Post/Author/DateTime	Post
EGD Eric 12-07-04, 12:09 AM	For the longest time I've been playing/DMing D&D, there's never been any restriction on weapon carrying in cities/towns. Does this make sense to you? Why would any lawful place abide by just anyone carrying big weapons around? Remember, its not just about "making sense" it can affect gameplay. What do you think?
TLomon 12-07-04, 12:16 AM	I think it depends on the town. In my campaign, there were towns where you couldn't even wear armor heavier then leather down the street. Or weapons were limited to dagger only, etc. Smuggling weapons around added to the RP. However, in border towns, you would be looked at strangely if you didn't have a weapon at yourside. Or you can add the requirement of peacestrings. In a magical area, they could be enchanted. There are no rules for it because they are not required. It is a campaign decision, and could be changed as frequently as laws change in the RL world.
Neerie 12-07-04, 12:16 AM	I think no official ruling has been written on this to leave it to the DMs to decide how much restriction towns may ask concerning weapons, which may also vary from region to region of the world you are in.
Talanall 12-07-04, 12:22 AM	I think you're probably making a pretty serious error in logic by equating city/town to lawful. Besides that, I'm not really aware of any blanket prohibitions against bearing arms in cities, until fairly close to the modern era. There were sometimes class-based restrictions in effect. Typically these involved restricting or prohibiting the lower classes from owning and/or carrying weapons or armor, but leaving the upper classes free to bear arms. Those sorts of restrictions, however, extended off into the countryside as well in a lot of cases. The question's further complicated by the fact that its answer can vary enormously depending on where and when it's being asked. A freeborn peasant in Anglo-Saxon England could own a weapon, no questions asked. A serf in Russia of the 1600's . . . no, probably not. The Anglo-Saxon peasant was not likely to revolt against his lord, and probably needed the weapon in case of sudden attack by Vikings. The serf was the next step up from a slave, and as demonstrated by the Russian revolutions in the early part of the 20th century, could and would revolt if given half a chance, even if that meant revolting with nothing more than farm implements and stones as weapons. In short, yes, there could be such prohibitions in place in a DnD campaign setting, or in part of one. I would expect to see them in association with a discontented, disenfranchised lower class, for whom this prohibition represents a clear obstacle to the end of their oppression by their overlords.
zodiki 12-07-04, 12:48 AM	Usually if you are allowed to own weapons you are allowed to carry them. That's how I run it in "normal" medieval style settlements. You rarely can take wear them in the Lord's presence of course and some establishments like bars might not allow them either to keep bar fights from breaking out into full melees.
SnowbearK 12-07-04, 01:58 AM	As crappy as the Chicago accent was, Kevin Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves has a good scene regarding weapons and towns. As far as D&D goes, it really does depend on where you're at. Here's where Bardic knowledge really comes in handy folks. Generally speaking, in large metropolis-style cities, daggers are considered "safe" to carry, most other weapons are either banned or require a peace-bond of some kind (peace-bonds, btw, have very little actual historical use, but see heavy useage in RPGs, since many Players have a tendency to go a little power-mad with the whole "it's not real" part). In border villages, you're either insane, exceedingly confident in your companions, or some kind of deadly master (monk or sorcerer/wizard) if you don't carry any weapons. In front of nobility though, typically you can get away with a small dagger for eating and that's about it (paranoid types, the lot of them). This of course varies with societies. Go ahead, visit the Grand Pubah of the Fantasy-Viking-like people way in the frozen north without your weapons. Social faux-pas. You always carry a weapon, leave it to your host to request you to place it aside. Attempt to even enter within a 100 yard radius of the presence of an Eastern Emperor with anything more than a toothpick and you'll probably be getting a wonderful view of your now-cranially-challenged body from across the room. It helps to know the customs of the folk you're insulting as well. If you don't consider the King a very worthy man, and you're very confident in your status as an indisposable asset, then by all means, sit at his table and hang your sword from your chair. Eat with two daggers. And of course, when in Rome, do as the Romans. If the local farmer gears up in Chainmail, straps on a shield, and brings out granddaddy's goblin cleaver to go to town for market, then either they've got a hell of a wandering monster problem or that's MY kind of town!
ShadowDragon8685 12-07-04, 02:16 AM	And of course, when in Rome, do as the Romans. If the local farmer gears up in Chainmail, straps on a shield, and brings out granddaddy's goblin cleaver to go to town for market, then either they've got a hell of a wandering monster problem or that's MY kind of town! :heehee That's my kinda town too. :) And maybe the town has a wandering moster problem. :)
evangelion1010 12-07-04, 02:17 AM	Its nice to spice up RP-ing a bit, but don't do it for more than 1-2 cities in an entire campaign.
ShadowDragon8685 12-07-04, 02:36 AM	Yeah. PCs will get royally P-O'd if they can't carry around their weapons of slaying. They may also be (justifiably or not) worried that the DM thinks he's given out gear that's too powerful and is trying to steal them. One fun thing to do would be to have a fairly large town where this rule is enforced to the hilt - guards confiscate and destroy weapons if they're caught in the town. The PCs will be rightiously mad if they find their weapons being destroyed. Then let (or better yet, persuade the PCs to join in on,) the town get overrun by orcs or something, because nobody has any weapons. :)
ck2001wendt 12-07-04, 09:42 AM	When it comes to weapon restrictions, there are three types: 1. Restrictions on ownership. 2. Restrictions on presence/usage within city limits; and 3. Restrictions on purchasing Furthermore, you have to think about restrictions on the ownership, usage, and purchase of offensive magic. Of the three, #2 is the most common. Cormyr is a good example of a country where there are prohibitions on carrying weapons around. Weapons have to be peacebonded, which usually take 10 rounds to undo. A Purple Dragon can spot if your weapon isn't purposefully bonded (ie you faked it) and will have you arrested. Finally, you have to think about social situations. I don't care if your city has a wandering monster problem. When the Duke throws a party, it is a serious faux pas to come in your best Plate Mail, with your stained and bloody Greatsword at your side. You come in leather, wear your livery over that, and you MIGHT bring a ceremonial saber (if you're an officer or noble). Generally, when I'm running a campaign I make the following adjustments: -"Rough and tumble" border towns, without a strong central authority, generally have no prohibitions on anything. -"Civilized areas," those with a strong nobility or King, will have weapons peacebonded or will prohibit them on the streets (which is not the same as prohibiting ownership), and there will be social norms against "packing" during formal functions. -Towns that are particularly "Lawful" and/or tyrannical will have laws against ownership and purchase. Peasants who own weapons quickly become revolutionaries when you fall out of favor. Wizards with access to Fireball scrolls are 10 times as dangerous. If there are also prohibitions on purchasing but they aren't banned, I usually have the shops sell offense-minded items (those with no peaceful purpose) for 2-10x the DMG price.
