dynamics between the regimes. Russia is openly harboring Eric Snowden, has their standing in the world or relationship with the U.S. even suffered for that specific action?
Took me a while since some of the stories in this vein are wild and unbelievable, but I finally found the citation, there's also this:
In the middle of the article is discussed an operation where U.S. Marshals paid off officials in a Mexican locality (with no notice to the larger Mexican government) to arrest someone and literally shove the person through a hole in a border fence where American agents were awaiting to arrest someone ... sounds like a job for PCs. It's not true historical or legal reasoning, but I like saying American law enforcement can do things like this "Just Cause."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
5.) I'm not saying Thunderdome in any way meets modern conceptions of justice. It was more of a joke, though frankly many PCs may well prefer trial by test of mettle than role playing through a court room procedural. And if you look at the pivot point White lays out in The Once and Future King between trial by ordeal as opposed to trial by law, well, it's actually trial by Law through which Mordred is first able to strike a blow against Arthurs muddled efforts at a utopia. To go from there to broad strokes, there an argument that as society's bind themselves more to law and flourish in the way a "nation of laws" allows, a society becomes more cynical. So justice can be found as the foundation for a campaign that's not so much United Federation of Planets style enlightenment but more Star Wars fall of the Republic style decadence protected by arrogance.
4.) Wasn't really talking about special operator types, and I'd say PCs are generally mercenaries than something directly within their state's chain of command. I was speaking more of the broader national security establishment, consisting of the intelligence community and mostly people who stare at computers. In the real world most modern states in the liberal democracy mode traditionally drew a distinction between domestic investigative activity (i.e. limit it to truly criminal matters as opposed to outside the state where investigations into non-corrupt political and economic activity are actually the mainstay of intelligence work). You can look at the UK "Troubles" in Northern Ireland as contained example of how a purportedly liberal democracy can heavily blur those lines, and I'm not talking about troops in the streets I'm talking about lack of due process exercised by police agencies in the name of protections of the state. In the U.S. you had a massive realignment of a myriad of traditionally customs and treasury aligned entities gathered under the newly articulated mandate of "Homeland Security" and then a whole bunch of intentionally open ended legal thinking as to what can and can't be done in terms of surveillance powers inside the U.S. What I'm trying to get at for world building or campaign arcs can be summed up with two questions: A.) What happens to your high powered magically informed justice system when the state it maintains justice within enters what it recognizes as existential threat/crisis? B.) Why I discuss the "other side" of criminal justice and policing I think is still best summed up by the Clash's "Guns of Brixton." If you have a high powered magical justice system, does that happen? And if not, what possibly social economic magical systems exist to make sure it doesn't? I guess we're talking literal magical thinking here.
3.) Maybe, maybe not. On the state level I'm thinking of the East German Stassi (good movie depicting how deep their domestic surveillance apparatus went is "The Lives of Others") who got a pretty granular understanding of E. German population in a largely if not entirely pre-digital infrastructure. On a privatized level with magic maybe there's a Candlekeep level librarian style "chronicler" entity in the society. They don't want the throne per se, but they are a power that may well exist above the law with the right motivation.
2.) Most recent tentpole adventure published had a Priest of Torm, who actually wasn't, yet maintained the highest clerical rank in his city state and used it to bring it down, literally. I'm sure there are infernal and other evil divinities more than encouraging to let its clerics infiltrate a "just" system to misguide it. And going to my state in decline arc, a justice system could be set up envisioning its maintenance by the most diligent, learned and holders of the highest integrity ... and then devolves into a system of cynical bureaucratic gamesmanship where corners are cut and rules are flaunted. Maybe not universal in the system, maybe just a precinct or circuit and the PCs get to play internal affairs or inspectors general, because everyone loves those guys. Or they're workers in the system and they're subject to a brutal audit (because the component that sent the auditor wanted to see how the PCs would perform in the crucible to make sure there were Untouchables in a system that was alarmingly corrupt).
1.) If you run your game entirely in Waterdeep, that's fine. However, things could get interestingly complicated if they were agents or investigators on the side of the city's law and their quarry leave the city. Extradition is a perfect example where on the surface similar value holding societies actually come into conflict over matters of law.
0.) Going into foundational grounds inspired by that last mention of extradition. A couple of reasons other states (I mean countries) object/reject extradition proceedings: A.) Country is always a sanctuary to its people and no one will be rendered to the legal system of another state. B.) The law for which the person is being prosecuted in the requesting country isn't a thing in the country harboring the subject of the extradition request. C.) The penalty for the crime in requesting country is considered inhumane or excessive by the laws of the harboring country (usually death penalty or other corporal punishment, but lengthy prison sentences are also grounds). All those points are something that can be engaged within a D&D Law and Order game, but that last point on methods of punishment may be most interesting to explore magic's role in justice/reparation/retribution.
