So, this is my first 30 Days project. I'm already starting a day late, but hope I am able to finish it on the proper timeframe.
I'd appreciate if you can bring comments or questions to this topic.
I intend to post 30 Tribunal Cases of pure hermetic legalese. At the end of each case I will post a pool so that this forum can act as the Tribunal and vote on the legal merit of each case. The cases will be presented roughly as follows:
Case #0 – Title
Clause of the code the case falls under ( mention to peripheral code ruling if applicable)
Short summary (Magus A accuses magus B of X)
Context is given, first from the prosecution POV, then from the defendant. When applicable, witnesses testimony or supporting evidence will also be presented. The chief quaesitor may also present his view of the issue.
Pool : Case #0
In favor of A
In favor of B
With the pool I expect that the percentage of votes won’t be based just on my personal opinion, but on the collective understanding of this Forum. If you think there is no clear answer to the case, or that your vote might go one way or another depending on how exactly each side makes their defense, or on what you’d stand to gain from siding with one or another, I ask that you vote neutral.
My intent will be to provide all the information available about the case, with as little bias as possible. If you feel any extra information is required before voting please request it on this other topic: I will answer and append the information to the relevant case. But remember, at the end of the day this isn’t supposed to be an investigation.
- As backdrop for your Tribunals
- Present them to your quaesitor players as cases for mediation/settlement before they reach the Tribunal.
- Present a summary of cases to the players a few months before Tribunal (the cases are published at most 1 season before Tribunal proper) and let them intervene on a few if they want (tamper with witnesses, buy votes, hire advocates, become advocates themselves...)
- Make it so that your players become prosecutors or advocates (or even defendants themselves).
The percentages will be useful if a player acts as an advocate (or prosecution) and you decide to use the debate rules on HoH:S. An Intrigue roll prior to the Tribunal might reveal to an interested player the likely outcome of a few cases.
Feel free to skew, change or completely overrule the results to suit your game (eg. if in a certain case you make magus A an archmagus and give magus B the infamous flaw, you might want to skew the votes heavily in favor of magus A).
While I’ll probably focus more on cases, I do intend to bring a few proposals for clarification, addition or alteration to the peripheral code.