Suggest-a-Case

[phaedo]

I didn't realize that this case was not one of the ones needed until I'd already written it; my apologies, and I'll write another one tomorrow.

This is a case between a major burgher and a major noble.

This is a case involving a major burgher (Francesco Buonarotti) delegated by the city to arrange a trade agreement concerning wool shipments with a neighboring town. He was dispatched to the town to discuss the possibility of the town's sheep flock supplying wool at a cheaper price to the ciompi of (Player's City). However, on the way to the town, Patrizio Buonarotti stayed at a major noble's estate as his guest. The noble (Signore Carlo di Alvino) had an agreement with the city wherein the peasants on his estates supply wool to the ciompi for a much higher price; upon hearing the details of Buonarotti's mission, di Alvino imprisons him in the castle until the appointed meeting time has passed in order to prevent his lucrative earnings from being undercut.

Plaintiff/Buonarotti - Your most esteemed Lordship (Player name), I come to you for a redress of grievances on not just mine, but the commune's behalf. I was dispatched as an emissary to the town of Veia, in order to negotiate a trade agreement with the sheep-farmers there. As it grew dark on the first day of my journey, I stopped at the estate of Signore Carlo di Alvino to beg his hospitality for the night. We passed a pleasant evening discussing the business of the city, and the Signore inquired as to my reason for passing through to Veia. I duly told him, and shortly thereafter was shown to bed. When I awoke the next morning, my door was locked and guarded by an armed guard of that testa di catso di Alvino! Being unable to leave, I missed the trade meeting with the town fathers of Veia, resulting in the loss of a very important contract for our city, (Player's City). I beg you, most honorable (Player name), punish this miscreant on both of our behalfs!

Defendant/di Alvino - My dear Excellency (Player name), I must protest at this imposition! I did not wilfully interfere in the business of our city; I had simply heard word that a rebellious peasant army was passing near our territory, and wished to safeguard the city's emissary in this time of danger. I was unable to inform Buon Homme Buonarotti of the change in circumstances, because I was busy preparing to defend my lands. I beseech you, Your Honor (Player name), uphold my claim!

Guidice - I have heard it said that Signore di Alvino will go to any length to protect his own extortionate agreement with the commune's ciompi; moreover, I have heard no news of a peasant rebellion anywhere near the territory of the city. It is clear that, intentional or not, the city's business was interfered with, to the great personal benefit of this noble. In this case, I remind you that obvious results often betray motive. Perhaps you ought to take the good Signore's motivation into question when making your decision.

Consul - What? Does this Bolognese peacock dare impune the honor of one of (Player city)'s most esteemed nobles? Please, your honor, demonstrate your trust in the propriety of Signore di Alvino by punishing this impudent wool-worker for bringing a suit against the man who safeguarded his life.

Pro Defendant in extremis - "Honestly, do you expect me to accuse one of our most honorable and strenuous nobles of perjury on the word of a draper? Begone with your claim, and the court demands that you pay the good Signore 1,500 Imperial marks as a salve for his wounded honor!"

Pro Defendant minor - "I am afraid, Patrizio Buonarotti, that Signore di Alvino's reason for detaining you is beyond criticism. The Court recommends that you repay this man both for his hospitality and stewardship of your own life by helping him negotiate a more favorable agreement with our city's ciompi."

Pro Plaintiff minor - "Signore di Alvino, your meddling in the affairs of our city is inexcusable and shall not be repeated. As punishment for your intrusion, the Court orders that you pay one half of your earnings from the ciompi agreement for the next 6 months to the esteemed Patrizio Buonarotti."

Pro Plaintiff in extremis - "So, Signore di Alvino, you have so little respect for me that you not only imprison my representative unjustly, but then have the gall to lie to my face in a court of law about it? Consul, send your men to confiscate Signore di Alvino's flocks; they will be given to the people of Veia as an apology for not appearing at the negotiations. In order that this pernicious obstruction of the commune's interests for personal gain shall not be repeated, I moreover demand that Signore di Alvino be placed in the stocks located in the ciompi quarter for a period of 12 hours, beginning at vespers tomorrow."