0. You seem to be assuming that society has to mirror modern society perfectly. However issues such as extradition were a thing even in Medieval times. Foreign relations, including jurisdictional issues have existed ever since whenever the first two human tribes met... and likely before that in meetings between groups of social animals.
1. Complications make for good stories. And entire long running TV series survive set in specific cities, running more years than most campaigns. You joked about CSI: Waterdeep, but the original CSI lasted 15 seasons.
2. Yes, but any system can similarly devolve. You seem to be trying to make the case that it would be worse with magic, but with magic, internal affairs has more tools as well. And frankly, if the entire system is going to be corrupted, it does not matter what the system is. When the corruption is that wide scale, then it is either simply corrupt, or you have Gomorrah (or Numenor) style divine intervention, where the honest people are given warning and a chance to leave and the rest of the civilization is destroyed outright.
3. You are making my point (2) here. The Stassi were pre-digital and managed all that without magic. When the government is that controlling, they will be, just as no constitution can override a sufficiently large angry mob.
4. Can a citizen even be a mercenary in the employ of their own monarch? Aren't they considered automatically in the service of the Crown, simply by being a citizen, even if they are normally left to their own devices, subject to the general laws of the land?
5. This comes back to my 'because easier' point, or perhaps 'because deemed more entertaining.' A modern style justice system is not for every group of players. If you prefer a different system, use a different system. You do not need anyone's approval (other than that of your players, but safe to say you know them better than anyone else posting here).
I'm not really trying to "win" anything here. I'm simply throwing some expanded and encouraging thinking for those who want to do deep dives into justice and related systems in their game worlds. The bottom line is unless you're game is locked into one area (ala CSI Waterdeep, which isn't a diss, I can totally see a game like lasting for some time as would any city bound campaign) a world can allow for a variety of systems that can pose a variety of opportunities and challenges for players whatever "side" (maybe facet) of "justice" they find themselves.
For 0.) and 4.) I'm not assuming everyone's game's society is mirror or cracked mirror of American or any other legal system. I'm well aware that present law derives from concepts or precepts that go back to at least Medieval times. In some cases closer adherence to the rationalizations of medieval power and how the law plays out at varying levels of society is warranted by setting, though from my observation here, most gamers seem to play in a socially "modern" or even "postmodern" mode in regards to the individual and state. Given all that, the presumptive arrangement between a state and the individual regarding compulsory service probably varies from game to game and likely also dependent on where you are in the game world. There are authoritarian and authoritative regimes in the Forgotten Realms, but there are also a lot of free states city states, and arguably quite a few anarcho-collectives.
Everything else wasn't an attempt to "challenge" anyone in a way of saying "you're wrong" but rather there's "more to think about here as you tailor your game."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If the legal system is "noble says something, everyone else does as they are told" then magic is a bit irrelevant.
Except, I guess, for the noble's wizard enforcing the noble's wishes.
I don't know, the story of Moses and the Pharaoh and the magical staff's role in that drama may have some things to say about the relevance of magic when faced with a King who's word is law ;)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Everything else wasn't an attempt to "challenge" anyone in a way of saying "you're wrong" but rather there's "more to think about here as you tailor your game."
I agree that there is a lot to think about and issues that require deep thought. Modern legal systems are complex and not easily understood even by many trained lawyers. It is a bit like economics. Get a dozen economists in a room and you will get at least 13 different, usually conflicting opinions on the economy.
We're just not doing economics which can literally incorporate magical thinking. Just no. That way be madness.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
5.) I'm not saying Thunderdome in any way meets modern conceptions of justice. It was more of a joke, though frankly many PCs may well prefer trial by test of mettle than role playing through a court room procedural. And if you look at the pivot point White lays out in The Once and Future King between trial by ordeal as opposed to trial by law, well, it's actually trial by Law through which Mordred is first able to strike a blow against Arthurs muddled efforts at a utopia. To go from there to broad strokes, there an argument that as society's bind themselves more to law and flourish in the way a "nation of laws" allows, a society becomes more cynical. So justice can be found as the foundation for a campaign that's not so much United Federation of Planets style enlightenment but more Star Wars fall of the Republic style decadence protected by arrogance.