JabberWocky 12-07-04, 09:58 AM	I had one game where I wasn't allowed to carry my weapon around in town. Granted, I was a human barbarian carrying a greatsword. I also wasn't allowed in the good inns, because I was wearing self-cured animal skins and smelled as though I hadn't bathed in weeks (rightly so, the cold water only makes you sick!). I think it adds to the roleplaying aspect to have laws like this in certain towns. Naturally there are limits even on the limits; for instance, the guardsmen aren't going to arrest the PCs for unsheathing their weapons to slay zombies that have just risen from their graves, nor would a military camp/hovel on orc-ridden borders limit its occupants to daggers-only. But a larger city may have rules about "no open weapons," which would be perfectly understandable.
Kyy'Dakh 12-07-04, 10:01 AM	Think I heard this on Terry Jones' Midieval Lives: For dinners with the Pope, the food would be cut up before serving, since no one at the table would have a dagger to work with. Or backstab with. Considering making a town semi-paranoid towards magic. Suppose it'd be good for the town guard to have someone good at interpreting spellbooks. Generally, you don't want the jury to know you've got fireball on the front pages of your spellbook.
VirgilCaine 12-07-04, 10:37 AM	You'll never find laws like that in any of my campaigns. First of all, the D&D world is much more dangerous than the real world. Even in a civilized area--No big predators, but darn it, those goblins just breed way too fast!--you might have an evil cleric raise some undead or some are undead released or something or some other threat might appear that requires that citizens be armed immediately. There's also the threat of war with other human nations or with civilized nations of humanoids--hobgoblins and bugbears are ideal for this. Also, you'll never find any short-sighted nonsense about "wizard laws" either. In my campaign wizards and kings long ago decided on a simple truce--to leave each other alone. It worked best that way. Wizards don't fight in civilized wars (between human nations, baronies, etc.) but do help stop rampaging demons or armies from the ReallyBigCaveSystem (TM) and whatnot. They make (very sure, but nothing is foolproof) that no one evil or with a penchant for evil becomes a wizard and anyone who does has a (magically binding) Oath they take which, if violated, lets all the Right People know that X person, having Y appearance did Bad Things A, B, and C at Z time, and so someone needs to go and get him (enter the PCs).
Falkus 12-07-04, 01:13 PM	Cormyr is a good example of a country where there are prohibitions on carrying weapons around. Weapons have to be peacebonded, which usually take 10 rounds to undo. A Purple Dragon can spot if your weapon isn't purposefully bonded (ie you faked it) and will have you arrested. I read somewhere once about a miscelenaous magical item, a peacebond that would look like it was tied as normal, but would undo itself when you had to draw your weapon.
ck2001wendt 12-07-04, 01:28 PM	You'll never find laws like that in any of my campaigns. First of all, the D&D world is much more dangerous than the real world. Even in a civilized area--No big predators, but darn it, those goblins just breed way too fast!--you might have an evil cleric raise some undead or some are undead released or something or some other threat might appear that requires that citizens be armed immediately. There's also the threat of war with other human nations or with civilized nations of humanoids--hobgoblins and bugbears are ideal for this. That's what the town guard or national military is for. Urban areas in America are objectively dangerous, yet only a few states have concealable weapons laws (oddly enough, not the ones with dangerous urban areas). We leave policing to the police, not the masses. It's not a question of how dangerous the world is for the peasants...peasants are replacable. It's a question of how dangerous the world is to the nobles. And to nobles, peasants can be just as dangerous as goblins. More sometimes, because they're already in the city. Nations that fear internal revolt will restrict weapon usage, regardless of external factors. Lawful cities and nations will do it on general principle. Also, you'll never find any short-sighted nonsense about "wizard laws" either. In my campaign wizards and kings long ago decided on a simple truce... They make (very sure, but nothing is foolproof) that no one evil or with a penchant for evil becomes a wizard and anyone who does has a (magically binding) Oath they take which. How exactly is it "short-sighted?" How exactly is it "nonsense?" You say we'll never find any laws in your campaign governing Wizards...then you go on to state a treaty between Wizards and Kings and an Oath that Wizards are forced to take if they are Evil...those sound a lot like a laws to me. Your campaign is the exception; under the situation you described not having laws governing magic usage (beyond those you stated) is quite reasonable. But in the published campaign settings (FR, Greyhawk) and most homebrews this isn't the case. Waterdeep and Mulmaster, to name two cities, have laws governing spell usage; in Mulmaster you join the Cloaks or they kill you. In Waterdeep you behave yourself, or the Guild Wizards come after you you. Same thing goes for the Wizards of Ansalon; let yourself be regulated by the Guild, or they hunt you down and force you to join (or kill you). Nations in Ansalon post-Cataclysm often have laws forbidding magic.
Arquinsiel 12-07-04, 01:37 PM	Actually where I am (Dublin) I can carry any weapon around as long as I'm not threathening anyone with it or concealing it. Or if I get the correct licence I an carry around a sword and should I be attacked legally use it in self defence. Infact, one college technically won't let you onto it's grounds without your sword bearing your family heraldry. Unfortunately all these laws and rules are so old that most cop's don't know about them and will arrest you anyway.