[grendel]

Here's another one, just for variety.

major cleric vs major peasant
case: A man untied the oxen that pulled his cart. The oxen got scared by a brawl close by and ran away. The cart then hit a priest who broke his leg. The priest believes that the man let the oxen go free with the purpose of injuring him by accident.

plaintiff/Father Amero:
“My most noble Count (playername), as I am certain you have noticed I am barely able to walk. Though it might seem that this injury was afflicted unto me by accident, it is not so. Let me relate the facts. This sunday on my daily walk after mass and confessions I passed a tavern outside which the farmer Erio stood together with a number of other peasants who had not been at mass, most were mildly drunk it seemed to me. I did not greet them, this was not out of impoliteness but simply because this particular group of people bear a visible disrespect toward our Holy Church. The details of this are of no matter here. Just after I passed this group I heard some low cries and would have turned around, but I was suddenly pushed over by a powerful blow, I fell and the the cart wheels drove over me and both my legs. The last I saw was the riderless cart and ox and then all the peasants rushing to my aid. I passed out. Now I have one molested and one broken leg. I claim that this man let his oxen loose in my direction with the purpose of crippling me.”

defendant/Erio:
“Your Honor, it is not true what the priest say, I untied my oxen and got on the cart cause I was on my way home. The same second I started off, a brawl broke out and someone grabbed me and I fell off...and old Tyrus, my oxen, ran away..he gets afraid real easy you see. But maybe we could ask the priest Amero here, if maybe it was him gods will...cause that broke up the fighting all at once. And that would’ve been a bloody brawl I’ll tell you that. Anyway thats why it ran wild. No evil purpose of mine no.”

giudice:
“Your Honor, there are very little to consider, the peasant Erio is responsible for any damage his oxen and cart might inflict within the city. Unless it is stolen naturally. The brawl left the cart without a rider I believe, so temperance in your judgment is what I advice. Either way that is. Erio was grabbed and forced down from the cart, could this perhaps lift the responsibility from him? Erio has a very good reputation among the farmers of our commune and are himself one of the larger tenants of the church’s land, Father Amero’s church as a matter of fact. The learned Amero also have a certain reputation among the farmers....”

consul:
“Your Honor (playername), I protest.. hearsay and rumors about the learned Father Amero and his administration of church property are below this courts standard. I also strongly protest any temperance when judging the peasant Erio. Drunken brawls and oxen running wild in the streets, do we really want this in our city? And is it impossible to consider that it was on purpose that he let the cart go, they did stop fighting, is that not suspicious?”

decisions:
pro plaintiff extreme:
“Erio the farmer, this was no accident you have deliberately plotted to injure Father Amero. As his body have been damaged so shall your’s. Your one leg shall be broken and you will be flogged.”

pro plaintiff mild:
“Erio the farmer, you are responsible for the injuries caused by your oxen. Therefore I fine you 100 denars, half of which shall be payed to Father Amero’s church.”

pro defendant extreme:
“Father Amero, you are still able to act as a priest I believe, so you waste our precious time with this small accident. For this I fine you 50 denars. You did not pay proper attention while strolling about in the streets. For this I fine you 50 denars. Let this be a lesson to you.”

pro defendant mild:
“Father Amero, you met with a accident for which no one is to blame. I dismiss this case.”

[stone]

You may want to consider overlaying an "influence" structure in the mod, similar to what is contained in the "last of days" mod but more sophisticated. For example, the more foes of a particular faction you successfully defeat in battle, the more influence you have with those who have labeled that faction their enemy. Similarly, you lose influence points with those who are allied with the factions that you defeat in battle. This results in receiving very high influence points when being loyal to a specific faction and their allies, and no influence points if you continually switch your support in battles with opposing factions.

Influence points can be used to redirect forces you encounter (as with "last of days" mod), can be used to request a faction to concentrate their attack or defense level in a specific region or castle (as with "a shield lying on the water" mod), or used as a subsitute for money in creating customized armour or weapons in the marketplace. The idea is to have the influence points be limited, but with enough potency to change the tide of an ongoing faction dispute over time.

