Party on Trial in a Dwarven Society

[Maelynn]

So my party is on the eve of their trial. They're currently in a Dwarven City - it's a trading hub along the country's main river and sees a fair bit of traffic, so there are plenty of non-Dwarven travellers and traders. Nonetheless, the society is still mainly Dwarvish and has a lot of its values and traditions built in.

they travelled to the city to check up on a delayed shipment, only to find it besieged by a Red Dragon. The reason was that the city had recently come into possession of a large multi-faceted ruby that was part of the dragon's hoard - basically, she wanted it back. The mayor refused, because it was obviously ancient Dwarven craftsmanship and rightfully belonged to the Dwarven people. She gave him an ultimatum and beleaguered the city so that nobody could get in or out. The city suffered under the siege, the party was stuck, and they decided to help out (they're a helpful bunch). They stole the gem, put it in their Bag of Holding, and snuck out via the sewers. The dragon, who could no longer sense the gem, considered it an attempt to deceive her and attacked the city in outrage, demanding the gem to be handed over. The party gave her the gem and she flew back to her lair in the north. When the party re-entered the city, there were mixed feelings: some people were hailing them as heroes, others blamed them for the attack and the casualties that followed. It was decided that the party had to go on trial to make sure justice was served, and the party agreed.

Now I find myself wondering, would a Dwarven Court be much different from one we know in real life? If so, what would be different? What would be 'typically Dwarvish'?

I had already considered 2 things:

- a Zone of Truth is used on anyone on the stand, to make sure the truth is uncovered and justice is served
- the decision isn't made by a judge, nor by a jury of peers, but by a Council of Elders from different clans

What other things could I add to make this both believable and interesting?

[The Glyphstone]

Off the top of my head, I'd be more curious as to how Dwarven law differs from human law than I would be about the procedural methods.

Maybe dwarves prize honesty, and breaking an oath or promise is a serious crime regardless of circumstances.
Maybe they consider theft worse than assault, because wounds heal on their own but lost possessions/wealth require time and effort to replace.

[Warder]

Maybe character witnesses from the accused dwarf's clan play a very big role in the dwarven legal system, and as the PCs as outsiders have no clan they may request a number of specific citizens to speak for them instead?

[BRC]

So, there are a few questions here.

First, How strictly Legalist are the Dwarves?

Let's assume the following facts are agreed upon: The PC's broke the law, and the PC's saved the city.

Are these Dwarves the sort to conclude that, because breaking the law was necessary to save the city, the PC's should be forgiven? Or, are they strictly Lawful. Regardless of any other circumstances, the PC's broke the law and must be punished as Lawbreakers.

Which is to say, is the PC's defense going to center around the idea that they saved the city, or the idea that they didn't actually break the law by taking the Ruby? Are the circumstances of their theft actually relevant?

Also, are they on trial for stealing the ruby, or doing so in such a way that they provoked the dragon to attack the city?

Second, if this is a more legalistic question, how do the dwarves view property law? How did the city acquire the Ruby? Would the recognize a ruby in a Dragon's horde as being legally property of that Dragon?


The Trial is being judged by a council of Clan Elders, what are the Elder's official duties in this instance? In most trials, the duty of the Jury is strictly to determine innocence or guilt according to the Law and rule accordingly. If you steal a loaf of bread that's about to be thrown out in order to feed your starving family, the Law doesn't make an exception for that, and the Jury is simply supposed to rule on "Did you commit the crime".

This council of Elders might have a different official role. It might be well within their power to decide the case on the merits of "Did their actions do more harm than good", rather than "Did they break the Law".

Whatever their official role is, the Elders might have their own agenda, especially if they're powerful political figures who are not generally answerable to anybody. They may be given the goal of determining "Did the PC's break the Law", but they'll ACTUALLY be ruling on the subject of "Do they want to see the PC's punished".