Saiph 12-07-04, 01:50 PM	as for wizard and magic laws. Most cosmopolitan cities (i.e. not fearmongering tyrant capitals...) probably don't outlaw knowing the spells. They do likely restrict selling offensive spells (not defensive though), restrict the use through high fines and investigation (it better be in self defense! and if you accidentally killed johny the cobbler....). Inspection of your spellbook you carry around should not reveal any high level offensive spells. You may get away with magic missle, a ray or two. but fireball? In the city? That's like allowing people to wander around with hand grenades. There will also likely be a liscence required. It may be cheap, just enough in price and paper work for the officials to know your there. Or it may be expensive to allow only the rich from practicing it. Or perhaps tons of paper work so they can stall you for however long they'd like. For the most part, in large cities I'd argue for the cheap and easy liscense, restriction on spells used in the city, and disallow the selling of offensive spells/scrolls/wands etc, unless from a very strictly regulated dealer. Of course, the behavior of wizards has adapted. They've got a black market of course. And while the spell books they carry around don't have fireball in it, they may have memorized it earlier (so they can't spend 15 mintues to fill an unused slot I guess) or they may have spell mastery for it, so they don't need a book for it. But for the most part the wizards don't use fireball in the city. The hassle of justifying it to the authorities (right or wrong) isn't worth it. So they stick to rays and magic missle if needed. Mostly defensive spells. If the wizards didn't, the nobles, who's land and people (also property in their minds) is being destroyed by the actions will do something about it. Like hire some wizards (who want the competition gone) and such to purge the city. Ugly. And throw in the fact that it happens every now and again (the "old" quarter of the city is where the major standoff of the last purge took place).
bitnine 12-07-04, 01:53 PM	First of all, the D&D world is much more dangerous than the real world.Well, it depends on the setting and the level of danger that the particular kingdom and city are in, and how equipped they are to deal with it. Given the odd creatures that can exist in D&D and harass folk I imagine that you could easily have even a major metropolis that relied on adventurers within its walls to be ready to defend it from attack. But others might have a large enough military presence and/or be safe enough to make that unnecessary. I imagine that if its the case that some such folk are allowed to freely carry weapons, that lawful nations would produce licenses for such, requiring the holder to aid in a time of attack, and also allowing to be ready to do so.
Cymraegmorgan 12-07-04, 01:56 PM	For the longest time I've been playing/DMing D&D, there's never been any restriction on weapon carrying in cities/towns. Does this make sense to you? Why would any lawful place abide by just anyone carrying big weapons around? Remember, its not just about "making sense" it can affect gameplay. What do you think? In my Homebrew CS, which is heavy on the Politics, each nation has different views, and some cities within otherwise liberal nations take a more limited weapons view. Depending on the nature of The-Powers-That-Be, the laws concerning weaponbearing vary wildly. As a general rule of thumb: the further from the political center of power, the closer you are to random violence, hence the more liberal the "law".
StormKnight 12-07-04, 02:05 PM	That's what the town guard or national military is for. Urban areas in America are objectively dangerous, yet only a few states have concealable weapons laws (oddly enough, not the ones with dangerous urban areas). We leave policing to the police, not the masses. It's not a question of how dangerous the world is for the peasants...peasants are replacable. It's a question of how dangerous the world is to the nobles. And to nobles, peasants can be just as dangerous as goblins. More sometimes, because they're already in the city. Nations that fear internal revolt will restrict weapon usage, regardless of external factors. Lawful cities and nations will do it on general principle. Calling urban areas in America "dangerous" as compared to D&D areas is sort of like saying a chihuhua is dangerous as compared to a pack of rabid pit bulls. The city gaurd can't be everywhere and doing everything at once. When a dire weasel wanders onto your farm and starts eating your cattle, by the time you've run to the city gaurd your herd is all gone. You and your family grab your weapons - or if you're really lucky that wand of magic missile that grandma left you from her time in the military service - and try to drive it off. While many times in history have seen weapon restrictions, other times have been quite lax in them. Consider, for example, the early American west; a "civilized" country, but weapons were still carried for hunting and defense. When it comes to more destructive abilities, like wizards with fireballs, you are looking at different issues. Sure, it might be nice to make sure no one with "meteor shower" in her spellbook wanders into town, but are you going to search every single person who looks vaguely like a wizard who comes through? What about everyone who doesn't look like a wizard but might just be one because who knows what wizards really look like? How do you handle the sorcerers who don't have spellbooks? And if you find the meteor shower, what exactly do you do about it? Provoke a confrontation with someone who can level half the town with a gesture? Go get your best wizards and fighters away from things they are doing - possibly important, valuable things they are doing - to keep an eye on someone who might be no threat at all, and might just be bringing in a great deal of wealth that will get spent in your town?
Kyy'Dakh 12-07-04, 02:41 PM	I think you need to lighten up just a little, StormKnight: Where there's possible danger, people will try to prevent it, and in doing so, open themselves up to different dangers. Every attempted solution has its problems, such as the ones you've listed. The way you're stating them, however, suggests that you've either declared the issue as a no-win-under-any-circumtances thing, or that you've gotten the whole thing figured out, and know how to build a utopia, and the methods suggested aren't it. This thread isn't a competition as to who has the best way of handling weapons in a city. It's for ideas of how to do it, flawed or not, for the sake of role-playing. Oh, and the level of danger in D&D worlds is for the DM/CS designer to decide. I downplay tough monsters in settled lands, and reserve the dangerous stuff for deep wilderness and other planes.
StormKnight 12-07-04, 05:12 PM	I think you need to lighten up just a little, StormKnight: Where there's possible danger, people will try to prevent it, and in doing so, open themselves up to different dangers. Sorry, didn't think I was being "unlightened" :) Just pointing out some of the inherent problems in a "weapon control" situation in D&D. True, different campaigns may have very different worldviews; in my campaigns towns and cities exist because they establish wards that keep most of the nasty stuff out, and expanding is a slow and hazardoud process. Other people may play in far more civilized worlds. However, no matter what your world is like, you may run into the issue of how you do keep powerful PCs under control. In the real word, we don't have situations where a group of four people stroll into town who are capable of taking on the entire town militia and winning. Part of your "weapon control" will then depend on whether high level characters are common place or highly unusual. You might even run into things like: Famous high level fighter Brogar Death Dealer wanders into town, armed to the teeth. New constable sees him, and starts to head toward him, loosening his sword, "Sir, halt there, we have rules here about..." Veteran constable grabs him, "Never mind the rules. Just leave him alone."
