Is this too dark for DC?

[Alverant]

In brainstorming ideas for an alternate US history for my DC campaign I had an idea that could be pushing the boundaries of good taste.

 

You know in the real world today (and in fictional worlds like Law & Order) how if you have money you can get away with breaking the laws. With money you can hire good defense lawyers, investigate the prosecution's witnesses for dirty laundry, hire experts, and even resort to bribery so you can be found not guilty. So I thought, why not just skip the smoke and mirrors and allow defendants to walk away from any charge if they pay a fine equal to what the DA's office the defendant would have to spend to be found not guilty? If the case is strong, then the fine is high. In other words, pay enough cash and you can commit any crime you want and never have a record. Sort of like how corporations settle what they call "nuisance lawsuits" without admitting guilt.

 

The only hitch I'd have is that once you accept a deal you can't claim harassment or malicious prosecution and the public usually accepts the defendant is guilty with a wink and a nudge.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

Too dark? Maybe. What point are you trying to make with this scenario?

 

Historically, many nations including England have allowed payment to settle crimes - often the perpetrator paying the victim (or his family) to compensate for the injury or death. This was usually called blood money or weregeld. I believe it's still practiced in some Middle Eastern nations.

[Alverant]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

I'm not trying to make a point. I'm working on constructing a world filled with local and state level corruption and Machiavellian tactics. I thought there were few things more corrupt than someone writing a check to make a criminal charge go away. And it's very Machiavellian to know anyone can have a price on their head. Nice way to quell descent. If you're rich enough, you can kill your critics and just pay a fine. Life and death becomes a matter of economics. Does the fine and bad press exceed what your rival would have cost you?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

I'm not trying to make a point. I'm working on constructing a world filled with local and state level corruption and Machiavellian tactics. I thought there were few things more corrupt than someone writing a check to make a criminal charge go away. And it's very Machiavellian to know anyone can have a price on their head. Nice way to quell descent. If you're rich enough' date=' you can kill your critics and just pay a fine. Life and death becomes a matter of economics. Does the fine and bad press exceed what your rival would have cost you?[/quote']Hmm. In a world like that, I'd be amazed if one or more of the characters doesn't buy "Filthy Rich" to buy himself out of trouble.

 

As to just writing a check to get off, I disagree that would work as you think. If money will bury every crime, then victims (or their families) will simply kill wealthy criminals as there's no point in seeking actual justice. Perhaps the "heroes" will be assassins/vigilantes administering the justice poor victims can't afford.

 

It might be an interesting place as a dystopian parallel universe for the PCs to visit, but I think it would pale rapidly as a regular campaign. Might as well live in Naziworld.

[Alverant]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

Hmm. In a world like that' date=' I'd be amazed if one or more of the characters doesn't buy "Filthy Rich" to buy himself out of trouble.[/quote']

 

In this campaign, the PCs are part of a secret group. Openly saying, "I killed Vinny the Fin. Here's a check." wouldn't work well.

 

As to just writing a check to get off' date=' I disagree that would work as you think. If money will bury every crime, then victims (or their families) will simply kill wealthy criminals as there's no point in seeking actual justice. Perhaps the "heroes" will be assassins/vigilantes administering the justice poor victims can't afford.[/quote']

 

That's actually part of their responsibility. In this world, the federal government is much smaller than ours. It does a lot less, but what it does do it does well. Matters of law enforcement were left to individual cities and states (which are corrupt). The PCs are part of a clandestine federal group to bring justice and law to a Chicago that now resembles the Roaring 20s in terms of gangland power and activity.

 

Also since weregeld depends on the strength of evidence, rich victims and families can produce a large amount of evidence and make it impossible for a poor criminal to pay it. "If you can't pay the dime, you have to do the time." So anyone trying to get justice outside the legal system against someone who's rich would be hard, but not impossible.

 

Just because someone can pay a million dollar fine for killing someone, doesn't mean it's done casually. Someone who abuses it will be drained financially quickly, either that or someone else will restrain him to save the fortune.

 

Don't forget, rich people can get body guards, guard dogs, security systems, armored vehicles, etc which makes getting vengeance difficult.

 

It might be an interesting place as a dystopian parallel universe for the PCs to visit' date=' but I think it would pale rapidly as a regular campaign. Might as well live in Naziworld.[/quote']

 

So how can I tone it down? I'd like to keep it in some form. I figure that with the rise of large corporations and the means to exploit weregeld, its weaknesses are becoming more apparent.

 

How about if I change it so accepting a weregeld is considered a guilty plea? That will limit its use. Rich people who are vain will refuse any offer that includes admitting guilt. And since a felony conviction means you loose the right to vote, practice law, run a corporation, etc fewer people would be interested. Only the very old (who don't care what happens to them), very powerful (who will keep their power anyway), and pre-existing felons (who won't loose anything) would ask for it.

