I'm looking for something straightforward I could show my players, so that they'd have an idea of what kind of offenses are punishable in mid-15th century England.
Does anyone have any recommendations for websites which might have this kind of information?
On a related note, I have one particularly troublesome player who doesn't seem to get through his head just what constitutes disobedience to a noble lord and what kind of punishments a knight or lord can mete out to disobedient servants. Any link providing easy-to-understand information about that would be welcome too.
RPGPundit
I need to finish making dinner, but I do have some info, and I'll put them up.
As far as your troublesome player goes, it's simple. Tell him to think of the meanest, most touchy relative, teacher or boss he's ever had. Now tell him to imagine that said relative/teacher/boss could beat him nearly to death pretty much any time he wanted, for pretty much any rationale, no matter how flimsy or idiotic the premise. Now tell him that talking back would likely earn him another beating, and let him know that his definition of what constitutes "talking back" would earn him another beating if he voiced it.
There. That'll do.
The offenses could be about anything. Varied across Europe but some were also in use in England...
Dunking: A sort of winch-like swing the victem was placed in and then swung over a body of water and dunked into. Believe this was in use in England.
Public Stockades: Usually for minor offenses if I recall correctly.
Branding I am told was used in some areas. But I've not researched that area yet.
Beheading: The classical axeman.
Guillotine: Not sure of its advent so might be after your time frame. And not sure if it was used much in England.
Hanging: Various methods, some horrifically slow. Id guess this was most common.
Impalement: At least one famous country used that a-lot. And not just for wartime. Some horrifically show. Dont think was used in England though.
Drawn and Quartered: Pretty gruesome way to go. Not sure how extensively it was used in England though.
Dragging: Painful and potentially lethal depending on where the driver dragged the victem.
Simple incarceration: In the pitch black for possibly days, months or years.
Torture: Every insanely depraved nightmarish method imaginable.
And probably others. Some coming after the 1500s though but possibly in use even then to lesser degrees.
It's quite complex. Judgements might come from canon law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law#Anglican_Communion), common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Medieval_English_common_law), or chancery law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Chancery) depending on various factors. Generally legal matters in the middle ages were a great deal more sophisticated, formal and developed (http://www.livescience.com/927-medieval-justice-medieval.html) than most would credit; here (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/100yrs.asp) are some judgements from the courts in Paris at the time.
QuoteA suit was moved in our Court between Thomas of Uldale, English knight, on the one side, and Peter lord of Tournebu, Jacques de la Caudroie, Guillaume du Merle, Jean lord of Ferrieres, Guillaume de la Palu, Guillaume de la Burnache, knights, Jean Boulet, baillif of Alencon and Perche, and Colin de St-Denis, squires concerning the following:
Thomas said that during the wars many castles and fortifications in our kingdom were captured and occupied and many districts put to ransom, and that it has been legitimate for the subjects of one side to acquire rights over the subjects of the other side by feat of arms and to treat them as his acquisitions; that the duke of Lancaster by himself and his men captured the villages with their castles and towers of Domfront, Le-Bois-de- Maine, Messei, Cond=82-sur-Noireau, and the tower of Villiers- Charlemagne [all places in western Normandy and Maine] during the aforesaid wars; and that in consequence the territories around these castles were made subject to him and large ransoms imposed on them which were to be paid to the Duke and his men over a term of years; and that the Duke gave these to the aforesaid Thomas and to Thomas Fogg, English knight, his lieutenants; he said furthermore that in 1360, in March or thereabouts, it was agreed by Louis d'Harcourt, our father's lieutenant, and by John Chandos, lieutenant of our dear brother the King of England, in the presence of the said lieutenants of the Duke, that the Duke's men would surrender the aforesaid castles and ransoms, and for this and for the ransoms still due Louis d'Harcourt obligated himself to pay the Duke 20,000 gold =82cus of the coin of our said dear father Jean;
that this was to be paid in two terms, half at Pentecost the other on the feast of St. John the Baptist following; that certain persons were to obligate themselves to guarantee this payment and render themselves as hostages in the city of Calais within ten days of these due dates if the sums were not paid in full; and for this the said Chandos surrendered to Louis the castle of Le-Bois-de- Maine, and promised that when the aforesaid personal obligations were made he would surrender the remaining castles; and that all this is contained in the letters of the aforesaid lieutenants drawn up on March 11; he said in addition that the aforesaid knights and squires, the defendants, along with others obligated themselves personally to pay those 20,000 ecus to the Duke or to his attorneys, obligating themselves as a group along with their property both personal and real by their letters drawn up and sealed on March 12; and that, although after this obligation was delivered the castles were surrendered, and the greater part of the sum was raised on our subjects in the districts concerned to the amount of 20,000 ecus or more, only 6,800 ecus were paid in several installments and in part after the death of the aforesaid Duke, leaving 13,200 ecus to be paid;
Thomas said furthermore that the Duke in his last testament made dispositions of his personal property to pay his debts and to remunerate those who had served him, this to be accomplished by his executors, who were given the power to fulfil his testament or to interpret it for the usefulness of his soul; the three executors -- Robert of Mara, knight, John of Charnel, canon of Warwick, and John of Newmarket, squire -- granted the obligation of 20,000 ecus to the said Thomas, knowing that the Duke had given it in recognition of the good service he [Thomas] had given and the money he had loaned to him, as is contained in the letters bearing their seals and dated November 10, 1362, of which a copy is contained in letters of our brother.