There's also the question of the Mayor, who refused to hand over the Gem. If the PC's are found innocent, it de-facto means that the Mayor should have handed over the Gem right away. Defending the Mayor means condemning the PCs. This can play into the Clan Elders, some of them may oppose the Mayor, and support the PCs simply because they want the Mayor out of power.


How I would approach it is like this. List out the Clans, and on what condition each Elder would change their mind. Like So.

Guilty Votes
Clan Grumblebeard: The Mayor's Clan, deeply concerned with Pride. By Condemning the PC's they defend the Mayor. They will only change their mind if they can be convinced either that finding the PC's innocent will make them look good, or that the Mayor's actions were deeply shameful.
Clan Bronzeaxe: Military Clan, Lost good Dwarves when the Dragon attacked. Must be convinced that the PCs should not be held responsible for the Dragon attacking the city (Say, arguing that the City would have been attacked anyway)
Clan Stoneword: Old, well respected Clan. Primarily concerned with The Law. Must be convinced that Dwarven Law called for returning the Ruby, and that the Ruby rightfully belonged to the Dragon.
Clan Forgebreath: Crafter Clan, Proud, but Pragmatic. Must be convinced that there was no other reasonable solution to the Dragon.
Innocent Votes
Clan Candlewick: Merchant Clan, their business suffered greatly under the Dragon's Siege and are grateful to the PC's for ending It. However, may switch their vote if they become convinced that the Dragon might come back for revenge.
Clan Greygranite: Miner's Clan, major rivals of Grumblebeard. They don't love that the Dragon got what she wanted, but hate the the Mayor even more for putting the city into this mess. They're voting Innocent simply as a way to attack the Mayor, and will switch to Guilty if it looks like the Mayor will get away with it.

[Maelynn]

Off the top of my head, I'd be more curious as to how Dwarven law differs from human law than I would be about the procedural methods.

Yes, that's a very important aspect of it. For me that's part of what court is about, but I suppose I could've been a bit clearer about that.

I like your suggestions. It makes sense that Dwarves have certain values that rank crimes differently than we would. Theft would indeed be a more serious crime, especially if it involves craftsmanship like weaponry or jewellery. It's not about the act, it's about what you steal and how valued the item is considered. And a murder could be considered justice and punished more lightly if it were retaliation for a major slight, rather than an act of violence.


Maybe character witnesses from the accused dwarf's clan play a very big role in the dwarven legal system, and as the PCs as outsiders have no clan they may request a number of specific citizens to speak for them instead?

I like the idea of having your clan back you up. I'll see what I can come up with regarding outsiders, as the city would surely see plenty.

[warty goblin]

So if the dwarves, or at least a substantial faction of the dwarves, was willing to put up with being besieged by a dragon for the sake of the gem, I can't see them being at all happy with the people who then stole said gem and surrendered it to their enemy. If they had wanted to do that, they could have done that - and were the only people with the authority to do that - and avoided enraging the dragon into all out assault. If your psycho neighbor thinks they own your car and keeps threatening to kill you, you aren't going to thank the person across the street who steals the car and gives it to the psycho. Particularly if the psycho sees the car isn't in the driveway, breaks into your house with a machete, and chops off one of your hands.

At best the party is guilty of serious robbery. At worst robbery and comforting the dwarves' enemies. Given that dwarves are usually pretty serious about rules and authority, I would guess this goes badly for the PCs. Unless somebody very high up likes them a whole awful lot.

[Maelynn]

<snip>

Oho, your questions raise many interesting points.

I'll answer a few questions, mostly to satisfy the apparent curiosity, haha.

