What characters have Legal Enforcement Powers and Legal Immunity?

[ErhnamDJ]

I'm trying to figure out when to give characters Legal Enforcement Powers and Legal Immunity, and the examples in the books either aren't consistent or don't make much sense. For instance, in Crusades, King Richard I lacks Legal Immunity, whereas in Banestorm, King Conall VI is given Legal Immunity. In Characters, one of the examples given for Legal Immunity is a medieval duke. There are similar issues for Legal Enforcement Powers.

Is there some underlying reasoning that I'm missing, or are these traits being applied inconsistently in the character write-ups? Are these traits that authors have forgotten to give to characters (instead treating their Rank and/or Status as giving them), or have I been applying these traits incorrectly?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I'm trying to figure out when to give characters Legal Enforcement Powers and Legal Immunity, and the examples in the books either aren't consistent or don't make much sense. For instance, in Crusades, King Richard I lacks Legal Immunity, whereas in Banestorm, King Conall VI is given Legal Immunity. In Characters, one of the examples given for Legal Immunity is a medieval duke. There are similar issues for Legal Enforcement Powers.

Is there some underlying reasoning that I'm missing, or are these traits being applied inconsistently in the character write-ups? Are these traits that authors have forgotten to give to characters (instead treating their Rank and/or Status as giving them), or have I been applying these traits incorrectly?

Probably, no underlying reason. It's just a question of one designer thinking Legal Immunity is redundant when in the setting your social status means that you are the law everyone answers to and another designer disagreeing. Although it's possible Conall's immunity reflects the existence of a more independent judiciary so he actually needs it. I don't have the book handy.

But the question of how many social Advantages you need to pile on to represent a king is in general an open question...and not a very important one since the roleplaying opportunities for sitting monarchs are...limited.

[whswhs]

For Legal Enforcement Powers, I think that the simplest approach (though not necessarily the one that's always been taken) is to say that they represent qualification for Police Rank 0, as Clerical Investment represents qualification for Religious Rank 0. The different costs then reflect the different powers exercised by police forces of different kinds; Scotland Yard, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Allgemeine SS could all be thought of as "police," but their approaches and abilities were rather different.

But Police Rank, like most forms of Rank, seems to me to represent position in an organization with powers delegated to it by some higher sovereignty; see for example the American idea of civilian supremacy, in which the top officers of the armed forces report to the President, who need not have any military rank at all. In general, any organization whose Rank is worth 5 points/level doesn't control its entire society. Now, Legal Enforcement Powers with a higher point cost might be found in the sort of police organizations whose Police Rank is worth 10 points/level (that is, Rank grants effective Status one for one); but I think that's subject to GM judgment rather than strictly imposed by the rules.

[Phantasm]

I cannot answer the Legal Immunity side of things, because I'm usually unsure of that myself.

For Legal Enforcement Powers, I go with "is he authorized to enforce the law, and how broad an authority is he granted?" Medieval barons were obligated to act as their own police chief, with the local guard under his command doing double duty as police and military. I would give a baron LEP 2 as he was not obligated to respect the civil rights of his vassals (indeed, at least according to Life on a Medieval Barony, a baron was obligated to produce a confession via torture, as the law stated that a confession to a crime was worthless unless produced via torture).

That said, medieval feudalism was a right bloody mess when it came down to who had what powers and immunities, and varied by what part of Europe you were in, whose vassal you were (and you could be a vassal of multiple competing lieges, any of whom could call you into service, possibly against another of your lieges, in which case you had to be sure to either pick the winning side or risk losing it all), and whose liege you were. I read an account from the Hundred Years War era of one nobleman, a viscount (vice-count), discovering his liege, a marquis (march-count or border-count), was a vassal of the baron he'd come into a border conflict with, so the viscount was called into service against himself!

As a guess, Legal Immunity only appears to be applied inconsistently to feudal nobility characters because feudalism was itself internally inconsistent. Such legalities have to be applied on a case-by-case basis.

Reality is often "unrealistic" in such matters.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

I cannot answer the Legal Immunity side of things, because I'm usually unsure of that myself.

For Legal Enforcement Powers, I go with "is he authorized to enforce the law, and how broad an authority is he granted?" Medieval barons were obligated to act as their own police chief, with the local guard under his command doing double duty as police and military. I would give a baron LEP 2 as he was not obligated to respect the civil rights of his vassals (indeed, at least according to Life on a Medieval Barony, a baron was obligated to produce a confession via torture, as the law stated that a confession to a crime was worthless unless produced via torture).

I would often not apply this to the medieval baron. He usually isn't a police officer at all. Rather, he's a local feudal ruler, with perhaps Status 3-5 and Feudal Rank 3-5 to accompany it; this makes him not a possessor but a granter of LEP. (An exception could be made in a highly centralized system such as Norman England, where the local baron was put in place by decree of the king and his powers were specified by royal law, as discussed in Barons of the Welsh Frontier, for example.)