For this debt the aforesaid defendants along with our dear cousins the archbishops of Rouen and Lyons were adjourned at the request of the said Thomas's proctor to recognize or deny their seals; and the proctors of the defendants said they did not recognize the seals; after which they were adjourned again to appear personally or by proctors sufficiently instructed; and when the proctors appeared they recognized the seals.
By virtue of this recognition, Thomas's proctor asked that execution be made of the said remaining debt of 13,200 ecus, and that the defendants not be allowed to oppose this execution until they place in escrow according to the rules of this Court the sum being demanded ....
The aforesaid defendants proposed on the contrary that by both canon and civil law and by the rules of our Court of Parlement Thomas is not legitimately founded to demand, prosecute or reqauire execution or any other conclusions that he might present, because the letters which he uses in his case are not to be given faith for they are not originals, one being an authenticated copy of the Duke's testament bearing the seal of an ecclesiastical court -- that of the bishop of London -- which by rule is not admitted in lay court, the others bearing seals that are unknown and from outside the kingdom; that obligations or promises made per metum qui cadere possit in constantem virum, vel ob turpem causam, per vim compulsivam seu per dolum vel fraudem causam dantem are ipso facto null [these phrases are references to provisions of Roman Law that declare null contracts made under threat of fear, fraud, or physical compulsion] and no execution may be made by virtue of them even if they are confirmed by oath;
and one so obligated may act against his own oath; that the defendants suppose it is notoriously true that in the year of Our Lord 1360 in the month of May a peace treaty was made between our lord father and the king of England, our brother, and us, then regent of the kingdom, and in the following month of October was confirmed in the city of Calais both by we three and by the aforesaid Duke, and fortified by oaths taken on the sacrament of our Lord Christ; in which peace treaty was contained, among other things, the provision that all fortifications and castles occupied by the English in Normandy were to be freely surrendered and liberated without payment of any money; and nevertheless the men then holding those castles refused to leave them but rather committed crimes on persons and goods even graver than before, which the people in the surrounding territories could not resist; and that they, the defendants, treated with them in order to forestall even greater afflictions inasmuch as they [the English] refused to depart unless first they [the defendants] obligated themselves to pay 20,000 =82cus to the Duke;
thus the obligation was extorted by force, fear, and base cause, which the Duke himself would not have been admitted to prosecute had he survived, especially considering his oath confirming the peace; even less should Thomas be admitted, especially since the aforesaid Duke ordered in his testament that the trespasses he had committed be repaired, as is contained in the copy of what is claimed to be his testament; and that, by reason and by the law of arms, and by the usages and customs notoriously observed in war, if he who has received an obligation by capturing castles or persons or ransoms dies, those who have obligated themselves are freed by his death, as it was declared in the case of Jean de Charny, knight, and in other cases by the court of the Constable and Marshal of France. For which reason they ask that Thomas of Uldale not be admitted .
The aforesaid Thomas on the contrary replied that the peace treaty alleged by the defendants should not stand against him ... because the articles of that treaty should not be considered notorious [i.e. well known by all] in this case, since the case at hand does not concern us who swore to the peace nor persons arguing our rights or our quarrels, but rather is between private persons by reason of their own actions and private obligations; and that the other allegations of the defendants touch other issues than those here being debated ... .
The defendants to this replied ... that the said letters of obligation were made null ipso jure by the aforesaid peace treaty, concerning which our Court as a Court could take cognizance ... .