Kyy'Dakh 12-07-04, 05:33 PM	Good reply. No negativity sensed in your text by me this time. (Every once in a while, I get a false alarm, so forgive me if I offended.) I certainly realize the difficulty behind nasty PCs/NPCs with lots of class levels. Short of putting equally high leveled NPCs in the town guard or very expensive magic items, I don't see an easy solution. For the common "blaster mage" problem, well, it may be hard for the town guard to control a Wiz5+ flinging fireballs, but tough restrictions on magic might cut down on crimes commited by the much more common 1st level Sor/Wizzes, who might happen to enjoy arson via burning hands on flammables.
ck2001wendt 12-07-04, 06:47 PM	However, no matter what your world is like, you may run into the issue of how you do keep powerful PCs under control. In the real word, we don't have situations where a group of four people stroll into town who are capable of taking on the entire town militia and winning. Part of your "weapon control" will then depend on whether high level characters are common place or highly unusual. There were actually a couple of instances of this in LA in the 90s...situations where a group of robbers would hit a bank with automatic weapons. The police (and SWAT, on one occasion IIRC) were outmatched, and they basically had to try and keep the damage as low as possible. What they didn't do is say "we can't control weapons in this case, so we shouldn't control them at all." I like Kyy'Dakh's answer: low level offenders (the majority) will be easily controlled by the laws...with the higher levels you're just praying they're good people if you're a town guardsman...or that the local cleric and/or Wizard and/or retired adventurer running the inn will help out if things are too dicey.
TRCEttin 12-07-04, 07:20 PM	I certainly realize the difficulty behind nasty PCs/NPCs with lots of class levels. Short of putting equally high leveled NPCs in the town guard or very expensive magic items, I don't see an easy solution. I once used iron golems for that. In one city, weapons were only allowed with a permit - if you were just visiting you turned in your weapon at the gates where the guards would write you a receipt and let you get them back on your way out. Inside the city, golems walked around town looking for people with weapons, and if they saw someone they would head towards them. If you had a permit to carry arms, you merely showed it to the golem and he would carry on, but if not the golem would question the weapon-carrier and then attempt to restrain and disarm him/her. Once the weapon is disarmed, the golem does a receipt for it and returns the weapon/s to a guard house where you can claim them later. Repeat offenders (and the golems have a good memory) would be dragged off to jail or, if necessary, beaten up. It worked, partly because the PCs weren't in the mood to take on a hulking steel behemoth and partly because even if they wanted to, if they tried then more golems and quite a lot of guards would be along very shortly.
bitnine 12-07-04, 07:30 PM	I once used iron golems for that. Nothing like a kingdom with unlimited magical and gold resources to spend on their defense budget.
Kainy 12-07-04, 08:09 PM	Maybe it's a high-magic setting. Maybe they've been there for so long that no one even knows who donated them (maybe a wizard who hit level 30, who grew up in the town). I like the idea of weapons being peacebonded or removed in towns, at low levels. Once your weapon is carved from a single, gargantuan emerald, and hums with the very essence of magic and psionics mixed together, though, I think guards would definitely leave you alone. Then again, by that level they'd probably have heard about some of your exploits. Makes low level seem even more realistic, and high level even more rewarding. I'd kind of like to see what would happen if a guard tried to take that level 30 wiz's spellbook, if he was in a particularly bad mood =P
bitnine 12-07-04, 08:20 PM	Maybe it's a high-magic setting. Maybe they've been there for so long that no one even knows who donated them (maybe a wizard who hit level 30, who grew up in the town).And just maybe it's a half-conceived polt point designed to constrain players without much thought as to the requirements or the ramifications of a nation possessing that sort of power. Post-creative rationalizations aside, I've seen plenty of that.
satyrgrrrrl 12-07-04, 08:23 PM	I actually encountered this during my first D&D campaign. I was running the modules for 3.0 (the Ashardalon campaign), and the town of Blazingdel (or Brindinford, something medieval-sounding like that) required that people entering the city peace-bond their weapons. Here are the rules from that suppliment (though not word-for-word) --One-handed melee weapons were tied into their sheaths, two-handed weapons were put in sacks (if slashing), or tied to the holster on the back of the adventurer. --Bows and crowbows were de-strung, then had the string tied up in a pouch, arrows/bolts were put into a sack. For the Spellcasters: --Non-Good-Aligned Deity's holy symbol was bagged and tied to Cleric's waist. Good-aligned deity's holy symbol was allowed to be shown freely. --Arcane spellcasters' (identified by spell component pouch, spellbook, or if one was an elf--favored class Wizard has to come in somehow!) fingers were tied together, spell component pouches were tied shut. Basically, this amounted to game mechanics as follows: It took a full-round action to remove peace-bonding from weapons/fingers/holy symbol. Then the weapon could be used normally, and spells could be cast normally. Obvously, if the spell didn't require somatic or material components, then there wasn't a need to un-peace-bond oneself. My players ended up taking off the peace-bonds, then using Disguise to make them *look* peace-bonded. They eventually were allowed to walk around without peace-bonds, due to story factors (rescuing some merchants from bulettes). Peace-bonding is a great way to let the PCs walk around with their stuff, but still provide some semblance of law. It also allows them opportunities to have fights in town, be sneaky with their weapons, and in general interact with the world. I use peace-bonding in my more Lawful towns, but certainly not all. The hamlet down the road may not like you brandishing your weapon about, but I don't think they'd have cause to have laws about it unless it was a common occurance. There hasn't been an issue with armor, mostly because I think armor/shields are seen as defensive (unless, of course, they're spiked, in which case I'd probably call for their removal). Hope it helps! :angel:
ck2001wendt 12-07-04, 09:03 PM	And just maybe it's a half-conceived polt point designed to constrain players without much thought as to the requirements or the ramifications of a nation possessing that sort of power. Post-creative rationalizations aside, I've seen plenty of that. "One city full of Golems is a flair for the dramatic. Two is a conspiracy."