 

Or how about if the DA has to offer it or not offer at their choosing? The DA could decide that it's an airtight case and the defendant needs to be in prison and no amount of money can be offered. Conversely the DA may think the defendant is going to spend every last dime for a not guilty verdict so why not arrange it so the victim's family at least gets something.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

Hm.

 

What about theft? Could the poor steal from the rich, and use their loot to buy out from any prosecution? That would be a rather amusing loophole, at the least the first time it's used.

 

Heck, you're PCs might try it, so be prepared.

[Matt Frisbee]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

"Paying One's Debt To Society" really has some meaning here. I'd be surprised that corrupt DA's, Cops and Judges wouldn't pursue some people just because of the size of their bank accounts and fabricate both charges and evidence to extort money from these rich individuals.

 

The way this should work is that there is a show trial for the "guilty" but despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the person is found not guilty or is found guilty but is given a slap on the wrists in the form of a large fine (which is sort of how it works right now).

 

Here's my suggestion for your game -- if a person pleads "no contest" to the charges, then they would still be found guilty, but could avoid prison time with the payment of the heafty fine. Justice is still served (technically), but the rich just simply walk, albeit somewhat poorer.

 

Matt "Been-working-the-dark-places-for-a-long-time-now" Frisbee

[Alverant]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

Hm.

 

What about theft? Could the poor steal from the rich, and use their loot to buy out from any prosecution? That would be a rather amusing loophole, at the least the first time it's used.

 

Heck, you're PCs might try it, so be prepared.

 

Except that stolen property is usually returned to the rightful owners.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

So how can I tone it down? I'd like to keep it in some form. I figure that with the rise of large corporations and the means to exploit weregeld, its weaknesses are becoming more apparent.

I think you'd have to limit the idea to "crimes against persons" anyway.

 

How about if I change it so accepting a weregeld is considered a guilty plea? That will limit its use. Rich people who are vain will refuse any offer that includes admitting guilt. And since a felony conviction means you loose the right to vote, practice law, run a corporation, etc fewer people would be interested. Only the very old (who don't care what happens to them), very powerful (who will keep their power anyway), and pre-existing felons (who won't loose anything) would ask for it.

Another option is that it generally isn't the state which decides whether or not to accept weregeld, it's the victims or their families. (Some "victimless" crimes may use state determination.) So a wealthy person may be able to buy his way out of a rape or murder charge or the like, but only if the victim or family will accept the weregeld. Some people would happily accept millions of $$$ for their relative's life, others would refuse at any price. (To keep the whole thing legal and aboveboard, I'd have the state be the arbiter of weregeld. Of course, that also allows them to collect taxes on it.)

 

You might also (just to spice things up a bit) allow people who refuse weregild to file legal vendettas against the criminal, meaning (for example) they can legally kill a murderer or castrate a rapist if they've declared vendetta.

 

I'd still find this very dismal very quickly as a campaign basis. It wouldn't take long to explore the moral implications of this kind of world; after which it just becomes a game of assassins. Why not just play a nice game of superpowered espionage?

[MisterBaldy]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

I suppose it would really depend on your players.

 

No player wants to feel that they are "helpless" in their quests for justice, and fighting "evil". Although corruption in the system is a good motivational tool to get players to act against injustices...

 

Too much can send shockwaves through your campaign setting, and kill any game before it really gets underway.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

Except that stolen property is usually returned to the rightful owners.

 

In this setting...........why?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

Yeah, I'm confused -- this doesn't seem to stand up to logic. I don't think a society where freedom can be bought would actually function for very long. You can't put a price tag on personal justice, because it leads to vendetta & vigilante justice.

 

I'm not saying that isn't what you're going for, I'm saying your scenario paints a picture that's so unstable there's absolutely no point in ever pursuing justice via normal channels; no lawyers will take cases because it's easier to take checks. Why pursue justice at all? Where is the daring DA? The noble cop? They have nothing to fight for, and that doesn't actually work.

 

It's not too dark; it's just not functional.

[pinecone]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

In brainstorming ideas for an alternate US history for my DC campaign I had an idea that could be pushing the boundaries of good taste.

 

You know in the real world today (and in fictional worlds like Law & Order) how if you have money you can get away with breaking the laws. With money you can hire good defense lawyers, investigate the prosecution's witnesses for dirty laundry, hire experts, and even resort to bribery so you can be found not guilty. So I thought, why not just skip the smoke and mirrors and allow defendants to walk away from any charge if they pay a fine equal to what the DA's office the defendant would have to spend to be found not guilty? If the case is strong, then the fine is high. In other words, pay enough cash and you can commit any crime you want and never have a record. Sort of like how corporations settle what they call "nuisance lawsuits" without admitting guilt.

 

The only hitch I'd have is that once you accept a deal you can't claim harassment or malicious prosecution and the public usually accepts the defendant is guilty with a wink and a nudge.

