A Question of Justice

A dozen guards enter the small inn and spread out some approach, while the others ready crossbows.

"Are you Hazan the bold?" says the captain

"Aye lad," says the hulking figure. His hand reaches for the bloodied axe resting against his chair and the guards stiffen.

"At ease Hazan, they're simply doing their job," says a fair woman in priestess' robes sitting opposite.

"A warrant has been issued for you and your companion's arrest for the murder of Alzen Du Toran, come with us."

Often the scene I've described above immediately turns into a fight, with the characters trying to cut their way clear. On occasions though they will submit to the local authority. This is great as it means you've got players who are invested in the world and the story, and who trust you as a GM.

They come along to the guardhouse and are thrown into the cells, but then what? Here's how I recommend dealing with courts and judgments using a 4x4 method. Four voices and four steps to keep the players involved and engaged.

Four Voices

You could have a single judge presiding over a court or a hundred jurors making the judgment, it doesn't really matter, what you're looking for is four distinct voices for the scene, they are;

> Advisor - this is the voice that explains what is going to happen and how the trial will work, this voice is more for the players than the characters as it gives the players a chance to prepare and understand what the rules are for the scene.

> Supporter - this is the voice at the trial that is on the side of the characters, they will ask helpful questions and highlight positives

> Accuser - this is the voice at the trial that is against the characters and will ask the difficult questions and underscore negatives

>Judge - this is the voice that will express the final decision and how things will proceed

Step 1: Scaling the problem

Before you get to the actual court scene, make a decision on what the natural leaning of your court is and how hard they are to persuade, and if they have any prejudices.

The first determines where the scale should start. Is the court are already set against the characters? On their side? Do the characters have a good reputation? Or a bad one? Typically to keep things simple I use a -3 to +3 scale.

The second question sets the DC for the checks to influence the judgment.

For the situation described earlier, let's say the group is generally well thought as they warned the town of a troll attack, but Alzen was an important and well liked merchant. Yes, he was a necromancer as well, but that wasn't widely known, and as the characters set fire to his home no evidence exists. So we decide to put the group at a -1.

Duke Hamfeld is a fair man, but he is a little hard to sway once he's got an idea in his head and likes to see this kind of case cleared up quickly. He doesn't like the Dalem Sisterhood, but is a deeply religous man. We'll set a Dc of 14 for Larien, a 10 for Rossen and 12 for the others.

Step 2: Knowing The Law

Here's where you introduce the Advisor. While the characters would have a good baseline understanding of the law of the land, legal requirements, and customs, your players don't, they also don't know what you are planning to do so this is the chance to tell them. You're going to call on each player to present their story and tell the judge what happened, as well as answer a few questions.

The captain (Advisor) enters the cell block and walks over to where Hazan and his friends are sat.

"Duke Hamfeld will call you soon. Remember to keep a civil tongue or you may find yourselves at the whipping post regardless of the outcome of the trial." he looks like he doesn't care much either way and you get the impression he's given this speech before.

"The duke will call each of you to give account, in turn - so stay quite while anyone else is talking. Tell him the truth and I'm sure you'll get justice, the duke's a good man. The innocent have nothing to fear."

After this, you can explain that each character's evidence will be judged based on a skill check, with the results moving the eventual judgment based on how well they do.

Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation are obvious skills that could come into play, but History or Religion could be used to cite precedence, and any other proficiency might be useful if the players can use it to support their case. You should also clarify if the characters would know about the rules for the use of magic both by the court and the characters.

Step 3: Time to speak

Give your players a chance to prepare themselves now that they know what's coming. Have the Judge give a simple recitation of the crimes of which they are accused, then have them call a player to speak.

"I Duke Hamfeld (Judge) call this court into session, here today in the sight of the gods let us find the truth. Before us stand the accused; Hazan, known as the Bold. Larien Delaneth, mage of the Dalem Sisterhood. Jori Quallight, a halfling of the southern marches and Rossen Hale, a priestess of the Faith. They stand accused of entering the home of Alzen du Toran, a merchant of good standing, and at or around the first bell yestereve doing bloody murder to his person and the members of his household." the duke pauses a second to review his papers and look sternly at the group.

