So I ran my first session of the game yesterday. (went pretty well in fact)

There a few things that came up during the session that I figured I would throw out to the wisdom of the crowd.

I decided to run the players through the "Adventure of the New-Made Knight". So potential spoilers for anyone that hasn't played that adventure. (I feel like I might need to explain a little bit of the setup to provide context)

Essentially, a young knight has abandoned the path chivalry and the player knights have been tasked to reeducate him. Specifically by escorting him around to various challenges that he failed and showing him that these challenges are surmountable.

The knight's villagers are fearful, hiding in their huts as the knights pass. In particular they see 4 men and a woman hanging from the trees.

Unprodded one of the PKs opines:
"Hmm. Clearly these peasants must have done something to provoke their lord... 4 horse thieves and a witch most likely." (not an exact quote - but he did invent a lurid explanation of why these peasants must surely have deserved whatever they got)

I gave him a check in arbitrary. (initially)

A bit later in the session he asked about the definition of just/arbitrary. Explaining that he saw his knight as a very 'law-and-justice' type. Reinterpreting the comment in that light I let him choose whether the check would be applied to arbitrary or cruel. (As cruel opposes mercy)

In retrospect arbitrary is probably more accurate... though perhaps granting a check for an off-hand comment might be too harsh.

(There is also the not insignificant quibble of the knight enforcing 'high justice' unlawfully, but the module didn't bring it up and it didn't occur to me until after the session)

Some of these situations do offer room for interpretation. In this case, "Just" might be appropriate if the executed people were in fact guilty of horse theft and witchcraft. If they had been caught red-handed, for example, or if they had been found guilty by trial (including Trial by Ordeal — which seems very Arbitrary to us, but which were an accepted part of the medieval world view of justice). If on the other hand, the lord rode into the village bound and determined to make an example of someone and executed the first people he laid hands on just to put the fear of God into the commons, then that would be considered Arbitrary. Basically the fair application of the Law (no matter how crazy the medieval sense of jurisprudence) — and the upholding of it — is Just. Doing whatever you want in a highly random, illogical way without regard to the law or a person's right to a hearing or trial is Arbitrary. Outlaws could be killed on sight in medieval times. People caught red-handed could be punished, severely—even executed—on the spot. Who needs a trial when the cattle rustlers are caught with the cattle? Neither of these are Arbitrary. To the medieval mind, they're Just. One could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread — regardless if the theif was stealing it to feed his starving family. That's not Arbitrary; it's Just. Shouldn't have stolen the bread.

That's how I view it anyway. Hope that helps.


T.

Some of these situations do offer room for interpretation. In this case, "Just" might be appropriate if the executed people were in fact guilty of horse theft and witchcraft.

In this case I would think the actual guilt or innocence of the peasants is irrelevant - the PK in question did not that have that information. (It was an NPK that did the executing)

To be clear the action that is being evaluated is: Faced with a squalid village of terrified peasants living in the shadow of a castle ruled by a knight that was already described to him as a "tyrant" (by said tyrant's own mother) - he saw some dead peasants and figured "Well, they must have been guilty of something."

By the player's description of his knight's worldview... it's more a willing disbelief in injustice then the cruel dismissal of his lessers that it could be taken for.

So by that logic... maybe it is actually 'just' (in trait terms) to assume that anyone that has been punished for a crime must be guilty. It shows his undiminished faith in justice (even when that faith is possibly misplaced).

It's Arbitrary for sure.

-Justice requires knowing that the law has been served through its correct application.
-Arbitrary in this sense indicates that the person saw a punishment first, then reasoned out a basis for it.

A dictionary definition that might help:

"of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority."

Another one is the general usage of arbitrary, a ruling based on personal whim or belief. The knight feels that the law of the land (knights are just and punish wicked) has been served simply by knowing that a knight has issued a punishment. Basically, because someone was punished they MUST have been guilty because that's how the world always works in his eyes.

As is quite evident here, opinions vary wildly. :P And you noticed yourself, SirKnightly, that you could argue it any which way.

I agree with Taliesin: a by-the-book, this-is-the-law punishment is Just. It can be Cruel, and one of my 'favorite' heffalump traps is a woman stealing bread for her starving kids. Mercy before Justice or other way around? Makes the players think about things a bit.

Snap judgment like 'he is accused so he must be guilty, case closed' is Arbitrary in my opinion. Just, to me, involves trying to find out what the truth is. And once the truth is known, then acting like the law says.

There was another adventure (online) that had a Cruel Lord of the Manor, who was whipping some peasants who had encroached on his lands with their sheep. The punishment was within the law, and the peasants were guilty, although by modern eyes, this would seem unjust punishment. And similar things, punishing peasants who ran away from the estate and such, again might be Cruel, but Just.

Not sure I would have awarded Arbitrary checks on an off-hand comment, though. I can see why on the heat of things you'd make that ruling and I might have done the same. And I would have taken a look at the character sheet, did he have Just 16? Then I might have advised the player, especially as I understand you are testing out Pendragon still so you have players unfamiliar with the system, that snap-judgments without evidence is Arbitrary, not Just.

Unprodded one of the PKs opines:
"Hmm. Clearly these peasants must have done something to provoke their lord... 4 horse thieves and a witch most likely." (not an exact quote - but he did invent a lurid explanation of why these peasants must surely have deserved whatever they got)

I gave him a check in arbitrary. (initially)


Sounds more like he really trusted the knights actions :)

fg,
Dr. Thijs