As a layer of roleplaying complexity, these same influence points could also be used to influence the forces that back your faction to provide your party with a few extremely tough bodyguards. For example, if you are loyal to the Ghibelines after a while an option appears to use your influence points in receiving bodyguards from the Emperor. This would be another incentive to remain loyal to a particular faction. After receiving the bodyguards, however, you could choose to support another faction and the bodyguards would remain in your party if they had been with you for over one month, since over time their priority to be aligned with you outweighed their alliance to the Emperor.

For variety and integration, these same influence points could be used in the marketplace and taverns. In the marketplace, use of influence points in conjunction with money would provide you with "reinforced" armour of whatever you select, or "balanced" swords, etc. This would be in addition to the money cost of an item, but provide you with the best of equipment on demand, and not by chance resulting in quests to find the best armour which is counter to the roleplaying objectives of a mod. Also, these influence points could be used in taverns. You could use them with the tavern owner for a passionate night for yourself, or more influence points for a passionate night provided to all your party members. This would result in significantly improved health regeneration, and significantly increased party moral and speed in traversing the map for the next 24 hours.

I hope these ideas help you in the development of an excellent mod, which I am very interested in playing.

[Khalid ibn Walid]

stone said:

You may want to consider overlaying an "influence" structure in the mod, similar to what is contained in the "last of days" mod but more sophisticated. For example, the more foes of a particular faction you successfully defeat in battle, the more influence you have with those who have labeled that faction their enemy. Similarly, you lose influence points with those who are allied with the factions that you defeat in battle. This results in receiving very high influence points when being loyal to a specific faction and their allies, and no influence points if you continually switch your support in battles with opposing factions.

Influence points can be used to redirect forces you encounter (as with "last of days" mod), can be used to request a faction to concentrate their attack or defense level in a specific region or castle (as with "a shield lying on the water" mod), or used as a subsitute for money in creating customized armour or weapons in the marketplace. The idea is to have the influence points be limited, but with enough potency to change the tide of an ongoing faction dispute over time.

As a layer of roleplaying complexity, these same influence points could also be used to influence the forces that back your faction to provide your party with a few extremely tough bodyguards. For example, if you are loyal to the Ghibelines after a while an option appears to use your influence points in receiving bodyguards from the Emperor. This would be another incentive to remain loyal to a particular faction. After receiving the bodyguards, however, you could choose to support another faction and the bodyguards would remain in your party if they had been with you for over one month, since over time their priority to be aligned with you outweighed their alliance to the Emperor.

For variety and integration, these same influence points could be used in the marketplace and taverns. In the marketplace, use of influence points in conjunction with money would provide you with "reinforced" armour of whatever you select, or "balanced" swords, etc. This would be in addition to the money cost of an item, but provide you with the best of equipment on demand, and not by chance resulting in quests to find the best armour which is counter to the roleplaying objectives of a mod. Also, these influence points could be used in taverns. You could use them with the tavern owner for a passionate night for yourself, or more influence points for a passionate night provided to all your party members. This would result in significantly improved health regeneration, and significantly increased party moral and speed in traversing the map for the next 24 hours.

I hope these ideas help you in the development of an excellent mod, which I am very interested in playing.

Hi stone,

This should have probably been in the 'Suggest-a-Quest' thread rather than this one.

There are already 'influence' factors incorporated (if I understand you correctly), e.g. your standing in the cities - and among classes within the cities -- depend on the amount (& type) of stuff you do for it, etc.

In general factional terms, yes, you also build up (& lose) brownie points with papal, imperial & monastic factions depending on whom you attack/don't attack. And you deploy those points when asking for favors.

But keep in mind that in Lombardia, unswerving loyalty to a faction, or class, does not always pay and should in fact hurt you. The strategic aim is 'balance', playing both sides of the aisle, keeping everyone thinking you're on their side and getting them to give you more and more power and privilege. Double-dealing & double-crossing is the way to go. One day indulging the burghers in a court case, the next helping the nobles knock their stuffing out in a brawl, making great donations to the churches in the morning, while helping heretic bands out in the field in the afternoon.