 

I think I read a sci-fi book called "Wereguild" that had something simular.....old Norse and Franks for sure had such a thing as part of their legal system...I suppose in some weird way such a thing could come back....maybe a Rich person murdered a child molester....and the public sympathy was enough to make changes?????

[CorPse]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

I think it all comes down to what you and your group wants to do.

 

Everybody's taste is different, and if you want to explore this terrain, go for it.

 

For my money, a lot of supers-based games are infantile and I'd rather see somebody do something a little daring and interesting.

 

I briefly ran a DC game in LA that starred an EMT with a drug problem, a prostitute, and a local knee-breaker. It got a little ugly at times, but the players enjoyed it and explored some strange, and sometimes really interesting, dynamics.

 

So whatever happens... good for you for thinking about throwing something else into the mix.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

Yeah' date=' I'm confused -- this doesn't seem to stand up to logic. I don't think a society where freedom can be bought would actually function for very long. You can't put a price tag on personal justice, because it leads to vendetta & vigilante justice.[/quote']Indeed. This is exactly the kind of thing that led to events like the French Revolution and the Russian Civil War: wealthy and important nobles doing whatever they wanted to peasants and serfs; and their victims getting fed up with it and revolting. Societies like that would be (and are) inherently unstable because the majority has no stake in the system.

 

OTOH, it might be interesting to play characters who are working to overthrow this corrupt system. Play the founding fathers rather than King George III or Louis XVI.

[CorPse]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

Indeed. This is exactly the kind of thing that led to events like the French Revolution and the Russian Civil War: wealthy and important nobles doing whatever they wanted to peasants and serfs; and their victims getting fed up with it and revolting. Societies like that would be (and are) inherently unstable because the majority has no stake in the system.

 

OTOH, it might be interesting to play characters who are working to overthrow this corrupt system. Play the founding fathers rather than King George III or Louis XVI.

 

Yeah, I like the idea of a vigilante resistance.

 

And as for unstable societies... you don't even have to look into the past for such systems. Leaf through some back issues of The Economist and you'll find enough dysfunctional states for a dozen DC campaigns.

[Alverant]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

I can understand the reasoning in saying that it would make society too unstable. Except no one is getting off scott free. You can admit you were wrong and write a big check or you can refuse to admit culpability and spend the money in court. That is what is happening now. Spending big money on lawyers and such can let you get away with a crime, but it's not a sure thing. Look at the OJ trial. Expensive defense attorneys nitpicked every little thing until they found a weakness in the case and exploited it. It could be argued that it would have been better for everyone if he gave half the money he spent on lawyers to the Goldman family and have to state of California then admit guilt. It would keep him out of jail, but so did a not guilty verdict. Want another example, recently Exxon finished a long court battle fighting the financial verdict against them for the Valdez oil spill way back when. All that damage and they bought justice for a song (compared to what they would have had to pay).

 

My logic was that this was a more practical route to help the courts like plea bargaining. The fines here would be high enough to keep crimes from being committed casually. The way I'd like to use it is as a tool of last resort. The DA wants a guilty verdict but knows the case can be shot down by hired guns. The defendant wants to avoid a long and embarrassing trial. This is a compromise. No one is happy, but at least something got done. This fits in with something else in this alternate history. The US political system has about 25 parties instead of 2. Compromise is the way things get done and it's accepted. The idea that giving an inch is basically surrendering is alien in this society. People expect that if you give an inch you gain a foot and lengthly fights are frowned upon.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

Well, tragically, I'm forced to fall back on CorPse's "YMMV" style comment; I can't really get behind the design because it doesn't really connect to anything. Isn't the sort of thing I would run.

 

And that's coming from the guy who runs Punk style games pretty much non-stop.

[CorPse]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

And that's coming from the guy who runs Punk style games pretty much non-stop.

 

Hmmm... now I'm curious

 

Punk style as in cyberpunk or guys with shaved heads and such.

 

I don't want to get too off thread, but, like I said, I'm curious.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

I can understand the reasoning in saying that it would make society too unstable. Except no one is getting off scott free. You can admit you were wrong and write a big check or you can refuse to admit culpability and spend the money in court. That is what is happening now. Spending big money on lawyers and such can let you get away with a crime, but it's not a sure thing. Look at the OJ trial. Expensive defense attorneys nitpicked every little thing until they found a weakness in the case and exploited it. It could be argued that it would have been better for everyone if he gave half the money he spent on lawyers to the Goldman family and have to state of California then admit guilt. It would keep him out of jail, but so did a not guilty verdict. Want another example, recently Exxon finished a long court battle fighting the financial verdict against them for the Valdez oil spill way back when. All that damage and they bought justice for a song (compared to what they would have had to pay).

