The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => Ask A Gamemaster => Topic started by: Gulnyr on October 24, 2011, 02:48:59 pm
-
And yes I think if its a PC who has gone through the CDQ process and has a rank in the faith that enambles them to make such decisions 'in the field' then good on them.
Which ranks are the minimum for legally assuming the mantle of judge, jury, and executioner, please. This is important information for players.
-
High Protector level, unless there is a better rank in the near vicinity, in which case the protector would (likely) defer to the higher ranked judge.
If a high protector is unsure about how to interpret the law in a certain case, she may also choose to confer with a higher rank about that clergy member's interpretation.
Dezza refers to situations of command (leading units of men, not simply settling a dispute), in which case you would need to be a higher rank than protector to lead other units of protectors, or be commissioned by someone of higher rank to lead other protectors if you still remain a protector one's self.
It is important to note that in most lands, there exists non-rofir enforcement agencies, and acting as 'executioner' may in fact put the Protector at odds with the local laws. This does not necessarily mean that the Protector is in the wrong by Rofirein's standards, simply that the laws of the lands are all unique.
It is also important to note that in places and lands outside the ability of a high protector to oversee/visit to settle disputes/protect society, a 'regular' protector level may feel called/deem it necessary to be judge, jury, and executioner in order to serve the divine law, but his actions may come under scrutiny of the church if/when discovered, as that clergy member had not yet reached the trusted level of high protector for matters of judgement.
-
/Humor
I am the law..woot!
/humor off.
-
What you're telling me is nobody knows what anyone else is talking about, and that the rules are different depending who we ask, which all just supports my position that the Church of Order is a sloppy mess.
The first thing I have here is “What gives [Jennara] the right to be judge and jury?”, because if she captures somebody that somebody still hasn’t been tried, carrying out a sentence then would really not be appropriate behaviour.
[post=472011]Here[/post], I actually put forth an argument that Knights of the Wyrm, by the words of their oath, had the right to go forth and dispense justice, which Ed negated immediately after:
That's not correct. The church appoints judges, and the branch which holds the Judges is a different one from the Knights. The Knights do ultimately answer to the head of the church, just like the Jusiciars, Judges and other branches do. They've not been granted the right to be judge and jury, nobody should have the right to be judge and jury.
I bolded the very important part. Ed himself said this whole thing about one character, PC or NPC, being judge, jury, and executioner is totally wrong.
Was it changed and no one thought to tell us? Are we really opening it up so that High Protectors and Unit Captains can just go out away from town and do whatever they think is right? Are you really telling me Jennara could have taken matters into her own hands this whole time? She's really a judge now, and a jury, and an executioner? Congratulations to DB, too, I guess. Don't retire yet, man; we just put the system on the fast track. It wasn't a joke, apparently.
-
They've not been granted the right to be judge and jury, nobody should have the right to be judge and jury.
They've not been granted the right 'by the church'. A smart move by the church, a lawyer's move really, to protect themselves from judgement by a kingdom should a Rofireinite choose to execute justice. By having the church only approve 'sanctioned' (within a given district) verdicts and execution of that verdict, they stay within the good graces of the kingdom in which they abide.
Does that mean a Rofireinite protector who discovers an indigenous people on an unclaimed island somewhere should rely on the judgement from a high protector to determine the verdict for a murderer caught in the act? You'd either have to wait for a high protector to get there, or take the criminal to the high protector, away from the society which he/she wronged. No, the protector must decide for himself or herself whether he/she should confer with the indigenous peoples and advise them in the ways of the Gold with regard to judgement and execution of that judgement, or whether he/she must make the judgement (via whatever is deemed a 'fair' trial) and protect the divine law himself/herself.
As for the 'should' statement, I'll have to defer to Ed as to whether he meant that as opinion, or if he meant to say, "The church doesn't give anyone the right to be judge and jury." Also, I'm assuming that by 'jury' he actually means the execution of the law, as 'juries' are never mentioned as necessary in the Rofireinite dogma or divine court rules as listed in the 'Law of the Lands'. All you need is a judge to name the crime and verdict after the trial is presented, and some force to execute that verdict.
-
They've not been granted the right 'by the church'. A smart move by the church, a lawyer's move really, to protect themselves from judgement by a kingdom should a Rofireinite choose to execute justice. By having the church only approve 'sanctioned' (within a given district) verdicts and execution of that verdict, they stay within the good graces of the kingdom in which they abide.
And no one is in that position, right? No PC has been granted that right by the church nor by any government. Not even Section Commander Creekskipper, the highest ranking PC.
Does that mean a Rofireinite protector who discovers an indigenous people on an unclaimed island somewhere should rely on the judgement from a high protector to determine the verdict for a murderer caught in the act? You'd either have to wait for a high protector to get there, or take the criminal to the high protector, away from the society which he/she wronged. No, the protector must decide for himself or herself whether he/she should confer with the indigenous peoples and advise them in the ways of the Gold with regard to judgement and execution of that judgement, or whether he/she must make the judgement (via whatever is deemed a 'fair' trial) and protect the divine law himself/herself.
First, show me an unclaimed island. Don't make it a mental exercise, please; make it matter to what we can actually do. I'm asking questions because it matters to how we play.
Second, are you really insisting that the low, low rank of High Protector is enough?
Third, I'm really tired of it. Never mind. I've been wanting Jennara to go for Wyrm Commander for a while, but the mess just depresses me and makes me want to quit.
-
Third, I'm really tired of it. Never mind. I've been wanting Jennara to go for Wyrm Commander for a while, but the mess just depresses me and makes me want to quit.
I understand. I've blabbered long enough as it is.
-
It's cool, man.
-
My two cents,
I guess outside of making a joke about being the law, I approach it this way. Rofirenites can be good mediators and arbitors if they can convince the parties involved that such a decision is in thier own best interests. Its one of the reasons I put points into persuade vs intimidate. The best solution from a L.G. or even a L.N. position for me has always been to get agreement on what the rules are first, then make a ruling based on that agreement.