The Court having heard all this and received from the parties their arguments in writing and all the documents and instruments and peace treaties ... it was declared by the Court that Thomas of Uldale is to be received and admitted to request that the defendants put in escrow the sum being demanded, in accordance with the rules of our Court; and, this being done, the parties shall than proceed.
5 December 1366
[In April 1367 Thomas settled with the defendants out of court, agreeing to accept 7000 gold francs. In 1368, Pierre de Tournebu not having paid his share, Thomas requested and received from the court an execution of the debt against Pierre's property. Thomas died soon afterwards, and his executors allowed Pierre's family to repurchase the property for 2,000 francs.]
A lot depends on the century you're talking about, crime and punishment changed enormously over the period. In the 13th century, trial by ordeal was the norm, a hundred years later trial by a jury of your peers took over. Generally though as Omega said, a noble could completely ruin a peasant without consequences.
Medieval History Geek
http://medievalhistorygeek.wordpress.com/
Internet Medieval Sourcebook from Fordham University
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/sbook.asp
Medieval Life, Crime & Punishment
http://www.historyonthenet.com/Medieval_Life/crimeandpunishment.htm
Law in the Middle Ages
http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/projects/middleages/law/law.html
England in the 15th Century
http://books.google.com/books?id=WHMENs-CiTAC&pg=PR20&lpg=PR20&dq=law+enforcement+in+15th+century+England&source=bl&ots=q4LZm-inVk&sig=WSUxjpyAKVinO2OZe-ec6Xo88zM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zJpoUvLeIorA2AXSg4DoDg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=law%20enforcement%20in%2015th%20century%20England&f=false
Poor Relief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_relief
Quote from: The Traveller;702411A lot depends on the century you're talking about, crime and punishment changed enormously over the period. In the 13th century, trial by ordeal was the norm, a hundred years later trial by a jury of your peers took over. Generally though as Omega said, a noble could completely ruin a peasant without consequences.
Actually Raven made the very good point about nobles.
Allmost certainly the constabulary could ruin someone too.
I have to wonder about the difference between England, which was essentially a conquered nation (by the Normans), vs say Germany, which was a lot more complex politically. You had an Emperor, but then a lot of free cities.
Or even Switzerland, which was a confederation of a bunch of very tiny states.
Quote from: JeremyR;702435I have to wonder about the difference between England, which was essentially a conquered nation (by the Normans), vs say Germany, which was a lot more complex politically. You had an Emperor, but then a lot of free cities.
Or even Switzerland, which was a confederation of a bunch of very tiny states.
Some of them likely looked much like the Colonies later. Neighbors might be fairly similar, or they could have a high variance in treatment of "criminals".
If I recall correctly the variances were sometimes due to shifting borders where you would get islands and pockets of one sort of culture in the midst of another as the borders rolled this way and that over time. Invaders or immigrants would bring along their system and possibly not fully intigrate into the locals afterwards.
Quote from: RPGPundit;702311I'm looking for something straightforward I could show my players, so that they'd have an idea of what kind of offenses are punishable in mid-15th century England.
Does anyone have any recommendations for websites which might have this kind of information?
On a related note, I have one particularly troublesome player who doesn't seem to get through his head just what constitutes disobedience to a noble lord and what kind of punishments a knight or lord can mete out to disobedient servants. Any link providing easy-to-understand information about that would be welcome too.
RPGPundit
Is the player a noble servant such as the son of a knight, or is he a peasant or freeman in a servile role?
Because frankly, especially in less inhabited areas, a knight could do damn near anything to a commoner including kill him, and suffer little to no ill effect.
Fief: A Look at Medieval Society from its Lower Rungs is a sourcebook that examines the Middle Ages from the viewpoint of the ordinary farmer, priest, and landholder - the inhabitants of a feudal manor. It's one of Cumberland's best-selling and most acclaimed titles.
Town: A City-Dweller's Look at 13th to 15th Century Europe is the all-new companion volume: a self-contained sourcebook examining medieval life from the perspective of the guild and merchant-house, through the lives of craftsmen, traders, students, thieves and mercenaries - dwellers in medieval europe's cities and towns.
http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/fief.htm
Contains "Sins, crimes, and the penalties for getting caught, including lists of fines, fees, and holy penances."
There are free samples of the books at the website. I have read them and they are very good system agnostic sourcebooks.
I use the following as a detailed explanation.