"I have the reports of many witnesses that saw you enter the home and leave it in flames. Hazan the Bold, step forth and tell if this reporting be true and if there can be any reason I should not send you directly to the Katel mines for the rest of your miserable lives."

Let each player speak. The aim here is to give each player a moment, so try to prevent others from chipping in, particularly where a player misremembers something or gets a detail wrong as these are great for the Accuser to pick up on and the Advocate to ignore. Remind those who can't resist interrupting that they'll get a chance and start to assume their comments are 'in character' with the judge reacting appropriately.

"We went to Alzen's house looking for Falwin, because his sister (the player has misremembered it was actually a cousin) was worried and asked us to look in on him. What we found was a house filled with the dead, but still moving. What was we to do? That Alzen was doing foul magics with the corpses of his servants and after we'd done him in, the dead just wouldn't stay down so we torched the place. that did the job!" Hazan beams at that thought.

Once the player has spoken for a bit have them make the roll for their character

Hazan's player rolls Charisma (Persuasion) and gets a 3 (+2 for Charisma) = 5, a failure. This moves the scale from -1 to -2

Then based on which way the scale moved, have either the voice of the Advocate or Accuser chime in with comments.

The duke flicks through some paper looking annoyed.

"Our records show a Falwin Salt as in Alzen's employ, but that he had only a brother. Why are you lying to us? What nonsense talk of necromancy is this, we have not seen that type of magic in centuries! Let's see what your friends have to say..."

For each player give them a chance to contribute and a chance to move the scale. I typically allow critical successes and failures (natural 1s and 20s) as well as good roleplay to move the scale further in the direction it was going.

Step 4: Judgement

At the end of this scene, you should have a final scale. If you're at -3 the characters should be found guilty and sentenced, if they're at +3 they should be found innocent, released, and perhaps rewarded.

This doesn't mean you need to prepare different plots for every possible outcome, but the way the story moves forward should definitely be impacted. Consider these three possible outcomes:

-3 Found Guilty

"It is the finding of this court that the four of you entered the house of Alzen du Toran and therein killed him and his servants. We can only surmise that you sought his wealth given the ludicrous lies we've heard here today.

The material wealth found on your persons will be confiscated and sent to your victim's family. Ordinarilly I would have you sent to the mines to live out your days in back breaking labour and also divest you of your arms and armour, but the kingdom has a great need. Perhaps you would be desperate enough to attempt a dangerous task in exchange for your freedom...?"

0 Not Proven

"Your story raises some disturbing possibilities, but not enough for me to be certain you are innocent. To ensure peace on my streets you will be taken from here to the north gate where you weapons and possessions will be returned to you. For a year and a day you are banished from the city, should you be found within the walls you will be found summarily guilty and sentenced accordingly.

However, as I am not certain of your guilt and given your penchant for violent solutions you may be able to perform a service for the kindgom, if you would undertake this I would comute your banishment and even provide a hansome reward..."

+3 Innocent

"I am sorry that such evil had grown un-noticed inside my walls and can only offer my deepest gratitude for your swift action to destroy the necromancer. As a token of my esteem I will have each of you named friends of the court, with right of passage, provision and lodging within my domain. In addition I will have a purse of gold delivered to each of you.

I am beset it seems by great evil on many fronts and I have need of those willing to stand against it. A great threat has arisen and the kingdom stands in peril, will you help me?"

Pitfalls

Commonly GMs tend towards one of three mistakes with this situation.

The first is when they've already decided what will happen. I don't mean what the next step in the adventure is, or what's happening in the plot (you typically need to have some idea of what's next). I mean in this scene, during the trial. If your players have no chance to influence the outcome you should summarily find them guilty or innocent and move on as quickly as possible. Ideally, I'd recommend skipping the trial entirely, just have a guard tell them the result.

The reason that doesn't happen is the second issue; GM grandstanding. Your players don't want to sit and listen while you explain in great detail the principles of the legal system you came up with while world-building, or while your NPCs argue amongst themselves about the evidence or give long speeches. The stars of the show are the players, let them be the focus.

Finally, be very careful not to back yourself into a corner by having an NPC threaten a result you do not want to happen (most typically that the characters will be killed). Players love to call your bluff in these situations and you either have to back down, destroying the verisimilitude of your game or follow through and murder the party, destroying your campaign - and no one wants that.