Quote from: Zalman on December 19, 2023, 08:00:39 AM
Sure, making PCs remove their armor and stow their weapons might (or might not, I'm no expert) make realistic medieval sense. For me the most important consideration is that, in the context of the game, such a social rule hampers fighters specifically.

It depends. Is open casting of magic spells tolerated? If so, why?

I consider the question of open weapons and magic in each of my settlements and it varies widely depending on the circumstances. Some towns are like the wild west and you can do anything as long as you can handle the consequences. Other towns are civilized and anything more than a personal knife will get you arrested by a watch, who by the way are only armed with clubs. A nobleman might wear a sword as a symbol of his status or for ceremonial purposes. Casting a spell in public could get you arrested, shunned, or burned at the stake.

In practice, this makes the players more cautious and thoughtful in how they go about adventuring in town. It also lowers the stakes for any fights they might get into. I think these limits are good and fun because they encourage players to explore other solutions to problems instead of just killing them.

Quote from: WERDNA on December 17, 2023, 08:39:41 PM
I was just wondering what the extent of these laws really was just the other day. I know sumptuary laws are a thing Dark Albion as well being late Medieval (but wouldn't be in a game set in say the High Middle Ages in most parts of Europe so your richly garbed lower class adventure would perhaps be safe in S&C's Outremer).

In almost all European cities and large towns (and obviously keeps/castles) there was arms control. You couldn't walk through the streets armed, EXCEPT if you were a noble, where in many countries they  had the right to carry a sword.
In the countryside there wasn't a precise rule, but anyone (especially a stranger) seen walking around in armor and armed would be assumed to be potentially dangerous, and perhaps either an invader or a brigand. Again, excepting nobles and knights.

This was all largely measures to keep the commoners (be they peasants or city-dwellers) disarmed.

Quote from: WERDNA on December 17, 2023, 08:39:41 PM
I was just wondering what the extent of these laws really was just the other day. I know sumptuary laws are a thing Dark Albion as well being late Medieval (but wouldn't be in a game set in say the High Middle Ages in most parts of Europe so your richly garbed lower class adventure would perhaps be safe in S&C's Outremer).

Correct, to a certain degree. There were still a few such laws, but way less anytime before 1350

Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 17, 2023, 09:17:08 PM
Would the social stigma for carrying weapons exist in a world where a dragon, chimera, or hippogriff could swoop in from the sky at any moment?

People in the middle ages believed in Dragons, Chimera and hippogriffs (or similar flying monsters), and yet had these rules. Mainly because they knew that while these monsters exist, they don't just fly around the capital; they are found in isolated sinister places of wilderlan, outside the protective structure of civilization and christendom, where chaos and evil are stronger.

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 19, 2023, 04:32:38 PM

Quote from: Zalman on December 19, 2023, 08:00:39 AM
Sure, making PCs remove their armor and stow their weapons might (or might not, I'm no expert) make realistic medieval sense. For me the most important consideration is that, in the context of the game, such a social rule hampers fighters specifically.

It depends. Is open casting of magic spells tolerated? If so, why?

I would consider openly casting a spell equivalent to openly drawing a sword -- not simply carrying one. A magic-user still has his or her arsenal ready to hand.

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 19, 2023, 04:32:38 PM

Quote from: Zalman on December 19, 2023, 08:00:39 AM
Sure, making PCs remove their armor and stow their weapons might (or might not, I'm no expert) make realistic medieval sense. For me the most important consideration is that, in the context of the game, such a social rule hampers fighters specifically.

It depends. Is open casting of magic spells tolerated? If so, why?