-
OK, let's all step back here for a moment, because there's more things going on here than just the seemingly simple question that started this thread.
And first let me say to Gulnyr specifically that I do understand your conflicts and frustrations...to a point. What follows is a perspective from a different angle.
There's a few key issues going on here, I think. One of them is that just as individuals will ICly interpret the faith in various was, so to do GMs represent the faith in slightly different ways. Is this good or bad? A little of both, maybe, but it's a side effect of having multiple GMs. I do agree we should have some internal consistency, be it for Rofirein or any faith, though things will still differ from GM to GM just as beliefs differ from PC to PC. How a LG Rofireinite would interpret dogma is going to be different from how a LN Rofireinite would interpret dogma. This is how it should be. Despite being the religion of law and order, this is not One Right Way. If there was, that's not faith, that's indoctrination and training. That's membership, not belief.
This issue is of course made more pronounced, likely leading to the "chaotic mess" perception, by the fact that there are questions that are being or have been asked that were likely not considered when things were written. What's on LORE is most, if not all, of what was written for a deity's write-up. Offered not as a criticism, when one comes to Ed or some other team member asking a question like the one at the top of this thread or something similar...something that hasn't been written, covered and/or considered...plenty of times the answer is a judgment call (no pun intended in this context). Whether rightly or wrongly, I cannot say. Even sometimes Ed will make a judgment call that may not be seen as consistent or even right. Sometimes one does need to follow up on answers given because of this. I've even had to do it in the past when asking Ed some things when the answer was out-of-sync with what was already known, established or stated. He is not a machine. Cut him (and everyone) some slack and follow up for clarification. I don't know if this has or hasn't been done and to what degree. I'm only stating it as a suggested course.
Anyway, before I tangent away from this too far, my point is that things like what minimum rank one needs to serve as a judge or whatever...these may or may not have ever been defined for reasons stated above. Further muddying the issue are matters of application and appropriateness. What I mean by this is if a PC is granted appropriate IC status to be able to apprehend, detain, judge, sentence and/or execute a sentence against another individual, there are cases where this is problematic. For quest or GM-supervised situations, there's really no issue with a PC taking an NPC into custody or potentially holding an impromptu court to adjudicate a given case, again assuming some GM involvement there and appropriate status for the PC. I don't think just any Rofireinite should be able to do so, and I'm not as well-versed in the Knights of the Wyrm as I'd like to be to make any blanket statements regarding that sect. Moving on, issues can and will arise if one PC is seeking to apprehend, detain, try and sentence another PC "in the field". We all know that PCs can't do this without GM help in a mechanical sense, and I'm not sure we'd even want to have that ability. It's poor RP, but the would-be accused knows this, or the player does at least, and hides behind this or disregards whatever authority the other character might have. Beyond that is the potential for griefing. In this context, I can completely understand why Ed might say that (PC) Knights of the Wyrm should not have the right to be "judge and jury". Focusing on the PC side of things, we all know that PCs having that sort of power over other PCs will cause issues, and my guess is that his answer was focused in that regard, even if the question may have been asked more broadly.
I know that it would be rather awesome (for some) to have a whole lot more definition for Rofirein with answers to these (and other) very good questions. It's not a very sustainable path for us, given manpower and other issues.
My suggestion though, for things like this and other small-but-important blank spots, is to start a dialogue. See if there's anything defined. If not, write up a suggestion. See if it works. If one treats Ed like a vending machine for quick answers, it's honestly not going to work out very well. For those things that are written, he will have a ready answer. For those things that are not, he'll either come up with an answer on the spot, think on it and/or talk to Leanthar about it. If the answer is incomplete or conflicting in some way(s), turn it into a discussion or a collaboration.
-
I've been wanting Jennara to go for Wyrm Commander for a while
Don't give up that dream, Jen would make a great Wyrm Commander imo.:)
-
In this context, I can completely understand why Ed might say that (PC) Knights of the Wyrm should not have the right to be "judge and jury". Focusing on the PC side of things, we all know that PCs having that sort of power over other PCs will cause issues, and my guess is that his answer was focused in that regard, even if the question may have been asked more broadly.
I don't think this is a blank spot. I think, for the best RP experience, that NPCs and PCs not be treated differently, because they aren't different from an IC perspective. If a crime is committed and Jennara is going to do something about it, it shouldn't matter that the criminal is a PC or NPC. From her perspective there is no such thing; there are only people.
Thus, if she can't declare guilt and execute a sentence if Steel commits the crime, then she shouldn't be able to if Larry in Wayfare commits it, either. She should always have to go through the system. That keeps everything consistent and orderly. I also think that is too much power for any one character (PC or NPC) in the first place, both from an IC and OOC perspective.
I don't think there's any reason to try to dissect what Ed said. Just take it at face value as a statement that, at least for Rofireinites, no one person has the power of judge, jury, and executioner. Is that bad?
-
Is that bad?
It certainly isn't. It's just not stated (explicitly or implied, due to the various interpretations of what constitutes justice) in Rofirein's dogma or as part of any other available code used by Rofireinites.
It appears to be stated by Ed, though whether that's in relation to dogma, church rulings (as I interpret it), or some other measure of divine favor, it has yet to be seen, as the question had not previously come up in this manner.
-
I don't think this is a blank spot. I think, for the best RP experience, that NPCs and PCs not be treated differently, because they aren't different from an IC perspective. If a crime is committed and Jennara is going to do something about it, it shouldn't matter that the criminal is a PC or NPC. From her perspective there is no such thing; there are only people.
Thus, if she can't declare guilt and execute a sentence if Steel commits the crime, then she shouldn't be able to if Larry in Wayfare commits it, either. She should always have to go through the system. That keeps everything consistent and orderly. I also think that is too much power for any one character (PC or NPC) in the first place, both from an IC and OOC perspective.