The ruby was stolen by a band of thieves/adventurers/etc, from the dragon's lair in the mountains far up north (where the river originates). They took the ruby south along the river, but their camp was ambushed by wolves and none survived. The ravaged camp was discovered by a caravan of traders, who found the ruby and recognised it as Dwarven craftsmanship. They took it farther south with them, all the way to the Dwarven city by the river. All Dwarves agreed that it was a masterpiece, exquisite craftsmanship, and must've belonged to one of the ancient Dwarven kingdoms in the mountains.
Enter the dragon. She claims it as part of her hoard, that it was stolen from her. The mayor refused to hand over the gem, pointing out that it was Dwarven in origin and therefore rightfully theirs. The dragon was so enraged by this answer that she broke parley and attacked the mayor, who only barely escaped the cave that the dragon made her temporary camp - the guards accompanying him were burnt to a crisp.
Over the next week, the city became divided. Some of the people agreed with the Mayor, others believed that it wasn't worth losing the city over one gem, no matter how invaluable. Some people held secret meetings to decide what to do (one of which was secretly infiltrated by a few party members, to give them an idea of the situation), and some plans were suggested. From the ridiculous (asking a Halfling to steal the gem and sneakily take it outside, they had heard it was done before) to the downright vicious (murder the Mayor and make sure the next one was more inclined to give up the ruby).
When the party returned to the city, they learned the Mayor didn't survive the attack. It seems that some people were so angry with the Mayor, blaming his stubbornness and greed for the attack and many casualties, that they ended up lynching him outside the city hall. If you know the story about the brothers De Witt in the Netherlands, you'll get a bit of an idea what the scene looked like. Well, except for the cannibalism part. That went a bit too far for this situation. ;)

The accusation is: endangering the city and being responsible for the deaths of many citizens.
(exactly, not a word about the theft... and besides, it can't even be proven that they were the ones who stole it)

I'm not sure how legalist the Dwarves would be, but I think they do have some sort of honour system that would be the spine of the legal system. And also determine the severity of a possible punishment. A person could walk free from a crime whereas another would be convicted, all depending on circumstances and motivation and whatnot.

Now, as for the Elders. I had in mind that they would be in positions of honour, and wouldn't be swayed by a sad story - very unlike what I often see with those US juries, where lawyers work the crowd just to get them on their side and get the verdict they want regardless of justice.
I'm not sure they would be easily corrupted - after all, they represent their entire clan and it would be a disgrace on the entire clan if they were found to be corrupt.

I really like your idea of giving each of the Elders (and possibly their respective clans) their own motivations and focal points regarding to the case. And what would matter to them and what might change their mind. I already have a few key NPCs in the story who have expressed their opinion on the matter (like the Captain of the Guard, who aided the party in their escape through the sewers because he was sick and tired of the siege and had to watch all his good men die because of one stubborn Dwarf).

[BRC]

So if the dwarves, or at least a substantial faction of the dwarves, was willing to put up with being besieged by a dragon for the sake of the gem, I can't see them being at all happy with the people who then stole said gem and surrendered it to their enemy. If they had wanted to do that, they could have done that - and were the only people with the authority to do that - and avoided enraging the dragon into all out assault. If your psycho neighbor thinks they own your car and keeps threatening to kill you, you aren't going to thank the person across the street who steals the car and gives it to the psycho. Particularly if the psycho sees the car isn't in the driveway, breaks into your house with a machete, and chops off one of your hands.

At best the party is guilty of serious robbery. At worst robbery and comforting the dwarves' enemies. Given that dwarves are usually pretty serious about rules and authority, I would guess this goes badly for the PCs. Unless somebody very high up likes them a whole awful lot.
Eh, not necessarily.

Just because the dwarves hadn't overthrown the Mayor yet didn't mean that they were opposed to the idea. Risking oneself to go against one's government is a big move. It might very much be a case of "We don't want to do it, but now that it happened, we really don't mind".



Oho, your questions raise many interesting points.

I'll answer a few questions, mostly to satisfy the apparent curiosity, haha.

