i feel a teaser in this…i like it.
in trail by combat with man in a pit, they once recorded a woman lift a man out of his hole by the crotch.
Animal trial are fun any chance there gonna be in the game? Wasn’t a dog companion a stretch goal what if he was trialed and you had a quest chain to prove his innocence.
Trail by combat as an easy way out after a crime may not be ideal but what’s the alternative skyrims guards releasing you after sleeping over a night? If the player really goes on a crazy killing spree (maybe breaks the main quest in the process) then yeah most people should just turn hostile but in other less obvious chases a trial by combat might be the best solution. It could still be very hard maybe you get a stronger opponent each time. If you already won a trail by combat after all people would remember that so you clearly made some enemies that may arrange for your opponent in the trail to be represented by a very good proven fighter. (could even be impossible to beat at some point to punish the player)
“Crazy killing spree” = game over -> reload savegame
Simple.
It doesn’t have to be game over, no need to return the player to the main menu but you should be notified as proposed in the Immortality of quest NPCs Thread. I actually meant “Crazy killing spree” as an example of a situation where I don’t want a trial by combat as an easy way out. I edited the above post a bit hopefully it’s more clear now.
Oh, I didn’t mean a game over screen neither.
I agree that trial by ordeal/combat shouldn’t be an easy way out of trials. But I don’t agree on your conclusion since I think there are just actions which should indeed lead to “a broken game”. If you go an a killing spree, killing a few townsmen, the rest of the people and guards should just fight against you til you die. If you surrender you should be killed immediately or executed later. There shouldn’t be an easy way out. Neither trial by ordeal nor the Skyrim “solution” are imo fitting the situation. Personally I think that players should be responsible for their playstyle. Playing a “realistic medieval game” should implicate that you won’t be able to kill each and everyone like you’re used from GTA or Skyrim. In a realistic game you won’t “slip through”, but it will get you killed for sure, sooner or later. I don’t think that Warhorse should cater in any way to such flawed sandbox mechanics and playstyles. Actually players should be realistically punished for their crimes. That’s what I meant with “game over -> reload a savegame”… 
1 Like
I think I basically mean the same thing with that the question is what counts as “crazy killing spree”. I didn’t mean that a really hard trial by ordeal makes up for everything but if the guards confronting you have a relatively high opinion of you and there aren’t 20 believable high borne witnesses, trial by ordeal may still be an option. Imprisonment for a longer period of time would never fit into the story because it’s not the kind of sandbox where it doesn’t matter that a couple of years have past.
Edit: I wrote 20 witnesses because I have no idea how much evidence is actually needed so there is no doubt. How much does it depend on the judge and what would be customary in this period?
more likely the more crazy your action, the more severe the reaction. i doubt people need witnesses when your “crazy killing spree” leave a bunch of hacked up bodies.
towns people would have just tackled you and probably beat you to death on the spot
Yeah, the only difference is that you seem to want to leave open a loophole for the player, no matter how hard to master. Personally, I don’t want ANY loophole. You kill 5 guys in cold blood -> there is no way to safe your life. Of course there are some situations in which a trial by ordeal could make sense (for example if you decide to kill one person during a quest and you were witnessed by someone or left behind a proof of your guilt or something).
In medieval times the judge had all the power. It was the actual landlord in most cases, having the power over his people anyway. Usually I was sufficient if someone from an upper class was witness of your crimes (or claimed so). The rest was up to the judge himself. Some were just, trying to find out the truth, some were lazy and despotic, even taking bribes and stuff. It’s really hard to say how many witnesses were needed since there wasn’t someone making sure that the judge acted according to the laws of the realm. That’s especially true since you play the son of a black smith who is not a member of the nobility who usually had more rights and who were often treated better or with more caution by local landlords.
Depends in what country and at what time during the middle ages.
England had a jury of 12 people +judge quite early (1150-1200).
In the HRE a supreme court of sorts was established in 1495 only 90 or so years after this game takes place.
Corrupt judges could be dealt with within limited scope.
The whole trial by ordeal, combat, water, fire etc. was already falling out of favor across the continent in the thirteenth and fourteenth century especially by the clergy who saw it as nonsense and abusing gods name.
1 Like
Sure, but the supreme court wouldn’t rule about stuff happening in a small town with no important characters involved. And of course theory didn’t match practice in medieval times: a poor man or peasant couldn’t easily appeal to the Reichkammergericht for example. Reality looked a bit different I guess…
Well no probably not but I think peasants were less inclined to murder other people too. Most legal disputes would be about land ownership and such, not some mad man walking in your house killing all your chicken and bashing every piece of pottery.
Do you mean mean it’s of no relevance if there is any evidence? Assuming the player character manages to kill 5 NPCs perfectly stealthy i think i’d be weird if there was no doubt that he did it. In Gothc 3 for example the guards confront you after you stole a certain amount of stuff in a singe settlement regardless if there where any witnesses. This is particularly weird in ‘Gotha’ where you have the opportunity to loot it before it’s resettled when there are absolutely no witnesses around. I don’t want to protect the players from the consequences of their actions and I don’t want the NPCs to just ignore it when they start dying. There supposed to be suspicious but they shouldn’t simply turn hostile to everyone because an unknown person killed them.
Do you mean ‘Landesherr’? I think Landlords are more about rents. The english wikipedia page of ‘Landesherr’ is called ‘Territorial lord’. The player may start out as the son of a blacksmith but he might increase in Rank or simple still be of use to the people in charge. Obliviously they still would have him killed if there was enough evidence against him but if there was doubt reputation and connections to the nobility, which the player character seems to have to some extent in the gameplay-stream, might make a trial by ordeal possible.
The real question is how crime is generally handled by the game a believable trial by ordeal might just be a lot of effort and little yield.
One thing to keep in mind in all of this is that Medieval villages were small. You probably new every single person who lived there, how long they lived there, who their parents were, etc. If a stranger comes into town, and suddenly things start turning up missing or townsfolk start to disappear, guess who’s likely to be blamed?
It really doesn’t matter whether there’s a witness to the crime or not. If a crime occurs in one of the villages in the game, it makes sense that the player character is going to be the chief suspect.
Hmm but still if i was able to kill a man and the only witness is someone of similar or lower rank then me i should be able to accuse him of lying and ask the judge to let me have a trail by combat. Also this should be easier if there was no witnesses.
You’re assuming that you’re even in a position where you would face a judge to begin with. A local lynch mob probably wouldn’t be quite that accommodating.
1 Like
yep. lots of weird fantasies. you’re a blacksmith, not a magistrate. if you go crazy, you’re just another crazy peasant. lord probably don’t want to waste time and money on you, they would just let the mob hang you for being possessed by the devil.
Best bet would be living in a town, usually an actual learned judge or member of the clergy who knows his canonical law would act as judge and not the local baron.
Good point but there might be a better scape goat than the player around still if the settlement is large enough. I agree that they don’t have to see the player doing the actual killing but they still have to see him around the village around the time of the murder. Also I get that Judges wouldn’t care automatically about doing a proper trial but what if you flee to them from the mob, it would probably still look very bad I agree. The thing is if you manage to get away from the mob then they should probably return to there daily to day life at some point but they would still want you to die and probably notify people of the area. There wouldn’t be a mob in the next town but the guards should imprison you. And what if you do manage to kill the mob at some point eventually that shouldn’t solve the problem and clear your name. Again I am not saying a trial by ordeal is definitely worth implementing but in some scenarios it could be a more interesting game mechanic than imprisonment or fines in previous games. There could still be a lynch mob waiting for you after the trail.