I don't think there's any reason to try to dissect what Ed said. Just take it at face value as a statement that, at least for Rofireinites, no one person has the power of judge, jury, and executioner. Is that bad?
Well right. I agree, but the PC/NPC difference can't be ignored OOCly. ICly, everyone's just people. OOCly, there is a difference. I personally think it opens up a fair number of administrative and OOC inter-personal issues to appoint PCs as roaming judges, though I do believe honestly that you would not misuse such authority if it were granted to Jennara.
-
I don't want Jennara to have it.
-
I'm actually confused by your response, Dorg. It seems almost like you read me saying the opposite of what I did, when I actually agree with you completely.
Because PCs are different OOC, it creates too many problems IC. I thought I said that, just from the inside looking out, but maybe it didn't come out right. And that's on top of the administrative problems. I don't care why Ed said what he said, y'know? It doesn't matter because it fits well and prevents problems to just accept that no one can be judge, jury, and executioner. Besides, that's how it has been until these recent posts.
-
Yeah, I was agreeing with you and over-explaining things as I often do. *smiles*
-
I'll try to clarify, let me know if it isn't helping :)
Which ranks are the minimum for legally assuming the mantle of judge, jury, and executioner, please.
You linked to a quote in an discussion which is still valid. I said at the time that nobody should be judge and jury (and executioner). When I said this I did not have one character in mind, PC or NPC. I really meant nobody at all.
It's a matter of principle really, no single person should hold all that power.
So, breaking down the question into parts.
What is the minimum rank to be a judge?
It's important to realize there two kinds of judges. First there are the Judges of the Divine Court. These are of High Justiciar rank as shown here (http://lore.layonara.com/Rofirein:%20Hierarchy). And there are only 9.
Then there are also judges appointed by the rulers of each realm who work at various courthouses throughout the land (e.g. the one in Hlint). The vast majority of these judges will follow Rofirein, but they are not necessarily part of the clergy (or Knights or Guardians). Chances are they do hold rank though and were trained by the Church. Most will be of Magistrar rank as those have studies law for years (again as mentioned here (http://lore.layonara.com/Rofirein:%20Hierarchy).)
Key thing for these judges it that their authority as judge is granted to them by the ruler of the realm whose laws they are using/following.
An example of a judge like this is LORE: Judge Kirus (http://lore.layonara.com/Judge%20Kirus) in Hlint (the only one we ever truly wrote up so far). Kirus is a Rofireinite, appointed as judge for Hlint by the crown of Trelania, but is not one of the nine High Justiciars.
What is the minimum rank to be a jury?
Generally speaking, in legal systems that use juries, a jury is supposed to render an impartial verdict on the case in question. They are the ones who decide on guilty/not-guilty.
These people would be laypeople and called for jury duty randomly. They would therefore not be Rofireinite clergy/knights/guardians. Although by the nature of randomness, a Rofireinite could be called for jury duty.
So that's another, more practical, reason why judge and jury cannot be the same person.
Now, if you read the Rofirein write up, you will actually not see the word "jury" anywhere at all. You will also not find it in LORE: Law of Layonara (http://lore.layonara.com/Law%20of%20Layonara) (milty mentioned this already correctly).
Reason for this is that we/I have not decided if the legal system should actually have juries. In the real world, there are countries that do have juries (e.g. the US and the UK) and many who do not. You can argue for and against judicial systems that use juries, and how effective juries be (google for Jury Effectiveness if you want to know more).
We/I left the existence of juries vague, although I did play with the idea to have it vary by realm. In the end, juries were left out altogether.
What is the minimum rank to be executioner?
Executioner immediately brings us to capital punishment.
Because if you are sentenced to imprisonment, a convicted criminal just gets thrown into jail.
Executioners are not necessarily part of the Rofirein Church, so rank does not apply. Executioners are given their "authority" by the realm they work in, which is needed because if they chop off somebody's head, they could be charged with murder if they weren't allowed to do so.
Of course, there can very well be executioners that are members of the church, but the key is being given the authority by the realm.
This then leads up to "Can PCs be judges?"
It was already touched upon, in principle, ICly, there should be no difference between PC and NPC so they should be able to.
But OOCly they are different, and we cannot ignore this. So therefore, the answer is no. PCs can not be judges. Players should not have that kind of power over other players.
Sure, some might be able to handle this responsibly, but then the decision which player does get to be a judge and which doesn't becomes subjective. So therefore, no PC judges.
So what to do if a Rofireinite sees a crime being committed? Can they pass judgement there and then?
No they can't. Everyone has a right to a fair trial, this is one of the principles of the Divine Court (http://lore.layonara.com/Law%20of%20Layonara).
There should not be "drive-by-justice" ( term inspired by drive-by-shooting) where a Rofireinite comes along, sees a crime, sentences the person on the spot and chops of their head.
Hope to have clarified some things, if there are further questions/suggestions, let me know.
-
This then leads up to "Can PCs be judges?"
It was already touched upon, in principle, ICly, there should be no difference between PC and NPC so they should be able to.
But OOCly they are different, and we cannot ignore this. So therefore, the answer is no. PCs can not be judges. Players should not have that kind of power over other players.
Sure, some might be able to handle this responsibly, but then the decision which player does get to be a judge and which doesn't becomes subjective. So therefore, no PC judges.
Is there a way that we could have it that a PC could be a judge, but only for NPC cases and not over PC's? We can make an ooc justification that sometimes magistrars are rotated out, or that perhaps a PC simply was not in town, or able to adjudicate something (with the ooc understanding being that it was because it was a PC case).
That way, if they felt the need to have some sort of case, it can be handled in a cdq format with the PC judge in question handling a case for an NPC, not having power over another PC.
Would this work so that players can continue along a path that they feel would be appropriate for their character and not venture into the realm of having power over other PC's?
