Basic Laws of Xyllomer

To whom it applies

Crimes

    ::read more

Murder

Possible punishments in ascending order, only one of which may be applied.

1. Fines and compensation. Fines depending on the gravity of the case and circumstances.
2. Regional outlaw status in the region under which jurisdiction the crime fell.
3. Capital punishment.

       ::read more

Assault

Any assault with the intention to kill will be subject to financial punishment and compensation of the healing costs.

Who makes someone helpless may be held responsible if the victim suffers any damage while being helpless or as a direct result thereof.

    ::read more

Theft

Who tries to steal or gives back everything that was stolen on request may be found guilty of having attempted to steal. There won't be any other consequences but the loss of reputation caused by that public decision.

If the accused is found guilty of stealing, he will be sentenced as follows.

1. Return or restoration of the item(s) in question.
2. or, if the item cannot be restored by any means, reimbursement of its value multiplied by a factor determinable by regional laws and jurisdiction. For items of no determinable value, a minimum value of 5 platinum coins will be assumed, the same applies to items worth less than 5 platinum coins.
3. In addition, the thief can be sentenced to the stocks.

    ::read more

Bereft of will

Who forces his will upon his victim will be held liable for any damage done to the victim during, or as a result of his actions. He will be sentenced to a basic fine as set by regional juristdiction and further fine of a minimum of 5 platinum coins to the victim.

    ::read more

Concerning Court

Libel

Perjury

Fining

Compensation

Other punishments

Outlawship

Outlaws are declared either as part of a judgement or in public notice if that is not possible.

Outlawship can be declared in

• cases of murder.
• cases of unpayed fines.
• cases specified by regional laws.

    ::read more

Capital punishment

Comment of the Basic Laws of Xyllomer

To whom it applies

Who has the right to justice?

Basicaly, there are three possible definitions, if I forget about the current one which makes law applicable to players only, and to NPC's only indirectly by giving players the right to accuse for them.
As Bonnie already pointed out, this is discriminating to all NPC's that aren't protected explicitly by the laws or a guild. That, and aspects of roleplay are why I'd like to get rid of this distinction between players and NPC's in the legal system. Murder should be murder, no matter if it's Shiona who gets killed or a wee little newbie. This also would make special laws about cityguards and guildprotected person completely superfluous. If any murder is against the law, so is murdering a guard. The case that he was killed on duty would play a role in determining the appropriate punishment. There would be no need for special protection.

Just for your information, here are the three models I could think of, with their (sometimes somewhat ridiculous) consequences.

1. Every living being is granted the right to justice

   • The case Mouse against Enshu would be a liable case since the mouse as living being would have the right to justice. Imps, demons and the whole breed however would not, since undead are no living beings. Would have been at least if the ermine as victim had accused enshu. The mouse as witness, (or if I remember not even that) couldn't.
   • Controlled/bound persons:
     • are liable and have the right to recieve justice.
       This has the weird consequence that the controlled/bound victim has to bear the consequences of deeds he didn't do willingly, but it also gives him the right to accuse someone who killed him while he was acting under control of someone else.
     • creatures would have the right to justice, while undead wouldn't.
     • NPC's in general can accuse, but might loose the right to do so by attacking themselves.
     • NPC's can be accused.
     • would need a weaker thing than outlaw-status: removing the right to justice from someone without raising a bounty on his head. Could be adressed by the need to request the right to justice, (which would have to be granted in every case it got requested first). Sounds pretty much like the citizenship model could solve this.

2. Every being with a will of its own is granted the right to justice

   • The case Mouse against Enshu would not be a liable case, since the mouse (ermine) didn't act under it's own will but someone elses.
   • Controlled/bound persons:
     • are neither liable and don't the right to recieve justice.
       they could however accuse the one bereaving them of their own will who would be held responsible for anything that happened to them. (since the spell bereaving them of their will would be the last they had experienced while still in their own mind, and hence with the right to justice)
     • needs something like "bereft of will" to be illegal.
     • mage creatures would not have the right to justice, since their behaviour is controlled by the mage (soul and orders).