Proving too loyal to one side should result in your exile, excommunication, the fury of high dukes and hired hunters crashing down on you, assassination attempts, the poison-and-stiletto, and, if all else fails, revolution.

And, oh, as you'll soon learn when the might dukes come after you, for all your loyalty, you have only two real friends in all of Lombardia: Borcha and Marnid.

The 'customized' stuff you get from playing this right is widespread popularity, popularity which you will deploy into invitations, elections, power, and fancy titles, armor & ornaments - a house in the city, the badge of nobility, the gonfalon of the commune (and a pretty girl to carry it ), the warhorse of a count, the necklace of an imperial bailiff, the mitre of a bishop.

But I see we're on the same page somewhat. Perhaps after testing the game for a bit, you can adjust your suggest to something a little more precise.

[Khalid ibn Walid]

Phaedo & Grendel,

Those last two cases are GREAT.

They aren't yet incorporated in the lastest build, but I will in the next one.

(Grendel, all your previous ones are already, but I haven't tested them it).

[meatbag999]

Hello, I just sign up some five minutes ago. But I would like to contribute. My apologies if my cases were out of places.

Here we go....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a case between minor noble and a major burgher.

Albertus, a young minor noble, complains that fruits and vegetables he ordered from Baldus,a major burgher, for an important banquet are mostly rotten. So the food in the banquet were not grand enough. Albertus invited some fellow minor nobles and even a few major noble to the feast. Major nobles are upset and minor nobles laugh at him.

While Baldus says that the goods were fresh when delivered and he got nothing to do with this. Besides, why he would want to do that? He's got a reputation to keep.

Albertus : Your honor (playername). I stand before you today begging for your most righteous judgement. Just yesterday, I ordered fruits and vegetables from Baldus for a feast. I paid 500 denars as promised only to find that the food were rotten! But before I says anything, the delivery boys were all gone. This ruined the banquet completely. Noble lords were most displeased. And lesser noble are laughting at me. I cannot allow this crime to go unpunished. Only gods know what will Baldus do to the fine nobles and honest people next.


Baldus : My lord (playername). With your wisdom, I'm sure you will find that Albertus' words are nothing but a lie. Why would I do such a thing. I have my reputation to keep. And to a people of my standing, 500 denars is not worth cheating. I can find a bigger better deals every day. Besides, I always have my men check that every single shipment are new and fresh before deliver. I'd say it is Albertus' stupidity of not knowing how to properly keep fruits and vegetables that cause them to rot.

Guidice : There! There is the problem! You said YOUR MEN checked the shipment. But you didn't check it yourself. Your men could have lied to you. Maybe they didn't do their job. That's why they ran away after the delivery! And you said yourself that is deal is so small. So why would you even care if the goods were really rotten. Why bother for a 500 denars deal. My lord (playername), I believe just this point is strong enough.

Consul : Hold on. How could you be so sure that Albertus didn't make this all up? Using a banquet as an excuse, ordering some food and leave them to rot. Then bring this up to the court hoping for a grand sum of money from the trader. Why didn't he check the shipment before paying? And there is no witness that the delivery boys were making an escape. His story doesn't make sense at all.

Judgement greatly in the noble's favor :

" Hear my judgement. Baldus, carelessly or intentionly ships rotten goods to a customer. I fine you 5000 denars for cheating. Albertus is a respectable noble man. His honor has been wounded from this crime. Therefor I fine you another 5000 denars which will be given to the Albertus. And you will be put on the stock for 6 hours as an example. Cheating traders are not acceptable."

Judgement in the noble's favor :

"Baldus, for deliver rotten food by mistake or carelessness. You'll give the money back to Albertus. But damage has been done to Albertus' name. Another 500 denars must be given to Albertus."

Judgement greatly in the trader's favor :

"Albertus, lies are not acceptable in the court. You will be whipped 5 times for false accuse. You must stand in front of the public and declare that your story was a lie and the trader is innocence so the trader's name can be clear of this false accuse.
And I will fine you 1000 denars which will be given to the trader."