-
What is the minimum rank to be executioner?
Executioner immediately brings us to capital punishment.
Because if you are sentenced to imprisonment, a convicted criminal just gets thrown into jail.
Executioners are not necessarily part of the Rofirein Church, so rank does not apply. Executioners are given their "authority" by the realm they work in, which is needed because if they chop off somebody's head, they could be charged with murder if they weren't allowed to do so.
Of course, there can very well be executioners that are members of the church, but the key is being given the authority by the realm.
When I think "executioner," I think of the one who executes the judgement, whether that be capital punishment or otherwise. The bailiffs who escort the criminal to the jail cell, and the county/state/country/kingdom that pays to keep the criminal locked up all fall under the entity of 'executioner,' as I understand it. That is, the kingdom and its servants are 'executing' the judgement laid out by the jury and/or judge.
The reasons I bring forth this semantic difference is that I think there is some confusion as to what it means to be "judge, jury, and executioner," as in my observation I have already seen examples IG of NPC Rofireinites acting as both judge and executioner (where I'm referring to the execution of the judgement, not necessarily the death penalty). So, let's do a "for instance" scenario to show what I'm saying:
The setting is a remote settlement, say, population of 1000 or so, that is more or less self-governed. A small gang of thieves has been harassing the local populace. A Rofireinite cleric, an adventurer, just happened to be passing through the town when he hears about what the thieves have taken from the settlement. The Rofireinite leads a sting on the gang. The leader of the gang of thieves is caught during the sting. The man is tied up overnight is given a trial the next day. In this trial, there is no jury, as the Rofireinite does not feel enough impartial people can be found to fulfill the role. The Rofireinite who lead the sting is appointed judge by the local township, partly because she is a Rofireinite, and partly because her not being from the town makes her more neutral. The accused gang leader asks for a neutral representative and is allowed to choose one from among some other travelers (another adventurer, perhaps). However, damning evidence is brought forth linking the man to several crimes, and the Rofireinite judge fairly sentences the man to three years hard labor in service of the populace from whom he stole, one year for each year he was an acting thief. This location, however, does not host a government or the wealth necessary to feed, clothe, shelter, and guard a long-term prisoner. Therefore, the Rofireinite offers and is appointed (approved) by the local populace (say, by vote), to execute the judgement. The Rofireinite has enough wealth to pay for shelter and supplies for himself and the convicted criminal. The Rofireinite guards the convict every day and night, directing the labor performed by the convict for all three years. (As an aside, this time can also be seen as an allowance for the Rofireinite to have the chance to instill her interpretation of Rofirein's values in the convict.)
In this scenario, the Rofireinite is both judge and executioner. And, in fact, anytime a Rofireinite temple agrees to have a convict serve out the term of his/her judgement (after trial) in one of the temple's holding cells, then the Rofireinites are acting as the executioner of that judgement.
This is the sort of thing I was talking about when I said this:
But if you are in the boondocks or a place where no such laws exist, then it is your job, as one who must protect and support the peace of society, to both judge (via a 'fair' trial) and punish the criminal yourself, and in doing so, teach the man that he must act in accordance with the divine laws that promote societal betterment.
And why I don't (currently) agree with the following assessment:
All those with one guy as judge, jury, and executioner are right out, though.
All that said, I would like to confirm if the above scenario is something a Rofireinite shouldn't/wouldn't do. I have always been under the impression that such is exactly the sort of thing Rofireinites would do.
-
That's kind of a "perfect storm" scenario there milty, but I think you're coming at it from a different angle than Ed.
What Ed is (I believe) saying is that an individual should not be bestowed with the power of judge, jury and executioner (in whichever semantic variant that applies) as a sort of blanket authorization.
The scenario you posed above already contains elements of what Ed stated, and it is, you must admit, a very special case. In it, however, the Rofireinite was appointed by the locals, their government-less authority being by virtue of their self-governance (in whatever form that takes). The appointment was for a specific, single purpose, and of course it is contingent upon the Rofireinite accepting the appointment and the responsibility of supervising the convicted for an extended period of time. Both, however, were done under the implied authority of the settlement. The Rofireinite was not acting independently in such a role, and I think this is a very important distinction. I also have to ask the question...from where did this Rofireinite get the sentence of three years hard labor? I'm just guessing that neither Divine Law nor even Layonara's common laws have a fixed definition for what the sentence for thievery would be...the former probably not specifying it at all. In your scenario, it should probably be the settlement's decision on the penalty rather than the Rofireinite's, unless he is specifically asked to do so.
So I think the key, and most important point here, is that no individual is ever granted the authority to act in an autonomous way as the judge, jury and executioner. In the spirit of what you outlined, sure...the Rofireinite is acting to further law, order and justice, but he/she did so in accordance with the applicable authority (however loose it may be in this case).
Anyway, what you seem to be asking about is a singular, special case, which has a lot of "ifs" that need to be satisfied, clearly. What Ed is talking about seems to be more of a permanent appointment or status granted to an individual that lasts beyond a single scenario.
-
Is there a way that we could have it that a PC could be a judge, but only for NPC cases and not over PC's? We can make an ooc justification that sometimes magistrars are rotated out, or that perhaps a PC simply was not in town, or able to adjudicate something (with the ooc understanding being that it was because it was a PC case).
That way, if they felt the need to have some sort of case, it can be handled in a cdq format with the PC judge in question handling a case for an NPC, not having power over another PC.
Would this work so that players can continue along a path that they feel would be appropriate for their character and not venture into the realm of having power over other PC's?
Hmm. While we could, I'm not sure how much fun that'd be as it would mean the only way the PC could act in a judge capacity would be on a CDQ. Or very rarely in a regular quest that ends with a trial in the jurisdiction of that player.