3. Only citizens have the right to justice

   • The case Mouse against Enshu would most certainly not be a liable case, since the mouse would not be a citizen anywhere.
   • Controlled/bound persons:
     
     • if they're not citizens, they can't accuse the person controlling them. That would apply for mage creatures and imps equally.
     • Controlled citizens have the right to justice. I decided on modifying this with the laws on liability and bereft of will, to avoid that someone can be accused for something he didn't do by his own choice.

Liability

Teams are regarded as one person while they are at the same place.

This means any actions done to a team are done against each member. If one member gets attacked, the defense by the others will be judged as if they had been attacked as well.
This also menas that the members of a team are liable for any action done as a team. If the members don't agree with the actions of the team, they can leave the team (and the place if there's a fight already)
For the leader that implies that he is liable for actions done by the individual members of the team while they are at the same place as him. He has full control over who is a member. If they don't follow his orders he can kick them out or if they get into fight with someone against his will, he can invite that person into the team to protect him and stop the fight.

If a member of the team ist outlaw, all members of the team lack the right to justice for anything done by them or to them as a team.

The controller of any being is fully responsible for the beings actions while under his control, or as a result of his control, as if he had done them himself.

Judgement should be as if the controller had been standing there instead of the being. Controlled here includes all means of directing the beings actions, even if the being has a chance left for actions on his own. All the beings actions will be treated as if they had been done by the controller. It should be dealt with as if the being had not been there but its controller instead. This also implies that any action done to a controlled person is done against the controller, not to the controlled being.

Example:

• The Satai accuses the Necromancer for the bereft of will .
• The Bard accuses the Necromancer for the assault. If he accuses the Satai it will be dealt with as if the Necromancer had been accused.
• The Necromancer accuses the Bard of murder.

The Bard would have to pay:

the fine for the murder to court and the compensation for the murder to the Necromancer. Since the Bard was attacked, they would be lowered accordingly.

The Necromancer:

• The compensation for the murder to the Satai - as he got it from the Bard
• the compensation for the bereft of will to the Satai,
• the fine for the assault to court,
• the fine for the bereft of will to court,
• and the costs of restoring the arm to the Bard.

Crimes

Murder

Causing someones death is supposed to cover sacrifice or warding someone to a place which means sure death for him. It also includes deadly traps.

I want to avoid having laws justifying killing someone, this means that self-defence, guild defence and support of attacked persons will need to be dealt with by adjusting the fines accordingly. Hence the minimum fine of 0pc.

Declaring outlaw status requires naming the conditions for resocialisation, though fulfilling them may be not the only way to get resocialised.

Assault

Any assault with the intention to kill will be subject to financial punishment and retribution of the healing costs.

Inviting the assaulted into team before any serious damage occurs is taken as proof that there was no intention to kill, as is the lack of serious wounds.

If someone is made helpless by your doing, you may be held responsible if he suffers any damage while being helpless or as a direct result thereof.

If you don't take care of someone who is unconscious or badly hurt by your doing, and he gets stolen from or killed my someone else or by running into danger, he may accuse you for having caused his death. You can avoid this by guarding him until he is in good health again, or, if the both of you can't stop fighting you because he never gets conscious long enough, you could ask a friend to take care of him, or drag him to a safe place using a rope.

Theft

• if nothing gets stolen, there's no need to punish anyone. Making him public so others can be aware of him seems appropriate enough to me.
• There's no need to tell people how to behave exactly to get their property back. They have to stick to the laws, that's all. I can highly recommend stunning and binding the thief, though.

Bereft of will

The person who forced his will upon his victim will be held liable for any damage done to the victim during, or as a result of his actions. See example above

---

Miscellaneous

Mind that noone can use the following laws to accuse anyone. Their sole purpose is the handling of existing cases. If someone accuses some one else of something that never took place or knowingly accuses the wrong person, he shall be treated as if he himself had been the accused and found guilty.

False testimony

If someone knowingly gives false testimony, he shall be treated as if he himself had been the accused and found guilty.

---

First passed on 10.14. 243 AF Pierrot le fou, Master of the Rolls.
Last changed the 7.2. 244 AF Pierrot le fou, Master of the Rolls.