VirgilCaine 12-07-04, 09:06 PM	There were actually a couple of instances of this in LA in the 90s...situations where a group of robbers would hit a bank with automatic weapons. The police (and SWAT, on one occasion IIRC) were outmatched, and they basically had to try and keep the damage as low as possible. What they didn't do is say "we can't control weapons in this case, so we shouldn't control them at all." It wasn't so much the great power of the weapons, but the incompetence of the police and the robbers. But this isn't the D20 Modern boards. That's what the town guard or national military is for. Urban areas in America are objectively dangerous, yet only a few states have concealable weapons laws (oddly enough, not the ones with dangerous urban areas). We leave policing to the police, not the masses. It's not a question of how dangerous the world is for the peasants...peasants are replacable. It's a question of how dangerous the world is to the nobles. And to nobles, peasants can be just as dangerous as goblins. More sometimes, because they're already in the city. Nations that fear internal revolt will restrict weapon usage, regardless of external factors. Lawful cities and nations will do it on general principle. Here's a clue...that town guard...19th century. National military? IIRC, not so much in the middle ages. How exactly is it "short-sighted?" How exactly is it "nonsense?" You say we'll never find any laws in your campaign governing Wizards...then you go on to state a treaty between Wizards and Kings and an Oath that Wizards are forced to take if they are Evil...those sound a lot like a laws to me. Treaty? No treaty...it's a "gentleman's" agreement. I never said the word treaty. Also, you misunderstood--if a person is evil or are likely to become so, you don't get the training, period. These aren't "laws" in the traditional sense of a single authority giving them out. Everybody does it the same way because it's the best way (I) have found to do it. Your campaign is the exception; under the situation you described not having laws governing magic usage (beyond those you stated) is quite reasonable. But in the published campaign settings (FR, Greyhawk) and most homebrews this isn't the case. Waterdeep and Mulmaster, to name two cities, have laws governing spell usage; in Mulmaster you join the Cloaks or they kill you. In Waterdeep you behave yourself, or the Guild Wizards come after you you. Gee, Waterdeep's magic policy sure sounds like my campaign.
Darkblade40001 12-07-04, 09:34 PM	The way that most large, sophistocated cities in my campaign work (in regards to magic laws) is simple. All Arcane spells are forbidden by anyone (except the Wizard's Guild; more on that later), and to cast Divine spells in the City, you must be a regognized member of a church in the city, take a test to get a permit (detect alignment mostly), and pay monthly magic taxes (enforcing this is tough). On to the Wizard's Guild. They are a group of 20 fairly-high level wizards (levels 7-14) who protect the city from large scale theats (too large for militia and guards) when needed. They also stop magical infractions. To make sure no one impersonates them, these 20 have badges with a special arcane mark on them, and all of the 20 are easily recognizable with distinct facial features. Those are my city rules (on magic at least)
ck2001wendt 12-07-04, 11:02 PM	Here's a clue...that town guard...19th century. National military? IIRC, not so much in the middle ages. Roman standing armies were introduced in the Julian Period, in order to bring the military under direct control of the Emporer. Furthermore, the city-states of Germany had town guards at least as far back as the 16th century. England had "constables" back in Saxon times (IE pre-1066). If we want to push the history books a little further, we'll probably find societies pre-dating Rome with standing armies or dedicated city watches. Neither is a product of Modernization. Treaty? No treaty...it's a "gentleman's" agreement. I never said the word treaty. Also, you misunderstood--if a person is evil or are likely to become so, you don't get the training, period. Hairsplitting. An institutional economist would treat a "gentleman's agreement" and a "paper treaty" exactly the same; they have identical credibility and enforcability in the absence of 3rd party enforcement. And I was wrong about your Oath...ALL mages have to take it. That makes it MORE regulatory than before. I submit that your system of magic regulation and Waterdeep's agreement with the Order of Magisters and Protectors (which, I was mistaken, actually regulates ALL magic in Waterdeep...not just magic that gets out of hand) fulfill their remits at the leisure of the governments they associate with. If the government chose, they could revoke this lisence and impose direct control (whether it would be successful is not the point). These guilds are allowed to operate becaues they are effective, but they represent no less a law governing than the use of magic in a geographic area than the town guard saying "no Fireball scrolls."
TRCEttin 12-07-04, 11:10 PM	Nothing like a kingdom with unlimited magical and gold resources to spend on their defense budget. I don't think most large nations in a high-magic setting would be hard put to it finding a single 16-level mage and enough money to make a handful of golems for one town. Yes, one town, because it's no fun if you're not allowed to carry weapons everywhere you go to. The idea was that said town had recently suffered from a large crime wave and thus the weapons ban had been imposed and the golems assembled. Even then, they're just for street patrol. It's not particularly difficult to hide your weapon unless you're indoors. Heck, it's not very hard to avoid a handful of golems in a large enough town, especially when they stand out in the crowd and move slower than you do. You could even make it fun if your party has rougish inclinations. Of course, the non-golem police force of the place would be another problem, but easier to deal with. There are plenty of other ways to make it work (donation, just being discovered, etc), and plenty of ways to turn a "half-conceived polt point" into a quest (said golems actually turn out to be donated by an evil wizard pretending to be good who intends to order them to kill everyone, party sent to investigate place where golems were found to find out where they came from, etc etc). Of course, if you prefer to DM a campaign where the rules are different, nothing's stopping you.
ssvegeta555 12-07-04, 11:41 PM	I once used iron golems for that. In one city, weapons were only allowed with a permit - if you were just visiting you turned in your weapon at the gates where the guards would write you a receipt and let you get them back on your way out. Inside the city, golems walked around town looking for people with weapons, and if they saw someone they would head towards them. If you had a permit to carry arms, you merely showed it to the golem and he would carry on, but if not the golem would question the weapon-carrier and then attempt to restrain and disarm him/her. Once the weapon is disarmed, the golem does a receipt for it and returns the weapon/s to a guard house where you can claim them later. Repeat offenders (and the golems have a good memory) would be dragged off to jail or, if necessary, beaten up. It worked, partly because the PCs weren't in the mood to take on a hulking steel behemoth and partly because even if they wanted to, if they tried then more golems and quite a lot of guards would be along very shortly. Dude thats really cool. Definitly makes the city more fanatsy like, and exotic. City must be rich as hell though.