The ruby was stolen by a band of thieves/adventurers/etc, from the dragon's lair in the mountains far up north (where the river originates). They took the ruby south along the river, but their camp was ambushed by wolves and none survived. The ravaged camp was discovered by a caravan of traders, who found the ruby and recognised it as Dwarven craftsmanship. They took it farther south with them, all the way to the Dwarven city by the river. All Dwarves agreed that it was a masterpiece, exquisite craftsmanship, and must've belonged to one of the ancient Dwarven kingdoms in the mountains.
Enter the dragon. She claims it as part of her hoard, that it was stolen from her. The mayor refused to hand over the gem, pointing out that it was Dwarven in origin and therefore rightfully theirs. The dragon was so enraged by this answer that she broke parley and attacked the mayor, who only barely escaped the cave that the dragon made her temporary camp - the guards accompanying him were burnt to a crisp.
Over the next week, the city became divided. Some of the people agreed with the Mayor, others believed that it wasn't worth losing the city over one gem, no matter how invaluable. Some people held secret meetings to decide what to do (one of which was secretly infiltrated by a few party members, to give them an idea of the situation), and some plans were suggested. From the ridiculous (asking a Halfling to steal the gem and sneakily take it outside, they had heard it was done before) to the downright vicious (murder the Mayor and make sure the next one was more inclined to give up the ruby).
When the party returned to the city, they learned the Mayor didn't survive the attack. It seems that some people were so angry with the Mayor, blaming his stubbornness and greed for the attack and many casualties, that they ended up lynching him outside the city hall. If you know the story about the brothers De Witt in the Netherlands, you'll get a bit of an idea what the scene looked like. Well, except for the cannibalism part. That went a bit too far for this situation. ;)

The accusation is: endangering the city and being responsible for the deaths of many citizens.
(exactly, not a word about the theft... and besides, it can't even be proven that they were the ones who stole it)

I'm not sure how legalist the Dwarves would be, but I think they do have some sort of honour system that would be the spine of the legal system. And also determine the severity of a possible punishment. A person could walk free from a crime whereas another would be convicted, all depending on circumstances and motivation and whatnot.

Now, as for the Elders. I had in mind that they would be in positions of honour, and wouldn't be swayed by a sad story - very unlike what I often see with those US juries, where lawyers work the crowd just to get them on their side and get the verdict they want regardless of justice.
I'm not sure they would be easily corrupted - after all, they represent their entire clan and it would be a disgrace on the entire clan if they were found to be corrupt.

I really like your idea of giving each of the Elders (and possibly their respective clans) their own motivations and focal points regarding to the case. And what would matter to them and what might change their mind. I already have a few key NPCs in the story who have expressed their opinion on the matter (like the Captain of the Guard, who aided the party in their escape through the sewers because he was sick and tired of the siege and had to watch all his good men die because of one stubborn Dwarf).


If the Crime is "Endangering the City", specifically by putting the gem into the bag of holding, then a few key points need to be brought up.

1) Could the PC's have known that putting it into the bag would block it from the Dragon's detection, therefore provoking the dragon?

2) Even if the PC's triggered the specific attack, should they be held responsible considering the Mayor was responsible for the overall situation?

If the actual charge is "Endangering the City", and the dwarven legal system does take motive into account, then question is could the PC's have reasonably known that using the bag of holding would endanger the city? If they can reasonably be excused for not knowing, when their motive was to protect the city, that's an angle that could be taken.

Also, was the risk of moving the Gemstone worth the guaranteed damage of a continual siege, or the chance that the Dragon would just lose patience and attack the city anyway? Yes, the PC's actions were responsible for this specific attack, but an argument could be made that either starvation would have killed more people, or the Dragon would have attacked anyway in a few days, and SOMEBODY had to do something since the Mayor had made it clear that he was just going to sit tight and hope for a miracle.



For the clan leaders, I'd make two options for each. 1) What decision do they WANT to make, and 2) what decision do they feel they MUST Make. They are bound by honor and tradition. Even if a leader wants to see the PC's punished, they may vote Not Guilty if they're convinced that doing so will make it look like they're acting out of petty anger.

[Maelynn]

If the actual charge is "Endangering the City", and the dwarven legal system does take motive into account, then question is could the PC's have reasonably known that using the bag of holding would endanger the city? If they can reasonably be excused for not knowing, when their motive was to protect the city, that's an angle that could be taken.