The feudal lords are first and foremost biker gangs with legal authority. The law exists because feudal lords are not all mad-dogs and appreciate a more or less standard way of adjudicating disputes. The peasantry is more or less completely in their power. However because everything is so personal there are limits to how far a individual lord reach. Most acknowledge some sort of compromise that becomes local custom. Simply so they quite having to dealing with it personally every time.
The long-term interest of the sovereign (i.e. King, Emperor) is to move the whole mess to situation we would recognize not because it was "right" because it was proven to be more efficient in harnessing the wealth and power of the kingdom for the use of the sovereign.
Towns are a completely different story as their inhabitants are involved with a money economy compared to their feudal counterparts. Their situation is a bunch of small scale 19th century style robber barons who establish monopolies in a heartbeat. They tend to go at it with gang of thugs. Not necessarily street thugs but their own journeymen and apprentices willing to mix it up.
The Church for the most part takes a moral stance on the matter (at least compared to the other factions). Mixing the ideal of the Christianity with a rose colored view of how thing were under the Romans.
I don't know if the above is how they thought back then. It hard to figure it out due to the lack of records and the whole thing is shifting through the centuries. But it the best explanation I managed to come up with that is
1) Understandable to a 21st century gamer.
2) Playable.
3) Reasonably fits the facts of a medieval life.
For details I mostly rely on Harn which is largely based around England of the 12th to 14th century. In particular for the OP I rely on Harn Law as the most gamable presentation of medieval law.
Harn Law Print (http://www.columbiagames.com/cgi-bin/query/harn/cfg/single.cfg?product_id=4035)
Harn Law PDF (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/83511/Law?manufacturers_id=2182)
During this time period, don't use laws & punishment from the Continent. English law was much different by this time.
Estar hit the nail on the head, and I wish I'd thought of biker gangs as an analogy. It's a great one.
An observation that the historian Barbara Tuchman made in reference to 14th-century lifestyle has stuck with me: that the culture was, by our standards, amazingly cruel. Bloodsports were routine, murders and tortures were commonplace enough to provoke questions of outright pathology, and executions were eagerly awaited spectator sports.
Quote from: Omega;702387Drawn and Quartered: Pretty gruesome way to go. Not sure how extensively it was used in England though.
This punishment shows up all the time in the lead up to the War of the Roses and through the Tudor era. Some pretty notable people were killed this way, including William Wallace. In the Stuart era things got a lot less brutal, so far as I can tell.
Probably a bit too PG-14 for most gaming tables, though.
Quote from: Votan;702705This punishment shows up all the time in the lead up to the War of the Roses and through the Tudor era. Some pretty notable people were killed this way, including William Wallace. In the Stuart era things got a lot less brutal, so far as I can tell.
Probably a bit too PG-14 for most gaming tables, though.
Interesting.
And considering how depraved some players get with their characters... Well...
Now the general populace players it is probably a bit much. But then so is quite a bit of the punishments.
Fantasy settings tend to have a wild west element to law. Disputes settled with steel.
Magna Carta states no freeman can be punished except through the law of the land. In practice of course the guy with the biggest gang makes the rules but ....
Magna carta has all sorts of rules relating to merchants , mercenaries and the Welsh that may be relevant for an RPG.
# Animals going on trial!!
Animals could face criminal charges. They did this a lot, there was even a Blackadder episode where a rooster was taken to court for witchcraft.
Except, that within a game-world with talking animals, and religions that have the belief that they can communicate to animals, this might be an even more acceptable practice.
# Illegal marriages!!
It might be easier to marry your 12 year old cousin than the woman from the born in next country, or an elf or dwarf.
# Trial by combat!!
Did you just give me a reason to dust off my 36th level fighter? Oh yeah, finally a law for non-druids!!! Bring! It! On!
# Cant fly kites!!
Draconian laws against kites! Cant fly them in the capital!
# Taxi-cab laws!!
catching a cab wearing armour or having the plague, or carrying a corpse, or rabid dogs...
# Sturgeon's Law!!
Beached whales must be offered as tribute to the king.
""Severe punishment laws:
If you were found hunting in royal parks back in medieval times, you faced having your ears cut off. If you were accused of being a thief you had your hands cut off and if you gossiped, heaven help you. You could be placed in a scold’s bridle or have your tongue cut out if you went too far. If you were a female who committed a murder you were strangled to death and then burned.
High treason was punishable by being hung then drawn and quartered. The general public and various communities refused to pay for the upkeep of prisoners. Therefore it was deemed logical to execute criminals or mutilate them and send them on their way to fend for themselves. Gibbets were found just outside of most towns and it was common to see rotting bodies left on them.