VirgilCaine 12-07-04, 11:52 PM	Roman standing armies were introduced in the Julian Period, in order to bring the military under direct control of the Emporer. Furthermore, the city-states of Germany had town guards at least as far back as the 16th century. England had "constables" back in Saxon times (IE pre-1066). If we want to push the history books a little further, we'll probably find societies pre-dating Rome with standing armies or dedicated city watches. Neither is a product of Modernization. Gee, I was wrong, what a surprise. Hairsplitting. An institutional economist would treat a "gentleman's agreement" and a "paper treaty" exactly the same; they have identical credibility and enforcability in the absence of 3rd party enforcement. And I was wrong about your Oath...ALL mages have to take it. That makes it MORE regulatory than before. Your point? I submit that your system of magic regulation and Waterdeep's agreement with the Order of Magisters and Protectors (which, I was mistaken, actually regulates ALL magic in Waterdeep...not just magic that gets out of hand) fulfill their remits at the leisure of the governments they associate with. If the government chose, they could revoke this lisence and impose direct control (whether it would be successful is not the point). These guilds are allowed to operate becaues they are effective, but they represent no less a law governing than the use of magic in a geographic area than the town guard saying "no Fireball scrolls." Actually, I agree with you. Yeah, it's a law--it's just not made by the king or the legislature or some other government entity. Which, to me, is a very important distinction. Kings could try and interfere in wizards business and kings the same, but both sides would have more problems than they do currently. That is the point.
ShadowDragon8685 12-08-04, 03:31 AM	The way I run my games is that anyone who gets past sixth level in a character class is, if not an adventurer now, was an adventurer at some point. And, all adventurers, from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil, know the Golden Rule of Adventuring. (Practicing it properly is another matter, but by the time you're past sixth level, you generally know how to handle that.) "Either we hang together, or seperately we hang." What this means is that it's rare the King who can impose his will on adventurers who're past that general level, because he's going to have a hard time finding similarly leveled adventurers or ex-adventurers who're willing to bring force to bear on their bretheren. After all, it may be a lot of money for us today to impinge on these guys, but tomorrow it may be a lot of money for someone else to impinge on US. So the only ones who're going to get taken down are the ones who start Fireballing the Inn just to see how many D6 all the ale in there will add to the explosion. "Touch my axe, I break your face." - Many a barbarian to many a stupid constable in a big city. D&D is very much about epic heros who are head and shoulders above the whole police force, standing on each other. PCs will get ****** if they're just as afraid and kowtowing to the authorities at level 20 as they were at level 1.
ck2001wendt 12-08-04, 07:45 AM	Your point? What I was after is that we're talking about regulation of weapons and magic. We call them "laws" but "informal agreements that limit alignment/usage" have the same effect. Your OP stated that there would be no laws governing Wizards in your campaign...or "nonsense." Which I took to be a fairly libertarian stance toward regulation in D&D. What I've worked to point out since then is that your system of regulation is actually no different than putting a couple of mages under control of the King and having them regulate magic use...it's just a system of regulation that sits outside of the direct control of the King. He's negotiated with the Wizard's Guild for self-regulation. Which the American government does frequently with industries. Your point about balance of power is well taken. The King can't do anything about this parallel authority he's created, because it looks like all the arcane power is now concentrated in one place (he instituted a bad system, from his perspective). If the Wizards were a little less powerful, it woudl be different. If would be a neat campaign to see what happens when a new King comes in and the agreement breaks down.
ck2001wendt 12-08-04, 07:48 AM	"Touch my axe, I break your face." - Many a barbarian to many a stupid constable in a big city. D&D is very much about epic heros who are head and shoulders above the whole police force, standing on each other. PCs will get ****** if they're just as afraid and kowtowing to the authorities at level 20 as they were at level 1. The epitome of Lawful Good is a 20th level Paladin surrenduring his Holy Avenger to the 1st level town guard because it's the law (taking, of course, proper precautions and warding it v. evil). Not because the Paladin HAS to...but because he SHOULD. No one is above the law.
Cyric 12-08-04, 08:13 AM	Here's an idea: you are the DM, you make the laws.
Mythmere 12-08-04, 10:31 AM	First of all, the game plays best if you use fiction and movies as guidelines as important as history, always asking yourself, "Is this going to make for a fun game?". I've always found the myth of the Old West to be an excellent model for most D&D. Second, Law is only what can be enforced, and law has never in history been the sort of extensive regulation of all things that we now have: it has always been an informally prosecuted set of vague statements. Ask yourself: why does the law of a town come into play at all? What's your objective as a DM? Law isn't fun - law enforcement (or law breaking, if you're a bad guy) is what's fun in the game. Need to respond after your characters inadvertently fireball a street full of peasants? Kill an orc in a pub? Don't worry about the minutiae, just arrest them. Medieval authorities didn't need (or care a rat's butt) about what the written law said. Go with your plotline, and stick to what's fun. Here's one boring scenario. The 15th level party arrives at a town. The law says they have to peace-bond their weapons. The guards have golems or some other device to enforce this, since you've carefully crafted such a response. Do your players feel like heroes that kill dragons? No. Another scenario. The party approaches, and a horn blows in the town. The party arrives at the gate, where an array of spearmen in leather armor is hurriedly and nervously assembling, many still donning armor. The mayor is at the gate, also very flustered. He greets the party, and tells them (in the manner of the old west movies) that this is a peaceful town, and that he hopes there will be no violence. As the party enters, a crowd of curious citizens make way for them - children are whisked away, and the party can hear whispers: "are these the ones who killed the dragon of ..." "Don't worry, if they make trouble Old Fraudy the wizard will handle it..." You decide. I think the second option is far more appealing. If the players decide to wreck the town, there might very well be another party of adventurers who round the corner on the High Street and square off like gunfighters, obviously here to teach a lesson. If you need a lesson taught, make the other party higher level. Fiddling with too much detail bogs down the game if it isn't designed specifically to play well around the table.