Also, was the risk of moving the Gemstone worth the guaranteed damage of a continual siege, or the chance that the Dragon would just lose patience and attack the city anyway? Yes, the PC's actions were responsible for this specific attack, but an argument could be made that either starvation would have killed more people, or the Dragon would have attacked anyway in a few days, and SOMEBODY had to do something since the Mayor had made it clear that he was just going to sit tight and hope for a miracle.

You sound like the party's legal representative. Can they hire you? :p

My question was aimed more at how a court like that would be set up, not a rundown of how the trial would go, but I do appreciate your input here. There are points to make both for and against the case, and it's always useful to lay them out.
Like, on the other hand there is the grief of those who count a loved one among the casualties, they'll want to see someone pay for their loss. And there are those who would probably bring up the precious jewel and how it would be 'aiding and abetting' by giving it to the dragon, who doesn't even own the thing! It's clearly Dwarven property, she had no right to it!


For the clan leaders, I'd make two options for each. 1) What decision do they WANT to make, and 2) what decision do they feel they MUST Make. They are bound by honor and tradition. Even if a leader wants to see the PC's punished, they may vote Not Guilty if they're convinced that doing so will make it look like they're acting out of petty anger.

Interesting. I might even add a third: what the clan feels would be the right decision. For example, some clan members might want vindication for casualties they suffered, even if the situation has been resolved in their favour. Like a clan of traders, relieved that the siege has been lifted and shipments and caravans can finally start moving their goods again, but who lost some of their number in the attack.

[Catullus64]

Naturally, among Dwarves, the old custom is that anyone who gives testimony must swear upon his beard. In the old days, this oath was quite literal; someone found to have perjured would be forced to shave, marking him out as a good-for-nothing. Anyone who has no beard, like children or Elves, clearly can't be relied upon, and so their testimony was inadmissible in the first place.

In these immoral times, a beard is no longer afforded the religious respect it deserves, and most Dwarves understand that someone can, in theory, be without a beard and still be honest. Some Dwarf women even shave their beards in a shocking imitation of human women. But the formality of the oath remains, and so any time a court is convened, there is a ceremonial false beard for beardless witnesses to swear upon.

[BRC]

For the Format of the Trial, if they're being tried by a council of respected elders then you probably have little reason to go through a bunch of formal hoops and theater. The Elders are deeply respected, so unlike a passive American Jury they're probably going to be allowed to take a direct role in the Trial.

The Trial has Three phases.

The Mining
First, the Accuser, basically a prosecutor, presents the Charges and the Evidence.
The Accuser and Defense present a series of Facts about the case. These are objective statements. In this case it would be statements like "The PC's stole the Ruby" "The Dragon attacked the city because it could no longer detect the Ruby".

The other side may either accept, or challenge any of these statements. If they choose to Challenge a statement, Evidence will be presented by both sides to determine the truth or falsehood of these facts. At the end of each Debate, the Elders perform a simple show-of-hands vote. If two-thirds oppose the Challenge, the Fact is entered into the record as if it were unopposed. If two-thirds support the Challenge, the Statement is stricken from the record. If neither side gets a 2/3rds majority, the statement is added to the record as "Debated". The Zone of Truth is used for the Establishment of Facts.
Facts that are established here are Sacrosanct. Even the Elders are not allowed to question them down the line (or else risk insulting the Prosecutor's Clan). If there is a pertinent Fact directly concerning the case, bringing it up after this point looks dangerously like having Something To Hide.

These Facts are objective, and directly relate to the accusation. They do not take into account the Accused's motive (that comes later).

In this case, the Facts would be: They Did steal the Ruby, they put it into the bag of holding. The Dragon attacked because of that.
The Smelting

The Smelting deals with things less certain than Facts. This is where testimony is given that is less directly connected to the case. Character witnesses for example, or expert testimony about the subject at hand, or circumstantial evidence. You don't get to debate this evidence, just present your own.