Judgement in the trader's favor :

"I find that it is Albertus' false that he did not check the shipment before paying. Let that be a lesson for you, Albertus."

[meatbag999]

I'm really sorry if my English is so hard to understand and contain lots of mistakes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a case between two minor peasants

Both of them are no important people in the city, but they accuse each other a witch. And brought much of public's attention.

Adalina : Your lordship, I'm here not to fighting for myself, but to fight for the Christiandom. This woman, Bella, is no less than a witch! <crowds go like Ooooo....> By her dark magic, She charmed a man that I love and marry him. That man loves me. It must be her foul spell that did this! And she can tell the weather! She knows if it's going to rain. And she always wearing those creepy black robes, hiding in her house studying dark magic. She must be a witch!

Bella : Your honor, All of her words are lies! I'm not a witch, it's HER! Adalina is a witch I'm sure of it! <crowds go Ooooo again> Everyone can tell weather! If the sky is black then it's going to rain. And about my husband, Adalina loves him but my husband didn't love her! I and my husband intent to marry since we were children. And I never had any black robes. It's her that has been using black magic! She has been trying to turn my husband against me. She's trying to frame me because I know that she is a witch. Once I'm excuted, she will roam free and casting dark magics freely.

Guidice : Both sides have strong points. Perhaps it's Adalina who is a witch. Or maybe Bella?

Consul : My lord, perhaps we should take a safe side. I'd say burn them both. The church will be happy and the crowds will have a good show.

Judgement :

No1 : "There are no strong enough evidences or witness to the claims. Therefore, Adalina and Bella are free to go."

No2 : "The weight of evidences support Bella's claim. Adalina will be cleanse by fire tommorrow at noon."

No3 : "There are reasons to believe in Adalina's claim. Bella will be cleanse by fire tommorrow at noon."

No4 : "I'd say both of you are witches! You will be cleanse by fire tommorrow at noon."

[tomhill]

Maybe a case about someone wanting to change religion or a reported act of blasphemy, it would probably only sere the purpose of bringing you closer or farther from the church depending on your action

[cremo]

Hi,

This is my first case, let’s see if you like it!
It’s an adaptation of the “placito de marturi” the first known case in which roman law was used in the west by a certain PEPO MAGISTER, whom is probably a precursor to Irnerius, the founder’s of the first European university of Bologna.

Major noble vs. minor cleric.
A minor monastery reclaims the property of some lands which were donated to it around 60 years ago by the marchese Ugo Toscani, but are now held in the possession of Conte Fulvio Randacci, whom inherited those from his father, whom stripped the monastery of those 50 years ago.
The Counts claims that since more than 40 years have passed, the monks can’t ask for justice anymore, whilst the monastery claims that since they never stopped asking for the lands back – only to be turned down by unfair Giudici – they still have the right to do so.



Plaintiff/Magister Pepus (bald and bearded middle-aged jurist representing the monastery):
“Fair and Honourable (Count/Countess player name), I come here on the behalf of the S.Eufemia’s monastery, humbly asking for justice to be finally dispensed in this everlasting dispute. The lands behind the old cemetery of The S.Eufemia’s Chappell were donated 61 years ago to the monastery by the most kind Marchese Ugo Toscani. Conte Amiltore Randacci - the father of Conte Fulvio Randacci - taking advantage of the Marchese’s premature Death 47 years ago, seized tirantly the property for himself. The monastery has tried from the very beginning to get its rightful possessions back, but to no avail, due to the arrogance of the Counts, and the unfairness of the judges that so far have held jurisdiction on the Case.
Despite more than 40 years have passed, accordingly to Magister Ulpianus Teachings – contained in the Justiniani Digesta (D. 4.6.26.4) –, since the monastery never stopped asking for justice, it has the right to get the restitutio in integrum of all of its actions in front of a new Judge, thus being able to refer to your excellence to obtain justice.”