TommyBlack 12-08-04, 11:41 AM	note that bans on offensive magic that would only affect low-level magic users would not do much. For example: Low-level wizard is told he can't take his scroll of burning hands out in public for fear of burning down a building with it. He, therefore, grabs a torch and sets fire to the entire beggars' quarter. If they'd ignored the having of the spell, they'd be able to concentrate on the real problem: setting fire to other people's stuff, whether you use magic or not. Pretty much goes the same for murder and other such offenses. And as a side note, if I was in a D&D world, there'd be nobody that could convince me hordes of wererats were not going to pop out of the sewers any minute. Town guards try to take away my weapon at the gate, I say, "Okay, I'll be better off in the wilderness" and leave
ck2001wendt 12-08-04, 12:01 PM	note that bans on offensive magic that would only affect low-level magic users would not do much. For example: Low-level wizard is told he can't take his scroll of burning hands out in public for fear of burning down a building with it. He, therefore, grabs a torch and sets fire to the entire beggars' quarter. If they'd ignored the having of the spell, they'd be able to concentrate on the real problem: setting fire to other people's stuff, whether you use magic or not. You don't ban Burning Hands so it doesn't burn down houses. You ban it so it can't be used on the Town Guard, or the Mayor. It's much harder to kill an average person in D&D with a torch than Burning Hands. For other spells, such as Magic Missile, there's not even a comparable mundane item (unerring bolts of force have a much higher expected damage than a crossbow bolt).
Slider33 12-08-04, 12:12 PM	I would say, just employ these restrictions carefully. Peace-bonding weapons in my current adventure is a plot device for the city they are in, so it works out pretty nicely. Plus, placing restrictions on weapons I think provides opportunities for a lot of different situations. For example: if you require them to submit their weapons on entrance, they have to handle situations weaponless. I think it places a good challenging mechanism to some players, opening up the possibilities that not all conflicts have to be settled by hack and slash. Especially if they are going to be running into danger without their trusty swords. Or they have to figure out a way to smuggle them in, hide them, or get access to some. So placing things like weapons restrictions, or any other devices that create different scenarios and situations for the players is GOOD to use in my book. That way they have to be creative, and try to roleplay it or figure out a good solution. But be sure it is a valid roleplay reason, and not railroading or blatant nerfing of the players and it's a perfectly reasonable and good tool to use.
ksbsnowowl 12-08-04, 04:45 PM	Urban areas in America are objectively dangerous, yet only a few states have concealable weapons laws (oddly enough, not the ones with dangerous urban areas).Interestingly, areas that allow the carrying of concealed weapons (with a permit, usually) have lower crime rates. Crime rates have gone down in almost all cases when concealed carry laws were established. However, that may not apply to medieval-style societies, where weapon use still required a fair ammount of strength or skill to best an opponent. Today's firearms allow individuals to protect themselves with the threat of deadly force in cases where they generally would not have been able to in prior ages due to physical incapability (the unskilled, the physically weak, etc.)
ck2001wendt 12-08-04, 05:02 PM	Interestingly, areas that allow the carrying of concealed weapons (with a permit, usually) have lower crime rates. Crime rates have gone down in almost all cases when concealed carry laws were established. Huh. Interesting. Do you have a cite, KSB? My understanding is that crime has gone down everywhere since the early- to mid-90s. Would be interesting to see that regions that added concealed weapons laws saw sharper crime declines ceteris paribus. Of course, there's also Europe, but European crime rates have been rising for the last 30 years.
ksbsnowowl 12-08-04, 05:43 PM	Huh. Interesting. Do you have a cite, KSB?Well, here is one paper (http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~fplass/gun.pdf) examining the statistics of concealed carry laws. This site (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Lott_Mustard_Controversy.html) also has several critiques and responses concerning another well-known study. There are supporters and detractors to the arguements (as there are with any social policy) but those will give you a basis for the research that's been done on the matter.
Saiph 12-08-04, 08:13 PM	back to the iron golem solution. Why do you think it's an unreasonable expense for a large city to have a decent number on hand? As you said, the world of D&D is incredibly dangerous, and often that danger comes from magical sources. Iron Golems provide a good tool agianst such dangers. I see the cities of D&D as being more like greek city states, even if they all act together and are one "kingdom" (which is also like ancient greece, after it matured a bit under athenian and spartan rule). Defense Spending will be a big deal. Large cities may not be able to afford lots of iron golems, but they could buy one now and again. And it's not like they need tons of maintenence and upkeep once bought. I also expect them to have a ~14th level wizard and a few other high level characters on retainer. Sure, they're not standard. They aren't really paid a salary. They do, however, get exempted from taxes (and considering how much money they probably handle, that's a good thing), get some leeway with the law, and a few other priveleges (like status). In exchange, the officials can call on them for really nasty problems, like a dragon wandering by (in a dangerous campaign, this is probably once every month or two). And if you call up the DMG city wealth tables (which I can't find just now) remember those are liquid assets. now how much all the towns assets are worth. Sorta like how I only have a thousand or so in liquid assets during the best of times. But with my computer, car, books, etc I'm probably worth quite a bit more. But those I can't sell immediately (or won't at all).
JimRuh 12-09-04, 12:32 AM	most of my cities have rules like that and guards to enforce them A squad of 6. 5 1st lvl fighters and one 5th lvl fighter captian. all with a sounding horn. within 3 rounds more squads can be there. Rules are as follows: all weapons must be peace binded. If binding is removed or broken a fine. If weapons are brandished a fine and one night in jail, if used a bigger fine and three to 5 nights in jail. if they actually kill someone than well trial, and possible death.
DeWayne 12-10-04, 12:30 AM	Interestingly, areas that allow the carrying of concealed weapons (with a permit, usually) have lower crime rates. Crime rates have gone down in almost all cases when concealed carry laws were established. I wondered if anyone else was going to point this out. One of the main problem with anti-weapon laws is that they work under the assumption that criminals are going to obey them - a rather foolish assumption given that criminals are, by definition, people who disobey laws. On my world, the largest city in the main area of my most recent campaign is starting to experiment with weapon restriction due to the actions of a rather stupid adventurer. In other areas, however, any male over the age of 12 found without a weapon is in trouble. It all just depends on the area the party is in at the time, who the ruler is, what the culture is like, etc.
BW0222 12-10-04, 01:57 AM	In the real middle ages, weapon restrictions were to keep the peasants from over throwing you (the nobility). These restrictions make less sense in a "high fantasy" campaign. First, as others have said, the world is a more dangerous place. With goblins, orcs, and all sorts of other monsters, it isn't uncommon for your average person to need some sort of weapon. You can't say the guards you can't assume that they are around every farm, homestead, lumber camp, etc. Second, with a "level" system, you care less about weapon restrictions. A dozen 5th-level guards are going to make short work of a bunch of commoners even if they have longswords. Third, with magic in the world, are weapon restrictions have less meaning. If you can fireball someone, you care less about a few peasants carrying weapons also. You likely care more about restricting magic.