When I think "executioner," I think of the one who executes the judgement, whether that be capital punishment or otherwise. The bailiffs who escort the criminal to the jail cell, and the county/state/country/kingdom that pays to keep the criminal locked up all fall under the entity of 'executioner,' as I understand it. That is, the kingdom and its servants are 'executing' the judgement laid out by the jury and/or judge.
That's far too board a definition of an executioner. You've then almost included the entire penal system and the people working in it in there. The word executioner is not from executing a task, it's somebody who carries out an execution i.e. a death sentence.
See also Executioner | Define Executioner at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/executioner?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic)
An executioner is a headsman basically.
The reasons I bring forth this semantic difference is that I think there is some confusion as to what it means to be "judge, jury, and executioner," as in my observation I have already seen examples IG of NPC Rofireinites acting as both judge and executioner
Which is why this discussion is good as it will clear things up.
Then on to your scenario, which I think has some flaws, let me explain why.
The setting is a remote settlement, say, population of 1000 or so, that is more or less self-governed.
Unlikely because we don't really have these. Every town is in a realm so there would be some kind of ruling body that'd have a say about a town. But let's assume this town exists.
A small gang of thieves has been harassing the local populace. A Rofireinite cleric, an adventurer, just happened to be passing through the town when he hears about what the thieves have taken from the settlement. The Rofireinite leads a sting on the gang. The leader of the gang of thieves is caught during the sting. The man is tied up overnight is given a trial the next day. In this trial, there is no jury, as the Rofireinite does not feel enough impartial people can be found to fulfill the role.
The Rofireinite who lead the sting is appointed judge by the local township, partly because she is a Rofireinite, and partly because her not being from the town makes her more neutral.
Several issues here:
1) This town would either have somebody who can act in capacity as judge
2) if they don't, they'd fall under the jurisdiction of a court of a bigger town/city
3) I don't see the need for a trial the next day, the man could be kept in custody until the judge comes along, or he could be taken to the bigger city that has a court
4)The "roving Rofireinite" has no say in whether or not there are enough impartial people
5) The roving Rofireinite should not accept the appointment as judge as he was part of the arrest team and can hardly be called impartial because of that. Even if he is from elsewhere. Somebody who is either victim of a crime or involved in capturing a criminal should not be a judge, as they wouldn't be impartial and therefore the trial wouldn't be fair. (If a High Jucticiar of the Divine Court was robbed and the criminal was captured, that High Justiciar would not be the presiding judge on that case either.)
The accused gang leader asks for a neutral representative and is allowed to choose one from among some other travelers (another adventurer, perhaps).
He shouldn't have to chose from just the other travelers. He could ask for proper representation by somebody who knows something about the law. Within reason of course, he can't request somebody from the other side of the world. The laws of the land this scenario would play in would state where representation can be gotten from.
However, damning evidence is brought forth linking the man to several crimes, and the Rofireinite judge fairly sentences the man to three years hard labor in service of the populace from whom he stole, one year for each year he was an acting thief.
So, at this point of the argument, the roving Rofireinite would already be out of the picture as judge. So what follows wouldn't happen.
But for the sake of the argument, let's carry on to its conclusion.
This location, however, does not host a government or the wealth necessary to feed, clothe, shelter, and guard a long-term prisoner.
I go back to my initial point about this hypothetical location probably not existing. It'd be in some realm somewhere, and if it doesn't have a jail, another town or city would have and the convicted criminal would be taken there.
The town could certainly put somebody away for a couple of days (e.g. put him in chains in a stable, throw him in a waterless well for a few days) or a week for the next guard patrol to come along and take him, or they'd have a militia who could take him to the next town/city that does have a proper jail.
Therefore, the Rofireinite offers and is appointed (approved) by the local populace (say, by vote), to execute the judgement. The Rofireinite has enough wealth to pay for shelter and supplies for himself and the convicted criminal. The Rofireinite guards the convict every day and night, directing the labor performed by the convict for all three years. (As an aside, this time can also be seen as an allowance for the Rofireinite to have the chance to instill her interpretation of Rofirein's values in the convict.)
That's one fanatical Rofireinite! But really, the convicted criminal would be escorted to the closest jail, labor camp, or whatnot.
In this scenario, the Rofireinite is both judge and executioner. And, in fact, anytime a Rofireinite temple agrees to have a convict serve out the term of his/her judgement (after trial) in one of the temple's holding cells, then the Rofireinites are acting as the executioner of that judgement
Let's use the word executioner as above, the one who executes somebody, i.e. a headsman.
In the example of a convict being held in a cell at a Rofirein temple, the convict is basically in jail, nothing more nothing less. And it's not the Rofireinite judge who convicted him who is holding him.
-
EDIT: Everything in black was posted before reading Ed's post. Everything in red was posted after. Also, I certainly don't take issue with using the word 'executioner' only to refer to the death penalty, but to note, when I used the word in all of my previous posts, I referred to a more broad sense of executing a verdict.
Both, however, were done under the implied authority of the settlement.
I think this is the crux. In the example, the Rofir was appointed by the self-governing populace as both judge (making the Rofir's determination of punishment valid, as he was appointed to make that decision after hearing testimony) and executioner. She did not become either of those things of her own authority, or more importantly on Rofirein's authority, but instead on the authority of the people, and I think what you're saying, what Ed is saying, is that the authority to hand out both judgement and execution should not be considered inherent to the faith, but granted by a governing body or by 'the people.' Also, that being granted the authority to hand out judgements does not include the authority to execute the judgement, and vice-verse.
This is an important and interesting distinction, in that a Rofireinite is not granted authority to make judgements/execute judgements by his/her god, by Rofirein, but instead is granted the authority to do so by 'the people,' by mortals.