For example, if you are testifying that you saw the accused break into the house, that's a Fact Directly Relating To The Case, and goes in The Mining. If you are testifying that the suspect mentioned that they wanted to rob that house, that goes here. It's relevant to the case, but it doesn't relate to the direct question of "Did they break into the House?".

The Anvil

Finally, the Accused are directly questioned by the Elders.

For the sake of gameplay, there are rules here. Each Elder gets one turn to question the Accused. Once a turn begins, the Elder may ask questions until they are satisfied, but once they are done they can only speak if given permission by the Elder whose turn it is. Once all Elders are done, they vote.

This way you only need to RP with one Elder at a time.

[Maelynn]

<snip>

I'm really loving this. Especially the thematic breakdown of the various stages. And it even makes a lot of sense to use the stages like that.

As for the RP part, I wasn't looking forward to acting out the whole trial so I was already thinking how I could reduce it a bit while still retaining the players's involvement. One of my options was to have the players set up debate style (2 groups, one is in favour and the other against, now debate your case regardless of your own opinion) and have them battle it out OOC. It would keep them involved without having to sit through the entire trial in RP, which could easily extend the trial to 2 sessions.*

Once everybody had their say, I could bring in the part with the Council of Elders and see if there's some who have additional questions. Then the party could answer those IC.

* no seriously, if you consider how they used almost all of a 4h-session just to play out a cart race... :smallbiggrin:

[Spo]

This trial is not so much to determine the facts as it is to let the town vent and heal after this traumatic event in their lives.

The important thing is to keep the players engaged during this process. Don’t make them just sit there listening to your narration of what’s happening to then.

This can be achieved by having the elderly widow of a man who was killed by the vengeful dragon ask PC’s what she should do now. The young wife holding her baby asking them how can she raise him. The “Karen” blaming the PCs for causing the harm because they should have let the leaders handle the situation (do they think they are better than the elders?).

This has the same elements as when there is a botched rescue attempt of hostages. Everyone will use 20/20 hindsight and play the blame game.

The PC’s will be found guilty of something (gross reckless endangering) because SOMEBODY has to pay, but their punishment will by like Hercules labors - tasks/adventures that will help the town and heal the
PCs reputation.

[Sigreid]

I think the first question is what is the objective of the trial? Is it to arrive at fair justice, or is it a "burn the witch" kangaroo court trial?

Second question would be are lawyers a thing? Who prosecutes and who defends?

Third: what's at stake? Is it prison? Slave labor? Execution? I mean execution is on the table if they valued the gem enough to let a dragon kill civilians and destroy the city to keep it.

I'm curious though about how the dwarven city got the gem. Did they steal it or buy it from someone who did?

[Maelynn]

This trial is not so much to determine the facts as it is to let the town vent and heal after this traumatic event in their lives.

The important thing is to keep the players engaged during this process. Don’t make them just sit there listening to your narration of what’s happening to then.

This can be achieved by having the elderly widow of a man who was killed by the vengeful dragon ask PC’s what she should do now. The young wife holding her baby asking them how can she raise him. The “Karen” blaming the PCs for causing the harm because they should have let the leaders handle the situation (do they think they are better than the elders?).

This has the same elements as when there is a botched rescue attempt of hostages. Everyone will use 20/20 hindsight and play the blame game.

The PC’s will be found guilty of something (gross reckless endangering) because SOMEBODY has to pay, but their punishment will by like Hercules labors - tasks/adventures that will help the town and heal the
PCs reputation.

I'm loathe to make the trial such an emotional showdown, to be honest. I like to see Dwarven governing bodies as levelheaded and lawful and stern. I could see a judge or a Council weighing the facts and measuring the motivation/intention and the consequences caused by the deed, because they feel that's proper and reasonable and none of that tearjerking nonsense in my court thankyou.