This acted as a type of deterrent to would-be criminals. Yet it failed to deter the most hardened of criminals. Historians state that even with the gibbets and severe laws, approximately 116 murders, 90 robberies and 65 violent brawls occurred in the city of Lincoln in 1202. Ironically, with the harsh laws set in place, only two people faced execution.""
That last bit was just copied from a random website.
# No bows and arrows in class, no armour in parliament!!
No weapons and armour in some places you would totally need your +4 Flame Sword...
# Trial by floating in water!!
So, therefor if a duck floats...
Quote from: Old Geezer;702483Is the player a noble servant such as the son of a knight, or is he a peasant or freeman in a servile role?
Because frankly, especially in less inhabited areas, a knight could do damn near anything to a commoner including kill him, and suffer little to no ill effect.
Freeman, and not to be rude to you and the others posting their helpful advice here but: I Know. I do have a fucking history degree and I am the guy who WROTE Dark Albion, after all.
So I'm not looking to have my own ignorance answered on the subject, I'm looking for some website that explains it on simple straightforward terms for me to back up what I'm trying to communicate to this idiot. And to provide my players with source material in general without needing to sit through a history lecture from me.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Votan;702705This punishment shows up all the time in the lead up to the War of the Roses and through the Tudor era. Some pretty notable people were killed this way, including William Wallace.
That punishment was mainly for treason. 1st they were hanged. Nobles often got off with being beheaded. Henry VIII once had nobleman in London executed for manslaughter after the guy struck and killed a commoner without cause. Henry's
sheriffs were his and often put the screws to outlying nobles who got out of line vis-a-vis physical punishment of commoners...
I dunno, I think the three minute history lecture should suffice. It'd take less time than for your players to get a link, pull up a link, and read a link, and you'd have more chance that they'd actually get the information instead of blowing you off.
That being said, if you're a historian, what is it with your players? "Link or it isn't true?" They're unwilling to take your word for it?
Quote from: Ravenswing;703257I dunno, I think the three minute history lecture should suffice. It'd take less time than for your players to get a link, pull up a link, and read a link, and you'd have more chance that they'd actually get the information instead of blowing you off.
That being said, if you're a historian, what is it with your players? "Link or it isn't true?" They're unwilling to take your word for it?
Pretty much what I was about to say. If "Look, douchecanoe, your lord has virtual total power over you," isn't enough, I don't know what is.
Or maybe you should show them the clip from Richard Lester's 3 Musketeers (or is it 4 Musketeers) where Rochfort says something Richeleu doesn't like, and the Cardinal says "On your knees, little man, before your master" and Rochfort gets this "Oh holy fucking SHIT" look on his face and kneels. Show them that clip, and say "This. This is the relationship."
Christ, that was COMTE DE ROCHFORT and he almost shat his pants.
Also, does it HAVE to be a website? The book "Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England" by Ian Mortimer (Simon and Schuster, 2008) covers crime and punishment, courtesy and etiquette (which is more the case of the servant), et al.
"Great lords can be very prickly, and any disrespect shown to them or members of their household is liable to lead to bitterness, enmity, and violent repercussions." (page 89)
"The important thing to remember is the universal desire for respect. The modern idea of impressing your peers by showing an arrogant disregard towards your social superiors simply has no place in medieval England." (ibid)
"Do not avert your eyes from the person of the king: you should look at him directly and honestly (as with everyone else of equal or higher social rank, unlike later centuries)" (ibid)
"...be circumspect in your actions and gestures. Everything can be held against you as a mark of disrespect. And it is for the social superior to decide what is or is not disrespectful, not you." (page 90)
"Manners maketh Man, they say. Certainly the lack of them can unmake a man." (page 89)
"Identity is much more than a name. It includes where you are from and, by implication, how far you are from those who will protect you." (page 87) (emphasis mine... though the author discusses elsewhere the need for protection)
"IN order to understand how justice in enacted in the fourteenth century, we must remind ourselves how people actually live. The key aspects to bear in mind are that everyone belongs somewhere, and that people live communally." (page 216)
This means that your disrespectful servant will be turned out, and will belong NOWHERE. They are now an outlaw.