I somewhat disagree that this is a singular, special case because any governing entity can in-fact appoint the Rofireinites as both judge and executioner, in that the Rofirs oversee both the passing out of the judgements and the execution of those judgements. The only thing that makes this case 'singular' is the fact that it involves one Rofireinite as opposed to an organization of Rofireinites. And this does allow for 'Judge Dredd' type scenarios, in that a government can grant a single Rofireinite the authority (in its realm) to both pass judgement and execute that judgement, fully knowing and giving authority to this particular Rofireinite to holds trials, pass judgement, and execute that judgement 'on the spot', at the moment the criminal is caught.
I get the impression from your post that a Rofireinite who is part of the 'capture' process might not consider themselves impartial enough to also act as a judge. Is this a blanket "those that take part in capturing the criminal are not impartial enough to also act as judge, and therefore would never be acceptable for a Rofireinite to both capture and judge a criminal" or one of those cases where the decision of impartiality is left up to the interpretation of the Rofirein person and the governing body (the local peoples) giving him/her the authority to judge? I am inclined to assume the latter as matters of impartiality, just like matters of justice, are very much subject to interpretation based on the beliefs and values of those making the interpretation.
-
I think this is the crux. In the example, the Rofir was appointed by the self-governing populace as both judge (making the Rofir's determination of punishment valid, as he was appointed to make that decision after hearing testimony) and executioner. She did not become either of those things of her own authority, or more importantly on Rofirein's authority, but instead on the authority of the people, and I think what you're saying, what Ed is saying, is that the authority to hand out both judgement and execution should not be considered inherent to the faith, but granted by a governing body or by 'the people.' Also, that being granted the authority to hand out judgements does not include the authority to execute the judgement, and vice-verse.
I agree. It's an important point. Being a Rofireinite doesn't give one automatic authority over all things legal. By virtue of their training, faith and beliefs, Rofireinites are often asked/apppointed to serve such roles, but it is not automatic, nor is it true that all in a position to judge, sentence or enforce laws are Rofireinites. They're just generally the most trusted to do so. Just like Lucinda doesn't have a lock on all the magical experts in the world, but usually when there are matters of magic, it is a Lucindite that is the preferred source for consultations.
This is an important and interesting distinction, in that a Rofireinite is not granted authority to make judgements/execute judgements by his/her god, by Rofirein, but instead is granted the authority to do so by 'the people,' by mortals.
Right. What comes from Rofirein is (by my perception) the expertise, the training, the belief system to better ensure a level of justice and honor to the legal process. By upholding the principles of the Divine Court, a Rofireinite helps to ensure these things for all accused, whether they're a dirty, filthy, lying, scumbag murderer or some kid in the wrong place at the wrong time who was wrongly accused.
I somewhat disagree that this is a singular, special case because any governing entity can in-fact appoint the Rofireinites as both judge and executioner, in that the Rofirs oversee both the passing out of the judgements and the execution of those judgements. The only thing that makes this case 'singular' is the fact that it involves one Rofireinite as opposed to an organization of Rofireinites. And this does allow for 'Judge Dredd' type scenarios, in that a government can grant a single Rofireinite the authority (in its realm) to both pass judgement and execute that judgement, fully knowing and giving authority to this particular Rofireinite to holds trials, pass judgement, and execute that judgement 'on the spot', at the moment the criminal is caught.
It was "singular" in that you had a lot of specific conditions that came together to this particular scenario. Ed has commented on them, so I won't. Regarding the possibility that a realm could appoint a "Judge Dredd"...sure, I suppose they could, but would a Rofireinite really take on such a role? It kind of goes against the "fair trial" concept, doesn't it? Still, I concede it's potentially possible, but such things would be the exception and not a common occurrence. It would seem likely that a Rofireinite in such a position might slip from his/her ideals with that degree of power over others. Just a thought.
I get the impression from your post that a Rofireinite who is part of the 'capture' process might not consider themselves impartial enough to also act as a judge. Is this a blanket "those that take part in capturing the criminal are not impartial enough to also act as judge, and therefore would never be acceptable for a Rofireinite to both capture and judge a criminal" or one of those cases where the decision of impartiality is left up to the interpretation of the Rofirein person and the governing body (the local peoples) giving him/her the authority to judge?
Personal opinion...it's not a blanket, no, but it's good practice. Never say "never"...heh, but in my opinion, the impartiality of someone involved in the capture of a suspected criminal may be compromised. To take a real-world example, police often serve as witnesses in trials for criminals they apprehend, but they're never behind the bench passing sentence.
-
but to note, when I used the word in all of my previous posts, I referred to a more broad sense of executing a verdict.
Noted :)
[/COLOR]I get the impression from your post that a Rofireinite who is part of the 'capture' process might not consider themselves impartial enough to also act as a judge.
Right, they wouldn't think themselves impartial. And if they go and help capture somebody, there could already be an assumption of guilt in their minds at that time. So that wouldn't allow for a fair trial, and could cast a shadow on the innocent-till-proven-guilty principle.
They may even be called as witness, depending on how the capture went.
So yes, blanket statement.
And for the audience reading this, you'll see that in this discussion we've arrived at things that haven't been defined or discussed before.
[/COLOR]
-
And does anyone who posted here have any objections against me moving this thread to the "Ask a Gamemaster" forums?
-
I do not.
-
None here.
-
And for the audience reading this, you'll see that in this discussion we've arrived at things that haven't been defined or discussed before.
Can you point out what's new, please? Is it just that no one has ever officially stated what has always been done? It just seems like old news to me, I guess.
And does anyone who posted here have any objections against me moving this thread to the "Ask a Gamemaster" forums?
Nope.
-
Hmm. While we could, I'm not sure how much fun that'd be as it would mean the only way the PC could act in a judge capacity would be on a CDQ. Or very rarely in a regular quest that ends with a trial in the jurisdiction of that player.