Your idea of making amends is a nice one, though, the severity depending on what the verdict will be. The party are quite the do-gooders, not always quite successful but they do try (at some point they called themselves the 'Chaotic Well-Intentioned')... so I can really see them put their heart into it. Also sounds like a good moment for a few weeks' downtime in-game. And I can use it as a great reason to give them some magic items, as some of the old crew have been lacking compared to the new arrivals in the campaign. Hmmm... Belt of Dwarvenkind, Dragonslayer, Dwarven Armour, oh there's so many options... :D


I think the first question is what is the objective of the trial? Is it to arrive at fair justice, or is it a "burn the witch" kangaroo court trial?

Second question would be are lawyers a thing? Who prosecutes and who defends?

Third: what's at stake? Is it prison? Slave labor? Execution? I mean execution is on the table if they valued the gem enough to let a dragon kill civilians and destroy the city to keep it.

I'm curious though about how the dwarven city got the gem. Did they steal it or buy it from someone who did?

Objective: to bring justice. A number of people believe the party have 'endangered the city' and this has become the official accusation.

Lawyers: yes, I do intend to have some form of representation, at the very least because they're outsiders and non-Dwarves so they'll need aid in order to receive a fair trial. If I go with BRC's setup idea, then it might not be necessary to have a 'prosecutor vs lawyer' situation - might very well be a small team of objective Dwarves who are tasked with putting the facts on the table.

Stakes: I have a few options (banishment from the city, prison, possibly a large fine, etc) - but slavery and execution are most definitely not happening.*

How the gem was acquired: I explained that at length in a previous post. :p

* right now I'm really liking the idea of forcing them to help rebuild the city, to make amends. I've been eyeing the Geas spell, ask the party to willingly submit to this as a kind of assurance. :smallamused:

[Ninja Bear]

You might take inspiration from "Legal Systems Very Different from Ours" (free pre-publication draft hosted by the author here (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Legal%20Systems/LegalSystemsContents.htm)).

In particular, I thought the author's take on early Irish curial law seemed like something potentially worth reflavoring as "dwarfy." The hallmark of that legal system is an elaborate system of status reflected in the "honor price" of each individual, based on their position/perceived worth to society, which governed things like what that individual would be owed for offenses against him and the limits to his legal capacity, including the amount for which he could contract on his own authority and the weight of his evidence in a legal dispute.

You effectively might get judge-technicians physically weighing the testimony of each side's witnesses by stacking up their honor prices next to one another on a balance scale, with it being just as important to have witnesses of high honor price as it is to have many of them speaking in your favor. Seems appropriately clannish and wealth-centric for a dwarven hold.

[Sigreid]

I'm loathe to make the trial such an emotional showdown, to be honest. I like to see Dwarven governing bodies as levelheaded and lawful and stern. I could see a judge or a Council weighing the facts and measuring the motivation/intention and the consequences caused by the deed, because they feel that's proper and reasonable and none of that tearjerking nonsense in my court thankyou.

Your idea of making amends is a nice one, though, the severity depending on what the verdict will be. The party are quite the do-gooders, not always quite successful but they do try (at some point they called themselves the 'Chaotic Well-Intentioned')... so I can really see them put their heart into it. Also sounds like a good moment for a few weeks' downtime in-game. And I can use it as a great reason to give them some magic items, as some of the old crew have been lacking compared to the new arrivals in the campaign. Hmmm... Belt of Dwarvenkind, Dragonslayer, Dwarven Armour, oh there's so many options... :D



Objective: to bring justice. A number of people believe the party have 'endangered the city' and this has become the official accusation.

Lawyers: yes, I do intend to have some form of representation, at the very least because they're outsiders and non-Dwarves so they'll need aid in order to receive a fair trial. If I go with BRC's setup idea, then it might not be necessary to have a 'prosecutor vs lawyer' situation - might very well be a small team of objective Dwarves who are tasked with putting the facts on the table.

Stakes: I have a few options (banishment from the city, prison, possibly a large fine, etc) - but slavery and execution are most definitely not happening.*

How the gem was acquired: I explained that at length in a previous post. :p

* right now I'm really liking the idea of forcing them to help rebuild the city, to make amends. I've been eyeing the Geas spell, ask the party to willingly submit to this as a kind of assurance. :smallamused:

Ok, I'd probably go with the city elders/council being the judging body. Perhaps have the son or daughter of one of the council be sympathetic and volunteer to be their aid. Let the party know that their benefactor is taking a lot of public heat to do the right thing.

