// Information Request - Rofirein Judge Jury Executioner ranks

[Gulnyr]

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.

[miltonyorkcastle]

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.

[cbnicholson]

/Humor

I am the law..woot!

/humor off.

[Gulnyr]

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.

[miltonyorkcastle]

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.

[Gulnyr]

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.

[miltonyorkcastle]

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.

[Gulnyr]

It's cool, man.

[cbnicholson]

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.

[Dorganath]

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.

[cbnicholson]

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.

[Gulnyr]

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?

[miltonyorkcastle]

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.

[Dorganath]

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.

[Gulnyr]

I don't want Jennara to have it.

[Gulnyr]

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.

[Dorganath]

Yeah, I was agreeing with you and over-explaining things as I often do. *smiles*

[EdTheKet]

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. 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.)
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 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 (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.
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.

[Alatriel]

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?

[miltonyorkcastle]

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.