TinManFan 12-10-04, 02:08 AM	Well, the other thing to consider is that in the "Normal" fantasy setting, a commoner don't see more than 3 gp his entirelife. Your PC's arewalkin around with a small (If they're first level) to large (If they're anything but) amount of dough hangin on their backs and such. The adventurer has a lot of money that normal people don't see in their lives. That pretty much puts them up there with Nobility in the "Crap I have To Take from the Guards" catagory. However just to be vicious, work with these rules in effect and have the PC's taken down by a wizard in charge of some thieves who steal theweapons and sell them.
ck2001wendt 12-10-04, 03:42 PM	First, as others have said, the world is a more dangerous place. With goblins, orcs, and all sorts of other monsters, it isn't uncommon for your average person to need some sort of weapon. You can't say the guards you can't assume that they are around every farm, homestead, lumber camp, etc. I guess that depends on how much emphasis you're placing on a peasant levy. You could make a converse argument, that BECUASE the world is so much more dangerous there's no point in arming the peasants...it's really going to come down to small bands of well-paid mercenaries or a well-trained guard (and especially magic users). So peasants with swords are a "bad" (potential revolutionaries) with no attached "good" (defense through well-regulated militia). Second, with a "level" system, you care less about weapon restrictions. A dozen 5th-level guards are going to make short work of a bunch of commoners even if they have longswords. A dozen 5th level guards will probably be a pretty elite force. The skewed world of adventurers (where we only face challenges within a couple of CR of ourselves to keep things interesting) doesn't seem terribly representative. Third, with magic in the world, are weapon restrictions have less meaning. If you can fireball someone, you care less about a few peasants carrying weapons also. You likely care more about restricting magic. You'd care about both. High explosives are much more dangerous than firearms (and there's probably as or more common than magic), but we regulate both all the same because most criminals or revolutionaries can't get their hands on large quantities of high explosives/magic (enough to arm EVERYBODY), but they can when it comes to swords/guns. Oddly enough, we haven't even stopped regulating bows or swords most places.
VirgilCaine 12-10-04, 05:10 PM	What I've worked to point out since then is that your system of regulation is actually no different than putting a couple of mages under control of the King and having them regulate magic use...it's just a system of regulation that sits outside of the direct control of the King. He's negotiated with the Wizard's Guild for self-regulation. Which the American government does frequently with industries. Your point about balance of power is well taken. The King can't do anything about this parallel authority he's created, because it looks like all the arcane power is now concentrated in one place (he instituted a bad system, from his perspective). If the Wizards were a little less powerful, it woudl be different. If would be a neat campaign to see what happens when a new King comes in and the agreement breaks down. Gee, I keep not mentioning important details. Sorry. This agreement about kings and wizards is ingrained. It has existed for a long, long time and it covers at least the entirety of the main subcontinent. This isn't one kings agreement, this is every kingdom. This also isn't just an agreement, this is a well-entrenched system that has worked for hundreds of years (at least). At any rate, this isn't an agreement between an industry and a government--an inferior and superior power--it's between equals (see balance of power).
Wil_Hyral 12-10-04, 06:09 PM	My response is under the condition that the DM models their world after European middle ages. I'm also going to spare the lecture as to why things were the way they were, and where common misconceptions came from. In short, it depends on the town and the situation. Generally, in proximity to a lord, weapons were actively banned. In other cases (such as in remote towns, big or small), weapons were banned indirectly. There might not have been any laws that said "civilians can't have weapons," but on the flipside, no civilian was given the right to bear arms, (nor organize, nor speak freely and so forth) so the weapon ban was carried out on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a peasant could bear an arm if they could obtain it, and if the government didn't distrust him. Usually that was not the case.
Saiph 12-10-04, 07:08 PM	That's probably the best way to handle it in most cases. If an official notices the PC's carrying a weapon, and doesn't like it (for whatever reason), he'll make them stow them, turn them in, etc. I also don't see the judicial system in DnD as being as "refined" as the modern one. E.g. you bring a bandit to the magistrate. Today, he'd be charged, searched, arrested, and held. Then a trial, a sentence, and it's execution (be it jail time, fine, death). what I see is: You bring a bandit to the magistrate. The magistrate throws him in a hole/cell for a few days to see if anything turns up (he may or may not actively investigate) or if anyone comes to claim him. If not, the bandit is hung at noon, sunrise, take your pick. Heck, there may not be the several day waiting period. He may be hung the next morning, or whenever they do it. It depends on how trusted the adventurers are.
xann 12-10-04, 07:45 PM	Yaaa, satyrgrrrl's got it on the money peace bonding is the only way to go every large city i have demands this get done to all unregistered adventures. If they want the peace bonds off (yes my party did the disguise thing too, clever players) is to see the register of the city and the adventures pay 10-100 gp to be licenced and can freely move through out the city. * becuse signing the paper makes it sooo easy for a wiz. to scry them and see what there up to.
Woas 12-11-04, 04:37 PM	All this talk about preventitive laws on magic and spell use makes Sorcerers a little more versitle in a Roleplaying sense. No spell book to check, simply dress up as a commoner or traveler and walk right in.
JusticeZero 12-13-04, 08:48 PM	That's what the town guard or national military is for. Urban areas in America are objectively dangerous, yet only a few states have concealable weapons laws (oddly enough, not the ones with dangerous urban areas). Actually, on any relative scale, urban areas in America are extremely safe. You're more likely to be the victim of a gun-related violent crime in London, for example, than in New York or LA, per FBI statistics. And if you wander down the notch of socioeconomic scale it gets crazier - go to some less wealthy countries ("Third-world") and it'll look more like what you'd expect to see. Honestly, modern America isn't like the "typical adventuring setting", it's more like that fabled high elven kingdom that achieved super-magic and ascended to demigod status to leave behind the world of men.
JusticeZero 12-13-04, 08:53 PM	Another way to approach it is to have a big walled city that simply says "You can't have anything bigger than a dagger or staff in town, and it can't glow magical when we check it. But there is a bonded service at the gate that you can pay a nominal fee to have your weapons and armor lockered inside the city with proof of identification needed for it's return. If the walls are attacked, well - the lockers are INSIDE the walls."