In the medieval world, magic was  mostly not something that could be cast openly on the street. First off, for literal reasons: most magic was ritual magic, often requiring complicated (often costly) ingredients.  There were a few spells that could be done with very  little effort by very talented magicians, as well as things like the activation of talismans etc, but most of these would work in a way that most people wouldn't even realize it's happening.
Secondly, because if someone did what appeared like a magical ritual in the middle of a typical area of a medieval city, or a village of peasants, and didn't have some kind of incredible fame and good reputation, there's a very good chance that he'd be attacked. The Poors are a superstitious lot, and they'll put up with it from the local wise woman (until they don't!), but certainly not from some swishy toff in Cambridge robes.
Remember, the most famous "good wizard" in English history after Merlin himself, John Dee, had his library (at the time the largest library in England) burned to the ground by an angry mob, of his own neighbors.

So generally speaking, even entirely good and noble wizards in the real middle ages would have taken great care to be discrete in the practice of their rituals.

To say nothing of the fact that some forms of magic were outright illegal (like many of the practices of Alchemy - unless you got a license; or curses, or anything to do with the dead), or illegal in certain applications (doing any kind of magic to a royal without their express permission, trying to cast the astrological horoscope of the King when you're not the court Astrologer, etc).

The only class that gets away with doing their thang in the open in a city would be a Cleric/holy-man. The privilege of having impeccable morality and the visible full support of God himself.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 19, 2023, 09:15:47 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on December 18, 2023, 09:41:55 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 18, 2023, 12:16:34 AM
... but in my experience that's not how most people run the game. The idea that you could walk around in full arms & armor in a place like Waterdeep is absurd. Even if you imagine a fantasy-medieval equivalent of a frontier town, I expect that sitting in the local tavern in your plate armor is going to at least draw some suspicious looks.

I wonder to what degree that is driven by the fact that D&D uses an AC system?

In skill based systems where there is a Defensive Roll, and armor is Damage Reduction, losing your heavy armor is not the end of the world when you are walking around town.

But in AC based systems, where your armor is a very big factor in not only how often you take damage, but the game presumes certain types of armor, for certain classes, in any combat - players are naturally much more reluctant to cast it aside for any reason.

Oh that's definitely a big contributing factor. Running Dragon Warriors, which has a separate defensive stat, I got noticeably less pushback on PCs not always wearing full armor. Another thing that I think helped was ruling that each tier of armor contains the lower tiers within it. So, my Knight could choose to leave off his plate, but still throw on his gambeson and mail shirt if he had to get dressed in a hurry.

Probably why the d20 Conan RPG had parry and evasion separated out as defenses, with armor being Damage reduction.

Not very 'Conan' to walk around in plate armor all the time...

d20 Conan by mongoose had some really good ideas, seems no one has really picked up on them though.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 17, 2023, 08:45:29 PM
... If you want to go hard on the simulation, you could not just impose social penalties on your Scotsman for wearing his greatsword on his back, you could also make it take a full round to draw it and penalize all his running, stealth, and climbing for the awkwardness of going around with a 6-foot iron bar hanging off of him.

There was a period in Japan where large swords were in fashion. Samurai who could afford it would hire a servant to follow them around everywhere carrying their great sword, so they could actually draw it in a timely fashion. Or they could carry it on their back themselves, but that was both slower to draw, and marked them out as not as wealthy.

Which could be a partial solution to the social aspect as well. A guy in silks, with another guy following him around doing nothing but holding his claymore for him, will be seen as higher status and more trustworthy with a weapon of war than the same guy in trailworn clothes carrying his own sword.

Quote from: Brigman on December 17, 2023, 04:15:17 PM
So in Dark Albion, you have to be a knight to carry a sword (in town, city, or civilized areas).

In my current game, the Scotsman carries a claymore (great sword).  He's a barbarian outside of the social norms, of course, but... how would he be treated, traveling in the company of a Cleric, carrying his claymore on his back?

I think Pundit and others have made really good points regarding this, but I'll throw in my 2 cents. I'm assuming this is for the game you mentioned in another part of the forum, the one where you were running Keep on the Borderlands in Dark Albion.