[VariousRen]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I would often not apply this to the medieval baron. He usually isn't a police officer at all. Rather, he's a local feudal ruler, with perhaps Status 3-5 and Feudal Rank 3-5 to accompany it; this makes him not a possessor but a granter of LEP. (An exception could be made in a highly centralized system such as Norman England, where the local baron was put in place by decree of the king and his powers were specified by royal law, as discussed in Barons of the Welsh Frontier, for example.)

I disagree with this idea, on the principle that you should be paying for what you get when it comes to social advantages in gurps. I break it down like this:

Legal Enforcement Powers grant you to execute the law. If theft is illegal you can arrest people on accusations of theft and must release them if you find no evidence of the crime. If you have high rank alongside LEP you are entitled to the ability to decide exactly what resources are dedicated to hunting down a wanted individual. You only ever wield LEP in the name of some society or organization.

Rank/Status (depending on the setting) allow you to change the law or influence how it is executed, but you do not get to decide that people are to be arrested. A baron may set the tax rate in his region, but he cannot demand someone be arrested for tax evasion directly. He can request a person be investigated by someone with LEP, and he absolutely can change the law so that ta person suddenly finds themselves in violation of the law!

In my version of medieval societies (which is grounded more in fantasy than history) the two are often found together. A king's word is the law, so if he orders you to the dungeons then it will be done and seen as just by society. A lower lord has the same supreme power as long as he is not violating the law set out by a higher ranking/status noble. The kings guard, city watch, etc. have LEP and carry out the law as set out by their superior.

Societies where the lord doesn't hold both Rank and LEP are likely to have a more well developed justice system. There may even be a formal court system, so the king demanding someone be arrested is just a request for those with LEP to investigate the matter. If that person has not violated any laws they will go free, regardless of the nobles feeling on the matter.

Legal Immunity does what it says on the tin. If a leader doesn't have legal immunity then it's possible for those with LEP to investigate their crimes, arrest, and punish them as appropriate under the law without the act being seen as a coup by the common people. I would give most medieval lords some level of legal immunity, but it is possible in a more democratic society that they would lack it. The key advantage of legal immunity is that it protects you from higher status/rank individuals from changing the law to make what you're doing illegal. A court jester knows that he will be safe even if the king makes jokes about him a capital offense (or at least that the king will be seen as a tyrant for killing the him).

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I would often not apply this to the medieval baron. He usually isn't a police officer at all. Rather, he's a local feudal ruler, with perhaps Status 3-5 and Feudal Rank 3-5 to accompany it; this makes him not a possessor but a granter of LEP. (An exception could be made in a highly centralized system such as Norman England, where the local baron was put in place by decree of the king and his powers were specified by royal law, as discussed in Barons of the Welsh Frontier, for example.)

IIRC at least some feudal magnates were judges as well - certainly any manor lord was responsible for judging the cases at the manor court...

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

IIRC at least some feudal magnates were judges as well - certainly any manor lord was responsible for judging the cases at the manor court...

Yes, and in a feudal system, most of those powers aren't all that split off from Status, or from the Feudal Rank that accompanies it. You largely have one hierarchy that does war, law enforcement, and civil administration. The big exception was religion, which had its own separate hierarchy.

I suppose it could be argued that the real system was that Religious Rank was worth 10 points/level, and acted as Status in its own right, with the laity being a subordinate hierarchy. The church could excommunicate a king, after all. But I'm not sure how I'd define all the details.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I'm trying to figure out when to give characters Legal Enforcement Powers and Legal Immunity, and the examples in the books either aren't consistent or don't make much sense. For instance, in Crusades, King Richard I lacks Legal Immunity, whereas in Banestorm, King Conall VI is given Legal Immunity. In Characters, one of the examples given for Legal Immunity is a medieval duke. There are similar issues for Legal Enforcement Powers.

Is there some underlying reasoning that I'm missing, or are these traits being applied inconsistently in the character write-ups? Are these traits that authors have forgotten to give to characters (instead treating their Rank and/or Status as giving them), or have I been applying these traits incorrectly?

Or maybe reality is inconsistent.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Yes, and in a feudal system, most of those powers aren't all that split off from Status, or from the Feudal Rank that accompanies it. You largely have one hierarchy that does war, law enforcement, and civil administration.

Yes, but the issue is that in GURPS, if you can both set things afire with your thought and breathe fire like a dragon, you pay points separately for those two powers, even if they come to you from the same source, say the benevolence of the god of fire.
The main reason for not setting a price for everything might be that sometimes, overlapping effects do get a package discount, like Wealth and Status.
However, I as the GM would have no problem to give an Earl character a discount because that's the way society works,... as long as the campaign remains in that setting and there are no outworlders coming in. If the Earl is a PC operating on his own world, and the other PCs are outworlders who have arrived there from elsewhere/elsewhen, there might be a problem with a bean-counting player.