4.) Wasn't really talking about special operator types, and I'd say PCs are generally mercenaries than something directly within their state's chain of command. I was speaking more of the broader national security establishment, consisting of the intelligence community and mostly people who stare at computers. In the real world most modern states in the liberal democracy mode traditionally drew a distinction between domestic investigative activity (i.e. limit it to truly criminal matters as opposed to outside the state where investigations into non-corrupt political and economic activity are actually the mainstay of intelligence work). You can look at the UK "Troubles" in Northern Ireland as contained example of how a purportedly liberal democracy can heavily blur those lines, and I'm not talking about troops in the streets I'm talking about lack of due process exercised by police agencies in the name of protections of the state. In the U.S. you had a massive realignment of a myriad of traditionally customs and treasury aligned entities gathered under the newly articulated mandate of "Homeland Security" and then a whole bunch of intentionally open ended legal thinking as to what can and can't be done in terms of surveillance powers inside the U.S. What I'm trying to get at for world building or campaign arcs can be summed up with two questions: A.) What happens to your high powered magically informed justice system when the state it maintains justice within enters what it recognizes as existential threat/crisis? B.) Why I discuss the "other side" of criminal justice and policing I think is still best summed up by the Clash's "Guns of Brixton." If you have a high powered magical justice system, does that happen? And if not, what possibly social economic magical systems exist to make sure it doesn't? I guess we're talking literal magical thinking here.
3.) Maybe, maybe not. On the state level I'm thinking of the East German Stassi (good movie depicting how deep their domestic surveillance apparatus went is "The Lives of Others") who got a pretty granular understanding of E. German population in a largely if not entirely pre-digital infrastructure. On a privatized level with magic maybe there's a Candlekeep level librarian style "chronicler" entity in the society. They don't want the throne per se, but they are a power that may well exist above the law with the right motivation.
2.) Most recent tentpole adventure published had a Priest of Torm, who actually wasn't, yet maintained the highest clerical rank in his city state and used it to bring it down, literally. I'm sure there are infernal and other evil divinities more than encouraging to let its clerics infiltrate a "just" system to misguide it. And going to my state in decline arc, a justice system could be set up envisioning its maintenance by the most diligent, learned and holders of the highest integrity ... and then devolves into a system of cynical bureaucratic gamesmanship where corners are cut and rules are flaunted. Maybe not universal in the system, maybe just a precinct or circuit and the PCs get to play internal affairs or inspectors general, because everyone loves those guys. Or they're workers in the system and they're subject to a brutal audit (because the component that sent the auditor wanted to see how the PCs would perform in the crucible to make sure there were Untouchables in a system that was alarmingly corrupt).
1.) If you run your game entirely in Waterdeep, that's fine. However, things could get interestingly complicated if they were agents or investigators on the side of the city's law and their quarry leave the city. Extradition is a perfect example where on the surface similar value holding societies actually come into conflict over matters of law.
0.) Going into foundational grounds inspired by that last mention of extradition. A couple of reasons other states (I mean countries) object/reject extradition proceedings: A.) Country is always a sanctuary to its people and no one will be rendered to the legal system of another state. B.) The law for which the person is being prosecuted in the requesting country isn't a thing in the country harboring the subject of the extradition request. C.) The penalty for the crime in requesting country is considered inhumane or excessive by the laws of the harboring country (usually death penalty or other corporal punishment, but lengthy prison sentences are also grounds). All those points are something that can be engaged within a D&D Law and Order game, but that last point on methods of punishment may be most interesting to explore magic's role in justice/reparation/retribution.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The reverse could also be true. Although any crime requiring extradition would probably be severe.
Not only is the party tasked with finding this fugitive, once the government discovers why they need this person, the government declares that the fugitive should suffer their brand of justice which is extremely more punishing than what would be applied "at home". So does the party let it happen, or do they now rescue the criminal?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
If a country is housing someone and another country requests that country to turn them over for a trial and the country housing them refuses then there is nothing that the country wanting them can do about it legally.
Not being able to legally do anything is not the same as not being able to do anything.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Well I mean they can take political action against said country. Country holding criminal doesn't want to give it to Country A? then Country A says the ambassador that has been living a life of luxury in the palace now has to live in the city and find their own housing. If the criminal is returned Country A claims they will reverse this course of action. Unless the world as an over arching body that governs countries, this action is in fact legal so long as it follows Country A's laws.
That's one possible action.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yeah, it's not a very fun option for the party.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Certainly doesn't give the party much to do.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Some crossover from another topic I read:
If there is a "zone of truth" style court, speaking justice, how do they investigate convicts or witnesses that have been told only parts of the story or lies, so that they actually belive in their best knowledge, that a lie is actually true, without having any information that it isn't... this is actually not lying, while still telling something that is not the truth.