I think the proper angle for defense for them is that it wasn't the adventurers that put the city in danger, but the mayor knowingly accepting stolen goods. I mean, trade happens. Just because the dwarves believe that it was a dwarven cut gem doesn't mean that it was never sold/traded/whatever legitimately into non-dwarven hands. The party saw a dragon that neither they nor the city could defeat attacking the city because he was honestly wronged. And as soon as the wrong was corrected by the party, the threat was ended without further damage to property or loss of life. Their benefactor could also point out to them that an act of good will, such as using some of their resources to help repair some of the damage done in the whole incident could go a long way to helping smooth things over.

Personal note: If the Dwarves punish them, they are clearly in the wrong IMO.

[Unoriginal]

I would go with the idea that while the sentence is decided by a jury of one (with maybe a couple advisors, one whose role is to know the traditions and another whose role is to know the current affairs of the realm), anyone who has enough citizens backing them up can come to the trial to prosecute or defend the people on trial.

As in, it can be the formal speaker for a clan, a priest of a major temple, or just some random individual who convinced their neighbors to sign up their application, but essentially the person acts as representative for the people backing them up and can argue in favor or against the person on trial, for the consideration of the one judge.

[JonBeowulf]

Whatever you decide, start the session by rolling a d20 and announcing a guilty verdict and stare at the players for a few seconds. Once enough tension has built, you can let them know you're joking and get on with the session.

Or am I the only one who would find that hilarious?

[Ninja Bear]

Whatever you decide, start the session by rolling a d20 and announcing a guilty verdict and stare at the players for a few seconds. Once enough tension has built, you can let them know you're joking and get on with the session.

Or am I the only one who would find that hilarious?

You specifically have to close with "I'm joking. We're bypassing important procedures for protecting your characters' civil rights, after all. What's everyone's Constitution save?"

[Maelynn]

I had wanted to reply sooner, but RL got in the way. But I thought you might want to hear how it went anyway. :)

So I decided to go with the setup of Mining, Smelting, and Anvil that BRC suggested. I briefly explained the way it worked, which facts would be unearthed during Mining and which they couldn't know unless the party decided to reveal at that time *insert knowing looks to the players*. The facts would have to be sorted into damning evidence and mitigating circumstances and whatnot. They had a moderately influential contact in the city, who had offered his own legal counsellor to aid the party. Mostly by guiding them through the process, not the weaselly kind that tells you what to conceal and how to get away with things.

Then I had them all draw lots to split up the players, 'middle school debate class' style. Two of them had to defend the party's stance, the other two had to argue in favour of a guilty verdict. All done out of character. I would occasionally ask a question or make a comment as if it were from the Council of Elders, but for the rest I let the players battle it out.

In the end, the debate resulted in a 'partially guilty' verdict. After all, they were outsiders who made a decision and took action on their own, something that had a great impact on the city - the acts of the deceased mayor were questionable to say the least, but one crime doesn't justify another. And even with good intentions you can still do wrong. The great thing was that they themselves reached this conclusion, so the punishment I already had in mind actually fit well and the party reacted quite positively. Partly also because they're a bunch of try-to-do-gooders, of course...

And added bonus of this verdict/punishment: the 30-day community service would be a nice opportunity for them to get some downtime activities going.

Thanks for all your contributions, it's much appreciated as always. :3


You might take inspiration from "Legal Systems Very Different from Ours" (free pre-publication draft hosted by the author here (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Legal%20Systems/LegalSystemsContents.htm)).

Hey, thanks for this. I bookmarked it for now, so that I can peruse it for inspiration at a later time.

[XmonkTad]

I propose a giant stone scale where the party has to stand one one side and any of the council of elders who wish to find them guilty stand on the other.