Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sensei]

I think the Dwarven Justice system is a little over-simple. In place of nobility dispensing sentences, why not first have dwarves tried for guilt?

Instead of an instant sentence, a dwarf is charged by the accusing party. Then the Judge holds a meeting in the meeting hall for a jury of at least 7 and at least 10% of the fort's dwarves to discuss.

If a dwarf pleads innocent, the trial then consists of an opposed roll modified by the persuade, liar, judge of intent, and negotiator skills of the accuser and defendant. It is also modified by the jury's opinion of the defendant and accuser. This naturally acts to prevent tantrums as a result of a popular dwarf being charged.

Ultimately there are three possible outcomes:

*Dwarf pleads guilty- charges are reduced (usually in the case of tantrum actions)
*Dwarf pleads innocent and is found innocent- no charges, harsh feelings are formed between them and the accusing party
Dwarf pleads innocent and is found guilty- harsh charges

If a dwarf is charged, then the severity of the charge depends on the ethics of the entity on the crime committed, and of how compassionate the judge is.
Good? Bad? Anything unclear? Any suggestions to add?

It's worth noting this would be more important if actual crimes were implemented- I think there was a thread about that, but I can't find it.

[Footkerchief]

While I'm not against the idea of some civilizations conducting trials, dispensing sentences has historically been one of the defining powers of feudal nobility (i.e. dukes, counts and barons).  Juries go back a long way too though, and while that article doesn't go into the particulars, I'm sure the two modes of (in)justice clashed in many societies.  I could see such a divide even among dwarves, who seem to have more democratic leanings than the primitive-feudalism humans in the current version.

So yeah, I'm in favor of this at least being a possibility for the dwarves.

[King_of_the_weasels]

I'd be fun to watch the dwarves in a court room setting, but it would stop them from working which depending on how you play could be pretty bad.

[Ghoulz]

I'd be fun to watch the dwarves in a court room setting, but it would stop them from working which depending on how you play could be pretty bad.

There is no time for work while the guilty are not behind bars!

[shadowform]

So instead of a Hammerer, some dwarven societies distribute Lawyers, and instead of beating people to death they just suck up a year with legal proceedings and drain the offending dwarf's bank account, forcing them to be evicted from their home, sell their possessions to the state, and giving them enough unhappy thoughts to drive them into a berserk rage, whereupon they kill the Lawyer before being struck down by the guards.

That sounds awesome.

[Geb]

I rather liked the idea of taking things in completely the opposite direction: add another noble position almost identical to the hammerer called the lawyer, or advocate, something like that. Every time a criminal is accused, they have the opportunity to make a meeting with the lawyer, who might then decide to fight the hammerer on their behalf. Trial by combat by proxy.

[Granite26]

So instead of a Hammerer, some dwarven societies distribute Lawyers, and instead of beating people to death they just suck up a year with legal proceedings and drain the offending dwarf's bank account, forcing them to be evicted from their home, sell their possessions to the state, and giving them enough unhappy thoughts to drive them into a berserk rage, whereupon they kill the Lawyer before being struck down by the guards.

That sounds awesome.

Yes it does...

I rather liked the idea of taking things in completely the opposite direction: add another noble position almost identical to the hammerer called the lawyer, or advocate, something like that. Every time a criminal is accused, they have the opportunity to make a meeting with the lawyer, who might then decide to fight the hammerer on their behalf. Trial by combat by proxy.

Wait, so when somebody commits a crime, a lawyer gets beaten to death rather than a productive member of society?

A+

[Atarlost]

Even just trial by combat would be cool.  No proxies needed.  Hammerer, meet Urist mcMiner.  He's unarmored, but he's just as skilled with his pick as you are with your hammer and it does piercing damage.  Oh, and his stats are way better then yours because he's been socializing while you were laid up after getting your finger broken by a legendary pump operator. 

[Geb]

Wait, so when somebody commits a crime, a lawyer gets beaten to death rather than a productive member of society?