 

My logic was that this was a more practical route to help the courts like plea bargaining. The fines here would be high enough to keep crimes from being committed casually. The way I'd like to use it is as a tool of last resort. The DA wants a guilty verdict but knows the case can be shot down by hired guns. The defendant wants to avoid a long and embarrassing trial. This is a compromise. No one is happy, but at least something got done. This fits in with something else in this alternate history. The US political system has about 25 parties instead of 2. Compromise is the way things get done and it's accepted. The idea that giving an inch is basically surrendering is alien in this society. People expect that if you give an inch you gain a foot and lengthly fights are frowned upon.

If all a society was was its legal system, this view might have some validity but for most people the legal system is a very minor part of our culture; one that they also tend to see as partially broken. To use your example case, even though OJ was found not guilty most people knew perfectly well he was guilty as sin and were outraged he got off scott free because his lawyers played the race card. You think people would be happier if he'd admitted his guilt and walked? (OJ essentially bankrupted himself paying for his defense; the only difference is that in our world most of the money went to his lawyers and in yours it would go to the state and victims.) While money helps in the real world, it didn't get Ken Lay or Leona Helmsley off.

 

I repeat: If the law allows rich people to get away with crimes simply by writing a check, rebellion and vigilantism won't be far behind. If a millionaire murdered my girlfriend and then escaped justice by writing a check, I'd kill him myself. Then I'd take up an online collection from other outraged citizens and buy myself out of jail. Then his heirs would have me killed and write another check. Then my dad... Well, you get the idea. The killing would never stop.

 

This system amounts to no less than legal anarchy. Is that the background you wanted to run a campaign in? (Don't think your players won't see the inherent weaknesses. Expect at least one and maybe most of them to buy Wealth.)

[Zed-F]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

I think it could be an interesting social experiment. Do some research on Norse society of that time and see how it functioned. Then set up your entire campaign world to mimic that set of social mores. Obviously that set of social rules, taken as a whole, is stable enough to self-perpetuate for a good long time -- since it clearly did in RL. The thing is, the people have to believe in their system and that that's just the way things ought to be, or as has been pointed out you'll get revolution in short order.

 

Then plop your heroes into it, and see how they react.

 

But as Treb said, this sort of thing may not have too much mileage inherently built into it. The problem is most modern people will not buy into such a social system, and so will inherently seek to reform it into something they are more comfortable with. If you were running a Fantasy Hero game rather than a Dark Champions game, you might get more buy-in on the part of the players, but even then modern sensibilities tend to come into play more frequently than they historically ought to. Set it in the modern world, and most people will assume that modern sensibilities should automatically apply.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

I think the key to making this work and making it believable is to have the offer accepted only at the leisure of the victim's family. That sort of "buy in" would allow society to function, even with such an unjust mechanism in place.

[Vondy]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

I would keep on thing in mind: when the players see how the system works they are going to do one of two things: 1) fight fire with fire, or 2) start their own personal execution squad to get whatever they decide justice is. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they did both. In terms of society: it would be easy to maintain such a system - clan systems often had "man price" in them and your proteksia (how big and scary your clan was) pretty much defined whether you were powerful enough to demand justice or not. On the other hand: it would not be a society that operated on the same principles - ethical, religious, or social - that modern western culture is accustomed to. It would be a distinct society.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

Hmmm... now I'm curious

 

Punk style as in cyberpunk or guys with shaved heads and such.

 

I don't want to get too off thread, but, like I said, I'm curious.

 

Punk isn't really about 'cyberpunk' but that's certainly an area in which I excel. My games tend to focus on a strong comparison of light and dark. I enjoy how that shows varying shades of gray. It enables me, as a storyteller, to show great disparity from good to evil, and it frees up the characters (the players) to explore things on a three dimensional level, better than any other sub-genre that I know of.

 

So I tend to run cyber-punk, horror-punk and steam-punk style games. Even my Fantasy campaigns tend to have a 'punk' edge, but that's more of the dystopian side stories. My other preferred genre is military fiction, but again, for very similar reasons, it just gives me a different set of controls to use.

[Alverant]

Re: Is this too dark for DC?

 

OK I concede the points made here. I'm still learning as a GM. The idea of buying justice would work better in a novel where the author controls everyone's actions. It would not work in a social setting where other people are involved. It would be too much of a deviation from what we have today to suspend the player's disbelief. In a fantasy or far future sci-fi setting it may work better, but in DC it's too much.

 

Now bribery, that's DC. It's unreliable, risky, and since it's illegal people can still have public faith in the courts even if they privately think it's rigged. In China bribery is part of the culture. You can even bribe your way out of hell. It's part of the society and it can cause huge problems (recent pet food and lead toys scandals for example).

 

Best part about bribery in the legal system is that anyone who does it you know is guilty of something much more serious. If the PCs smell a bribed DA or judge suddenly any defendant's not-guilty plea is suspect.