I think having it as an option would still be better than none. Even if it was simply assumed that they were judges (magistrars, etc.) and had the title and were able to act as such occasionally on quests or cdq's in my opinion, it would be better than simply saying it was not allowed. It means that when a character says "I would like to be a judge someday" and someone else says "Why not? You would make a fantastic judge, you should do that!" they don't have to come up with some really weird and non-sensical reason as to why they won't pursue that option. Daniella is Commander of Toran's Forces, but that doesn't mean she actually plays that role all of the time. It pretty much is the same for most PC titles. It's an occasional deal that sometimes gets to come in to play in cool ways.
Edit: And no, I don't have a problem with moving this to the Ask a Gamemaster forum at all :)
-
IF it were ever allowed, being a judge should be a WL-level achievement. This matches with other PCs WL-level jurisdictions, such as Jennara as commander of the guard in Echo and Angela as a diet member in Lor. The place of jurisdiction for such a WL should not be one of the established locations with established judges, like Vehl or Hlint. In addition to already having judges (Reus and Kirus, for these examples), those places are too often used for trials and over-emphasize the position, and that looks way too much like favoritism if a PC fills the role.
Even then, at WL-level, you're left with making up really weird and nonsensical reasons why the character is out adventuring instead of staying in town being a judge. Clearly, someone else is the judge and the PC just has an honorary title or is horribly derelict in her duty. You can't be the guard captain in Haven if you're never in Haven, right? And if a quest happens to end with a trial in the judge PCs jurisdiction and the PC was on the quest, how can he be impartial? Or, if the trial and quest are unrelated, how is the trial not just tacked on for the benefit of that one player? If it were going to be participation only at the trial, not for the rest of the quest, that would be cool... as long as it were in proportion to how often other WL characters were asked to participate in their respective areas of expertise. As often as we're asked, though, the judge would never hear a case (without invoking a CDQ), and I think that's part of why it wouldn't be very fun.
-
I agree that it should be a WL thing, but I think that the "why are you out adventuring" could apply to enough WL's as it is, and I know it applies to Daniella. It probably could be said for Lance. If he's the Commander of the forces in Hilm, why isn't he in Hilm? We have to realize that our characters are probably doing stuff other than when we're playing them. Maybe if one is a judge, all of the time they don't spend travelling, they are actually working.
I just think that if the only reason it's not allowed is so that PC's don't have the power over other PC's, then if we take out the possibility for that to happen, we should let the player who feels that's the way for their character to go to make the decision on whether or not it would be fun for them. Us simply saying "no, you wouldn't have fun doing that." isn't entirely fair for those that think it might be fun. If no one thinks it's fun, then no one will try to pursue that as a WL. And if they do, then that's their prerogative. I have plenty of characters that don't consider themselves "adventurers" and my Rofireinite is one of them, even though she does go on "adventures."
-
It may be fun. There are lots of things that could be fun that aren't allowed. Fun isn't really relevant.
Can I ask what the difference is between making weird excuses for not pursuing becoming a judge and making weird excuses for adventuring/questing or making weird excuses for not hearing a case involving a PC?
Can you explain how not hearing cases involving PCs would make sense IC without invoking weird and nonsensical reasons? Why is the PC different than the NPC from an IC perspective? Should the PC be different?
I'm not sure "everyone else is doing it" is a particularly good reason to have localized WL positions, but I wouldn't really stand against it for that. Maybe. I think most WL positions (and PC positions in general) shouldn't be tied to specific locations. It doesn't make a lot of sense for someone in an important, official position in a specific place to trot off around the world. "Yes, I'm the judge for Hiso. Why don't I spend a year or so ignoring that job while traveling and involving myself in odd goings-on in the forests of Mistone? And the year after, I will see Dregar." *shrug* Jennara almost said no to the position of commander of the guard in Echo because she really can't be there often enough to give it the attention it deserves. It was only because the Queen told her (paraphrasing) that the post has official power but is basically honorary that she accepted. So she goes to check on things and make inspections, because she feels a duty to do so, but she knows the captain is really the commander and doesn't pretend it's otherwise. It wouldn't make sense otherwise, especially since she's Rofireinite. Non-localized positions are much more suitable and sensible for our characters, especially if the positions are supposed to be 'real' instead of honorary.
-
Obviously, a person who spends that much time adventuring in those places probably isn't the best person for a judge job. However, that doesn't mean that because there might be extreme cases it should be disallowed simply because people think it might not be "fun." Making decisions based on what is fair for everyone is one thing, and yes, some things that might be fun may be disallowed because they are not fair, because they are what is in line with the rules of the server, and what is appropriate. Making a decision based on a personal opinion of what might or might not be fun no longer falls in the realm the above decision-making. There happen to be a couple characters that I already have in mind that very well might have liked having that option. There is a difference between coming up with RP reasons why you are in a place at a specific time, be it that you just checked out something for your job, or maybe even took a vacation. It may be that while you're out, another judge rotated in for the same area. It may be that instead of being a judge for a specific large city, you are the judge for an overreaching rural area and you travel to hear cases in some of the less developed places. Maybe those places don't have cases that often because there simply isn't that much crime there. That is not the issue here. Having to explain why you are not pursuing your life's goals is completely different. As far as PC's being tried in cases, see any of the above mentioned reasons if you want, or maybe substitute in that the judge in question was once an adventurer, so cases involving adventurers is frowned upon. There are plenty of reasons. But Adventurers are the minority. That shouldn't really be that much of an issue.
Why this is turning into some sort of debate I'm not entirely sure. Every case for every person is different. The only thing that I've suggested is that if the ooc reason for not allowing it is removed, give those people who want to attempt it a chance at achieving their goals.
-
I think that if PCs are to be judges, it only makes sense to limit it in a few ways...maybe even just one way.
I personally believe it really only makes sense for PCs to act as judges in "special case" scenarios, such as what happens on the needs of a quest. It would be a temporary appointment at best and only applicable for that one specific instance.