How I'd rule it is like this: if he can get the Cleric to vouch for him as a sort of lackey, I could see it as a good means to excuse the transportation of a sword. Sort of like he's allowed to carry it wrapped in a blanket on his back, but not have it ready to go, if that makes sense. That way he's not opening displaying it. Otherwise, if anyone knows he's armed with such a weapon they might become paranoid.

Something I know was quite common back then was suspicion of outsiders, especially since he's a Scotsman in this case. So if anything were to happen, say someone gets attacked at night in the Keep, he might be at the top of the potential suspects.

I ran a game where something similar happened: the cleric vouched for this peasant in the party that carried an axe for a weapon. Whenever he'd get questioned, the cleric would explain the guy was his personal bodyguard he pressed into service. It helped that the peasant in question was roleplayed as very devout.

In general, in a setting where only a knight can carry a sword, any heavily armed and obviously capable warrior is going to be treated as a knight until proven otherwise. It's not like in feudal Japan there was some central database of who was samurai bushi, or someone was going to try to arrest a freelance in the medieval HRE. If they send the guard, and he defeats them in physical combat, that pretty much proves he is, de facto, a knight, as that would make him an armed freeman capable of defending his own honor. Those kind of laws are probably less relevant than whether a given character is viewed as an enemy or invader, in which case they will face not only the law but other knights.

However, for obvious reasons, you are not usually allowed to carry heavy weapons into a tavern. Brawls would be settled with fists, tankards, or at the worst, daggers and rapiers (depending on era).

So if I'm getting this correct, the goal is to be either not breaking the carry laws, or to look like a knight or a noble in arms/armor? Kinda weird in that you'd presumably not want to be armed or armored unless it was heavily or fancily, but I can sort of dig it. Also, were knights and nobles rare and well-known enough during this time period that folks could somehow try to verify you?

Quote from: pawsplay on December 24, 2023, 01:08:14 AM
In general, in a setting where only a knight can carry a sword, any heavily armed and obviously capable warrior is going to be treated as a knight until proven otherwise. It's not like in feudal Japan there was some central database of who was samurai bushi, or someone was going to try to arrest a freelance in the medieval HRE. If they send the guard, and he defeats them in physical combat, that pretty much proves he is, de facto, a knight, as that would make him an armed freeman capable of defending his own honor. Those kind of laws are probably less relevant than whether a given character is viewed as an enemy or invader, in which case they will face not only the law but other knights.

However, for obvious reasons, you are not usually allowed to carry heavy weapons into a tavern. Brawls would be settled with fists, tankards, or at the worst, daggers and rapiers (depending on era).

There weren't registries, in much of the European middle ages, its true. But that didn't mean that whoever carried a sword was a knight. To be a knight you'd need to be sworn to a lord, or to a knightly religious order, or be the son of a knight.
It's definitely true that if someone went to North Bummingham-by-the-Hills far from civilized areas and had armor and a sword and a horse and called himself a knight, he'd likely be treated like one for all intents and purposes. So this happened in the wilderlands in places like the north and wales, and in the debateable lands. Mainly, in other words, places that were mostly lawless. But if you tried to pull that shit in Bristol or Coventry, you'd pretty much be fucked. Unless you could prove you were a knight sworn to a Lord, and even then there'd be the question of what the hell makes you think you can go around fighting people in a free chartered city. Unless the city, town or village BELONGS to your lord, you still wouldn't be allowed to go around armed and armored, much less get into swordfights. By the late middle ages, if your knighthood wasn't proven, or was proven false, you'd be guilty of petit treason, and violation of the sumptuary laws (as well as assault or murder if you had fought someone).

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 24, 2023, 04:01:50 AM
There weren't registries, in much of the European middle ages, its true. But that didn't mean that whoever carried a sword was a knight. To be a knight you'd need to be sworn to a lord, or to a knightly religious order, or be the son of a knight.
It's definitely true that if someone went to North Bummingham-by-the-Hills far from civilized areas and had armor and a sword and a horse and called himself a knight, he'd likely be treated like one for all intents and purposes. So this happened in the wilderlands in places like the north and wales, and in the debateable lands. Mainly, in other words, places that were mostly lawless.

