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?
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
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
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?
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.
[/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.
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.
And does anyone who posted here have any objections against me moving this thread to the "Ask a Gamemaster" forums?
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.
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.
What Milty said
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.
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'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?