I can see the argument for such a position being granted after a WLDQ, though even that seems almost a path to retirement. Why? Unless the position was honorary, the judge should be working as a judge. If we open it to character retirement, then yeah, PCs can become judges, but then the character becomes an NPC and we write it into lore as such. I suppose this wouldn't even require a WLDQ, depending on the character.
Because of the nature of law, that it tends to be localized or regional, a judge should be geographically limited, such that the judge is closely familiar with the laws of a particular realm/kingdom or town. In fact, as Ed has defined things above, I would say "must" rather than should.
Anyway, a one-off, special-case sort of appointment for quest situations....sure. Personally, I don't see a big issue there. As a permanent position though? It doesn't mesh well with a PC in an online game, at least not as this one is structured.
-
Actually, reading over the back and forth above, I was initially confused, as I never considered Alatriel's request to assume that a PC judge would actually hold a 'position' or duty tied to a location. I thought the question was simply whether or not a PC could act as a judge where NPCs were concerned, which leaves room for two scenarios, the first being as Dorg described, a temporary appointment during a quest situation. The second being that a PC could be granted the authority to act as a judge in a given realm, but not given a position at a local courthouse nor expected to perform the daily duties of a 'professional' judge. In other words, if a dispute arose anywhere within the realm, and that PC was available (such as during a quest), he/she would already have the authority from the government without having to wait on a temporary appointment. I didn't see PC judges as tied to a location (as ever expected to make their 'profession' being a judge), but rather as simply having the authority to judge granted to them by some government or locale. This also would make it easier for the PC to excuse himself/herself from certain trials as necessary, because he/she is not required to act as judge, he/she simply has the authority (in the given realm) to do so if she wishes. I suppose, a judge-by-request with pre-approved authority rather than a professional judge.
Anywho, I could see such a thing as the result of a WLDQ: "High Protector Aesthir is henceforth granted full authority in the realm of Co'rys to settle disputes and make judgements in both domestic and criminal cases that are brought to trial." Aesthir would have little need to fulfill the role in Vehl, given the higher ranking judges that live and work there regularly, but a settlement on the edge of the gloomwood could request Vehl send a judge to settle a dispute, and Aesthir could be sent as he already has authority from the realm to act as a judge.
-
Can you point out what's new, please? Is it just that no one has ever officially stated what has always been done? It just seems like old news to me, I guess.
I would say the above has given more clarification about judge, jury and executioner and the ranks needed (if any and if applicable). It also clarified or corrected assumptions people had about previous statements of mine.
So if that means it is "just stating what no one has ever officially stated but what has always been done", so be it :)
-
What Milty said
Yes. this.
-
I'm honestly having a little bit of trouble understanding why characters (PC or NPC) in the Rofireinite church seem to have such INCREDIBLY limited authority until they get into the absolute highest echelons of the command structure.
If a PC commits a crime, and a lawman PC witnesses it, why CAN'T the lawman A) subdue the criminal and submit a form or two to get a judgement, or B) just slag the guy in the name of Good and Righteousness, if the crime's bad enough? If the criminal gets away in EITHER case, the lawman can still put his paperwork through, and have a warrant issued for the criminal.
This whole discussion seems like you're taking the beat cops of Layonara, and taking away their guns, badges, and ticketbooks, and relegating them to... Er... Well, what is it they CAN do, again?
-
Obviously, a person who spends that much time adventuring in those places probably isn't the best person for a judge job. However, that doesn't mean that because there might be extreme cases it should be disallowed simply because people think it might not be "fun." Making decisions based on what is fair for everyone is one thing, and yes, some things that might be fun may be disallowed because they are not fair, because they are what is in line with the rules of the server, and what is appropriate. Making a decision based on a personal opinion of what might or might not be fun no longer falls in the realm the above decision-making.
Ed didn't make the decision based on his personal opinion of fun. He suggested it might not be very fun because of all the other reasons that it doesn't work and because it wouldn't offer much opportunity.
The only thing that I've suggested is that if the ooc reason for not allowing it is removed, give those people who want to attempt it a chance at achieving their goals.
There are lots of OOC reasons things are the way they are. If OOC reasons are removed for one thing, why can they not be removed more generally? I guarantee there are lots of people who wanted to do things that had OOC restrictions in the way, and that there still are. Why is this reason okay to bend or ignore?
My disagreements with what Milt said are based mostly on world view. They wouldn't add anything if discussed here.
I'm honestly having a little bit of trouble understanding why characters (PC or NPC) in the Rofireinite church seem to have such INCREDIBLY limited authority until they get into the absolute highest echelons of the command structure.
If a PC commits a crime, and a lawman PC witnesses it, why CAN'T the lawman A) subdue the criminal and submit a form or two to get a judgement, or B) just slag the guy in the name of Good and Righteousness, if the crime's bad enough? If the criminal gets away in EITHER case, the lawman can still put his paperwork through, and have a warrant issued for the criminal.
This whole discussion seems like you're taking the beat cops of Layonara, and taking away their guns, badges, and ticketbooks, and relegating them to... Er... Well, what is it they CAN do, again?
They can do what other citizens can do - make an arrest, as long as they then proceed directly to the proper authorities and take responsibility for their actions.
Rofireinites are not the beat cops; town guards are the beat cops. Well, I guess town guards who are Rofireinite would be Rofireinites who are beat cops, but it's because they're guards, not because they're Rofireinite. To get authority within a town or kingdom, the town or kingdom has to grant that authority to them. If any kingdom has ever declared that all Rofireinites have authority to do anything beyond what any citizen could do, I've never been told.
Rofireinites won't intentionally "just slag" anyone because that's not in accordance with how the law and system work. The guy wouldn't be getting a proper trial, at the very least. It could happen accidentally, which should result in appropriate consequences. If it happens "accidentally" *wink wink*, then that's really not a very good portrayal of a Rofireinite.
That's part of the frustration for some people, thinking they are starting a police-type character with some authority and finding out it's just like any other character, only with the restrictions of Lawfulness.