What bout other kingdoms. How would the Franks or Holy Roman Empire, or Eastern Empire deal with a Brit from North Bummingham-by-the-Hills claiming to be a knight? I would think there would be assumptions based on the ability to afford a horse and servants.

The whole move Knights Tale is sort of based on that but I have no idea how they could actually know one way or another.

Quote from: Ruprecht on December 24, 2023, 09:14:19 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 24, 2023, 04:01:50 AM
There weren't registries, in much of the European middle ages, its true. But that didn't mean that whoever carried a sword was a knight. To be a knight you'd need to be sworn to a lord, or to a knightly religious order, or be the son of a knight.
It's definitely true that if someone went to North Bummingham-by-the-Hills far from civilized areas and had armor and a sword and a horse and called himself a knight, he'd likely be treated like one for all intents and purposes. So this happened in the wilderlands in places like the north and wales, and in the debateable lands. Mainly, in other words, places that were mostly lawless.

What bout other kingdoms. How would the Franks or Holy Roman Empire, or Eastern Empire deal with a Brit from North Bummingham-by-the-Hills claiming to be a knight? I would think there would be assumptions based on the ability to afford a horse and servants.

The whole move Knights Tale is sort of based on that but I have no idea how they could actually know one way or another.

This would be like today a British soldier in full kit walking around Hamburg.  The German police aren't going to care about his status as a soldier, he's not authorized to walk around down town with a light machine gun.  A visiting knight under orders from his liege or invited is going to travel in an acceptable way.  Unless there was a specific reason for it otherwise, the knight would were street clothes.  Being a knight had privileges but that didn't extend to being fully armed and armored outside your own realm.

It was extremely rare for armor to just be worn day in and day out and having it on meant you were engaged in a purpose.  Usually armor was carried as luggage when traveling.  A side arm was worn while traveling frequently, even by commoners.  (Lots of caveats here, usually a weapon befitting status.)  When you reached a castle or a city, you would announce yourself and state your reason for visiting.  Usually at this time the local custom for handling weapons was employed.  (Sometimes it was tying up the weapon, sometimes it was surrendered for storage.)

Throughout the Middle Ages, there was a wide variety of laws and customs based on the time and the location but an armed and armored man was always seen as someone ready to do violence.  This was always a provocation against the locals unless you could justify yourself. 

Quote from: BadApple on December 24, 2023, 09:43:36 AM

This would be like today a British soldier in full kit walking around Hamburg.  The German police aren't going to care about his status as a soldier, he's not authorized to walk around down town with a light machine gun.  A visiting knight under orders from his liege or invited is going to travel in an acceptable way.  Unless there was a specific reason for it otherwise, the knight would were street clothes.  Being a knight had privileges but that didn't extend to being fully armed and armored outside your own realm.

It was extremely rare for armor to just be worn day in and day out and having it on meant you were engaged in a purpose.  Usually armor was carried as luggage when traveling.  A side arm was worn while traveling frequently, even by commoners.  (Lots of caveats here, usually a weapon befitting status.)  When you reached a castle or a city, you would announce yourself and state your reason for visiting.  Usually at this time the local custom for handling weapons was employed.  (Sometimes it was tying up the weapon, sometimes it was surrendered for storage.)

Throughout the Middle Ages, there was a wide variety of laws and customs based on the time and the location but an armed and armored man was always seen as someone ready to do violence.  This was always a provocation against the locals unless you could justify yourself.

This reminds me a lot of the way they thought about the same subject in Cyberpunk 2020. Showing up in town armed and armored, it was like you were anticipating trouble and others would definitely be weary of you, if not bar you access to certain places. Plus knowing how guards and town watch worked in those days, you'd probably be constantly harassed or just straight out asked to remove your arms.