Or the hammerer gets a faceful of evidence for the defense. Dwarf lawyers wouldn't be useless layabouts in this system.

[mattie2009]

I rather liked the idea of taking things in completely the opposite direction: add another noble position almost identical to the hammerer called the lawyer, or advocate, something like that. Every time a criminal is accused, they have the opportunity to make a meeting with the lawyer, who might then decide to fight the hammerer on their behalf. Trial by combat by proxy.

Wait, so when somebody commits a crime, a lawyer gets beaten to death rather than a productive member of society?

A+

Wrong.
It's:
A**

It's so awesome it deserves 2 stars instead of one in front of that A.

[Granite26]

Wait, so when somebody commits a crime, a lawyer gets beaten to death rather than a productive member of society?

Or the hammerer gets a faceful of evidence for the defense. Dwarf lawyers wouldn't be useless layabouts in this system.

I like my version better... Mostly cause I like the thought of a lawyer getting hit with a hammer

[Saber Cherry]

If lawyers fight for the client, then lawyer should probably be a combat specialty - weapon being a notebook, but only clothing allowed as armor.  Then you don't have to wait for a trial, but can watch lawyers be kicked around all day every day by off-duty guards in the barracks until they have massive brain damage.  Pit fights of lawyers versus goblins would be even more fun!

...Alternately...  lawyers could just be dwarf-sized vermin that spawn around resting (wounded) dwarves, blood, jails, gems, and coins.  Hateable?  YES.  But good food in an emergency.  This would not change dwarven justice in terms of gameplay, but would make it far more realistic.

[Jude]

This thread stirs up a lot of questions about dwarven society, which will in the long run, affect gameplay quite a lot.

For example, how authoritarian are they, or how egalitarian? How are money and resources distributed? At the present time, here's what we know: Outposts start out largely communist; there's an "expedition leader" but this appears to be a job rather than a privilege. He has no extra authority over other dwarves. Even the mayor doesn't really have authority and hamlets stay pretty much communist all the time, with all dwarves taking what they need and (assuming other people play like me, squelching idleness at every chance) they work as much as they are able toward the good of the fort.

Then when the baron arrives, things change - suddenly dwarves have to earn their keep and pay in money; the baron has the power to issue orders and hand down sentences without appeal, other than the persuasive power of a bedroom full of magma. This just seems to continue.

What I'd gather from this is that dwarves tend toward egalitarianism, and they work that way in small groups, but that once there are more dwarves, a power structure begins to emerge which forces people to toe the line.

The way things are in the current version doesn't necessarily have to stay the same, but as it is, I'd say the idea of "lawyers" go against how things are done in large-scale dwarf society. The nobles more or less control things and toss around sentence and hammerings based on their whims; nobles like this don't seem like they would have room for a justice system.

Still it'll be interesting to see how these things get expanded on in future versions. Also, there's still the questions of, do dwarves LIKE having an authoritarian power structure, or do they seethe at the oppression of the proletariat?

[Atarlost]

The ability of the elected mayor to make demands seems to indicate the dwarves like being punished for failure to do the impossible.  This may explain why they persistantly attempt to commit suicide by walling themselves into enclosed spaces when the nobles fail to kill enough of them. 

[Halmie]

You could have a system where disputes can be settled by hiring a champion, that would fight the enemy champion or, if they have no money, the enemy himself.That would be more realistic in that if you have lots of money you're not going to get smashed to a pulp.

Back on topic, 10% of the fortress is abit overkill i think. It would be better as 7 OR 10%(rounded up) of the fortress, whichever is smaller.

Maybe have a choice of legal system, but the dwarves work less if they don't like the legal system. Maybe having a mayor with a higher persuader skill would be able to negate the effect. Hehe you could even execute dwarves for speaking up against your government.

If any of that doesn't make any sense it's not you, I have only just started DF and havn't got any nobles as of yet.