plaintiff/Count Fulvio Randacci (Beautifull and fair haired young noble in luxury garbs).
“My dear and Joust (Count/Countess playername), please pay no attention to those petty monks. I don’t know nor, frankly, care, about what happened before my father’s death: I inherited those lands from him thus I’m not responsible of anything that could have happened back than and, most importantly, whatever may have happened is now forgot by the decades. Even if what the monks say regarding to my father’s seizing it’s true – and yet, I still don’t know why I should be the one to demonstrate my father’s possession was fair and not them demonstrating the contrary actively showing my father’s unfair actions and not just helding some papers on which we all know they are well versed in – the years passed, according to our laws, have healed any wrongful deed, thus inhibiting the monks from asking this case to be brought in front of a new judge, and, most importantly, making those lands rightfully mine.”


giureconsulto:
“Your Lordship (playername), this is a most interesting case. Albeit the facts - as shown from the monks’ meticulous documentation as well as the previous sentences – clearly show that the monastery was unfairly seized of its property, the law question is quite complex.
More than 40 years have passed since the contested facts took place, thus, according to the customs, the monastery shouldn’t be able to ask for justice anymore. Yet Magister Pepus has indeed found that, according to roman law, the monastery - never having ceased to ask back what was unfairly seized by the Count’s father - has not let the prescription take effect. I strongly believe in the fact that, even in this case, the roman law reveals itself superior to common customs for equity and far-sightedness: the monks never ceased to ask what was unfairly taken from them, thus not allowing them to ask justice to your excellence would just be as unfair as the previous giudici’s decision. The monks have the right to ask for a new and fair judgement, and they surely deserve, to my advice, to get their property back.”
consul:
“Your signoria, I must strongly disagree with our giureconsulto! What happened more than 50 years back is no longer important; according to our customs – and not to some long forgotten law - those lands now belong, without doubts, to conte Randacci. The Conte is an influential and well respected noble of our comune, and thus it would be unwise, in my humble opinion, to favour a small and provincial monastery over him, just because some old manuscripts seems to suggest that our customs aren’t fair.”



decisions:

pro plaintiff extreme:
“Conte Fulvio Randacci, time doesn’t heal wrong deeds, especially the ones done against the sanctity of our Church. You are a man of great prosperity and yet you refuse to give back an handful of lands to some poor men that have devoted their lives to sanctify our community and honour our Lord and were unrightfully stripped of them. Not only you shall give back to the monastery its property, but, as an act of penitence to your egoism, you shall cleanse your soul by donating 10000 denars to the monastery”.



pro plaintiff mild:
“Conte Fulvio Randacci, the law of the ancients suggests us the most fair way to solve this dispute: the monks never ceased to ask for their property to be given back, and thus it would be unjust to negate them the right to ask for a fair judgement. I hereby declare that you shall restore the monastery to all of its properties and you shall pay them 50 denars as a refund for each year the land was without any rightful title occupied by you and your Fathers”.


pro defendant extreme:
“Magister Pepone, you, as an expert giureconsulto, clearly were able, and openly adimitted, to know what our customs provides for decades of possession passing: what happened long ago is no matter for this court, since it has long been prescripted by now. Our customs are surely not to be judged by you and your kind, nor their equity questioned by any means: they just have to be applied. Yet you decide to waste this court’s time, by suggesting the monks to ask what clearly they no longer have any rights onto. Not only the monastery will be denied a new judgment on this matter, but you, as their counsellor, shall be flogged in the piazza del podestà, to show the people of our city that no one may challenge the autority of our customs.”



pro defendant mild:
“Magister Pepone, even if our customs may appear unfair we have not any authority to judge them, else law becomes the land of arbitrariness. Even if the law of the ancients suggested a different interpretation of the case, our customs are clear, thus, having passed more than 40 years since the land was claimed to have been sized, this court isn’t able to express any judgement on the matter, for this reason, I hereby reject the plaint of the monastery”.



of course if you decide in favor of the monastery you improve your relation with the guelfs, while if you give reason to the noble to the ghibellins!

[Khalid ibn Walid]

Wow! Cremo, that's excellent! Thanks, I'll use it.