" 'What?' you ask. 'The manorial lord has a right to administer the behavior of his villeins too?' " (page 227)
"If a man starts a fight within the city, or draws his sword or dagger, he is to lose the weapon. If he draws blood he is to be fined, and, if he cannot pay, he is to be imprisoned. This does not affect the right of a householder to correct his servant or apprentice within the law." (page 232)
This certainly implies correcting a servant may involve use of a sword or dagger! EDIT: On second reading it looks like it's the part about "drawing blood" that does not affect the right of a householder, etc. However, it still gets the point across; the player's lord could beat him badly enough to draw blood and it would be considered "correction."
Quote from: Ravenswing;703257I dunno, I think the three minute history lecture should suffice. It'd take less time than for your players to get a link, pull up a link, and read a link, and you'd have more chance that they'd actually get the information instead of blowing you off.
That being said, if you're a historian, what is it with your players? "Link or it isn't true?" They're unwilling to take your word for it?
Some players are pigheaded; but the point is really that rather than interrupting the game for constant historical lectures, they could do a bit of homework.
RPGPundit
(scritches his head) Hrm. Why conflate *one* three-minute precis into "constant historical lectures?" Heck, if I had to do one once a game session, which is a crazy lot of history lessons, that'd be three minutes of history vs. 387 minutes of play. I think that any claims on the players' part that they'd be monstrously inconvenienced by less than 1% of their play time being taken up by background could be safely ignored with the contempt they'd deserve.
That being said, pigheaded? So what? When I'm behind the dice? There are absolutely elements in which I defer to my players' expertise ... I just finished a scenario set in mountain country, one of my players is an experienced mountain climber, and he just plain knows more than I do about how long it takes to climb X yards of Y degree of slope in Z weather conditions. I'd no idea, off the top of my head, how long it takes to butcher a hog; my wife does, and clued me in.
But beyond situations like that? I do not brook, not for the slightest instant, any debate on whether my setting works the way I say it works. I'm happy to say I've had only a bare handful of people over the years buttheaded enough to try, and they either get a fast attitude adjustment or an invitation to seek some other campaign more in keeping with their prejudices. Life's too short.
There's an easier and more immersive way. The best OD&D DM I ever played with used to convey Laws and consequences of lawbreaking via the Rumours and random encounters tables.
Have the players character executed in some horrific manner, then by government order raised from the dead, only the be executed again in some other slow, painful and humiliating manner. Lather, rinse and repeat as needed.
No, really, I suggest doing this at least once in every single game.
Quote from: Sean !;703374There's an easier and more immersive way. The best OD&D DM I ever played with used to convey Laws and consequences of lawbreaking via the Rumours and random encounters tables.
Yep, always a good way. Overheard in the market place:
"Hey, Nath! Didja hear? The Greencloaks finally bagged Trent."
"Seriously? It's about time. We were tired of having to keep watches of a night. When abouts?
"Oh, a ten-day ago. The Lady herself came down from the capital to pass sentence."
"Already done, then. Pestilence take it; our whole village would've come in to see it."
"Yeah, Ria and I took the children in to see it; we brought a picnic. A half hour's torture by the public executioner, then they cut off his yard and fed it to the dogs while he watched, and then burned alive."
"Are you
serious? For what he did?"
"Yeah, you could see everyone's jaws drop. For stealing the Lady's cask of jewels, insulting her daughter, and wounding two Greencloaks in the escape? Archdivine Rhyier begged for clemency, they say, and the Lady must have been in a real good mood. The executioner looked
pissed when they told him to put his tools down and get on with it."
Ultimately, I think that the one big problem player this was mostly about is going to end up getting his character killed, and maybe the next one after that too, and then he'll either quit the game or learn his lesson the hard way.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;704047Ultimately, I think that the one big problem player this was mostly about is going to end up getting his character killed, and maybe the next one after that too, and then he'll either quit the game or learn his lesson the hard way.
RPGPundit
Players have a variety of reasons for suicidal PC behavior. Some are just looking to disrupt the game, others might be testing the waters to see if the GM will pull the trigger.
If its the former, an attitude adjustment out of game or the boot is the only cure. If its the latter then one dead PC should get the message across quickly.
And for tonight's session, he didn't show up. He gave a work-related excuse. We'll see if he keeps showing in the future or not.
Chivalry & Sorcery had an extensive list in its RPG books, 2E, 3E or 4E. I think the newest or latest edition they were working on is a free download 5E, not sure though, it should have a list in it as well.
I should take a look just to see if its close to accurate. Meanwhile, we play again this Saturday; we'll see if the offender shows up; tough even if he does the group is in darkest Pictland, and won't be anywhere near a court. And with all the poison-wielding picts around, there's a chance he'll never be brought back for judgment anyways.