That assumes that the court is trying to establish guilt or innocence to 21st Century Earth standards.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Not neccessarily, but this can be staged and abused, leading to a very open result in the end.
In criminal investigation, prosecution, or a civil matter, the utility of such a witness could be dismissed as "hearsay" to a material fact regardless since the testimony you're presenting is that "so and so told me x". If this is the sort of case predicated on a criminal informant (aka "Jailhouse Snitch"), much of the additional testimony and evidence would have to corroborate what the informant's heard.
But the utility of "truth" being examined here is "I heard someone say this." That doesn't mean what was being heard was truthful, just the fact that the witness heard those words, or "understood" those words to mean (say in the existence of Thieves can't, cooperating witnesses are sometime brought into a trial to explain what coded language may mean within a criminal organization like "toothpaste" could mean cocaine base, etc.).
What pushes the utility of Zone of Truth in interrogating an eye witness as opposed to a defendant further would be illusion magic the witness did not realize was illusory. In that case what the witness saw with their eyes is reported as "what they saw". The character isn't lying. In most modern courtrooms, the job of the opposition is to cast doubt on the witness through two means: 1.) attacking the overall credibility of the witness ("you've got a history of lying") and 2.) challenging that perception (you really saw all that on a moonless and starless night?).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
There is a reason, until very recently, whistleblower laws required first-hand knowledge by the whistleblowers of what they were talking about.
For most of human history, eyewitness accounts have been considered the most accurate form of evidence. In reality they tend to be extremely inaccurate.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't think it was a direct or stated factor but an indictment and warrant for the arrest of Noriega played into America invading Panama "Just Cause" (they could).
In an even more grey area, and giving more a PC party to do if they're comfortable look into the legal reasoning behind "extraordinary rendition" (which literally means "this is not normal" "delivery into custody").
Re: a fugitive trying to take sanctuary/amnesty in a country where the penalties for the crime are harsher than the country wherein they offended ... if the fugitive is of means, that's just not smart. But it does happen. Another thing that can happen to non citizens is expulsion but not extradition (though diplomatic channels may be worked to give intelligence on the date of expulsion and known means/conveyance being use to expel the individual).
Diplomatic or political fall out for one regime harboring a fugitive? That depends on the power dynamics between the regimes. Russia is openly harboring Eric Snowden, has their standing in the world or relationship with the U.S. even suffered for that specific action?
Took me a while since some of the stories in this vein are wild and unbelievable, but I finally found the citation, there's also this:
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/14/world/us-cites-right-to-seize-fugitives-abroad.html
In the middle of the article is discussed an operation where U.S. Marshals paid off officials in a Mexican locality (with no notice to the larger Mexican government) to arrest someone and literally shove the person through a hole in a border fence where American agents were awaiting to arrest someone ... sounds like a job for PCs. It's not true historical or legal reasoning, but I like saying American law enforcement can do things like this "Just Cause."
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm not really trying to "win" anything here. I'm simply throwing some expanded and encouraging thinking for those who want to do deep dives into justice and related systems in their game worlds. The bottom line is unless you're game is locked into one area (ala CSI Waterdeep, which isn't a diss, I can totally see a game like lasting for some time as would any city bound campaign) a world can allow for a variety of systems that can pose a variety of opportunities and challenges for players whatever "side" (maybe facet) of "justice" they find themselves.
For 0.) and 4.) I'm not assuming everyone's game's society is mirror or cracked mirror of American or any other legal system. I'm well aware that present law derives from concepts or precepts that go back to at least Medieval times. In some cases closer adherence to the rationalizations of medieval power and how the law plays out at varying levels of society is warranted by setting, though from my observation here, most gamers seem to play in a socially "modern" or even "postmodern" mode in regards to the individual and state. Given all that, the presumptive arrangement between a state and the individual regarding compulsory service probably varies from game to game and likely also dependent on where you are in the game world. There are authoritarian and authoritative regimes in the Forgotten Realms, but there are also a lot of free states city states, and arguably quite a few anarcho-collectives.
Everything else wasn't an attempt to "challenge" anyone in a way of saying "you're wrong" but rather there's "more to think about here as you tailor your game."
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Depends on the justice system.
If the legal system is "noble says something, everyone else does as they are told" then magic is a bit irrelevant.
Except, I guess, for the noble's wizard enforcing the noble's wishes.
I don't know, the story of Moses and the Pharaoh and the magical staff's role in that drama may have some things to say about the relevance of magic when faced with a King who's word is law ;)
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
We're just not doing economics which can literally incorporate magical thinking. Just no. That way be madness.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
rogues cant is subtext so tounges doesn't work on it since it only translates what your saying and your already speaking a normal language.