Idea about law level

[Ishmael]

I had an idea about law levels...

Instead of 2d-7+gov
how about 2d+gov- player's apparent social standing?

in such a society, high level folk would be harrassed less and get away with more than the dregs and low lifes. A noble could get away with wearing a sidearm whereas a begger couldn't. A noble might get away with murder whereas a dreg would be imprisoned for jaywalking.

an average ss (7) would still get the same legal treatment as standard rules

just an idea

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

Hmm...

Are you talking about generating LAW or avoiding harrassment?

Keep LAW = 2D - 7 + GOV

To avoid harrassment:

Roll 2D + (SOC - LAW)

If the result equals LAW, then the police make a simple ID check for 1D minutes. Roll again for result.

If the result is greater than LAW, then the police give a simple once-over and move-along.

If the result is less than LAW, then the police give a full pat-down, sobriety check, and fingerprint scan. There may be some questions to answer. ("That's a real nice watch you have there. Do you always carry this much cash?" )

But if the roll is a natural 2, then the character is taken in for 24 to 72 hours for questioning, background check, DNA analysis, pictures, prints, et cetera.

 

[Ishmael]

gee..what ruleset is that from?...I don't see that in the MT ref's manual. Either way...I guess I am talking about avoiding harassment mostly, although I also meant how trials come out and sentences handed out in courts, not the odds that you'll be leaned on by a beat cop.
hmmmmmmm
but yes..law too in what people are allowed to carry around as weapons, which is what the law level seems fixated on. I also think it should also apply to armor as well...Jersey City cops I know say theu'd definately check out someone wearing a bullet-proof vest, even if that guy was just walking and minding his own business.

I don't think it should be purely the SOC stat, but what the character's SOC appears to be.

 

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Ishmael James:
I also think it should also apply to armor as well...Jersey City cops I know say theu'd definately check out someone wearing a bullet-proof vest, even if that guy was just walking and minding his own business.

Definitely. I've always taken this view with Traveller (and other SF/near future) games I've played. It should attract the attention of the local law and result in more regular stop-checks, but unless your universe has certain armours restricted to the military (mine does) then your character won't get pulled in unless there's some other infraction. (Of course, if the local law keep seeing the same person/group wandering round armoured up to the max, they're going to be extremely suspicious and start digging...)

(In the real world, I've worn an armoured vest under civilian clothes quite a bit, but always as discreetly as possible. There was a good and obvious reason for it, and I never got anything more than the occasional surprised expression...
A mate however got pulled by the police one night while in possession of not one, not two, but three armoured vests/jackets, each of a different type. Wearing one, carrying two... Needless to say the police were more than slightly interested in having a little chat to him. Again, since there were no offences being committed, all was well and he went on his way and regailed us later with the amusing tale!)

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

Outsider, I'm a pretty curious being, so why have You worn an armoured west ?
I thought the usual protection worn in London is a rainsuit....

regards,

TE

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Ishmael James:
I also think it should also apply to armor as well...Jersey City cops I know say theu'd definately check out someone wearing a bullet-proof vest, even if that guy was just walking and minding his own business.

Armor would probably be less restricted than weapons, as, while weapons may be used to harm others, armor merely protects its wearer from harm. However, carrying armor also implies that you anticipate being shot at, which aso implies that you might be up to mischief. Therefore, I suggest the following: On worlds with law level 4-5, carrying obvious armor in public would apply a -1 DM to the roll to avoid police harassment; on worlds with law level 6-8 a -2 DM would be applied instead; on worlds with Law Level 9+ armor would be illegal to carry without a license.

I don't think it should be purely the SOC stat, but what the character's SOC appears to be.

I agree with you 100%, though a Noble ID card would usually help in quickly and comfortably dealing with cops once they stop you for whatever reason.

 

[Outsider]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
Hi !

Outsider, I'm a pretty curious being, so why have You worn an armoured west ?
I thought the usual protection worn in London is a rainsuit....

regards,

TE

Aha, well it used to keep the rain out a treat!
(I've sent you a PM with the real answer...)

 

[Space Cadet]

If you need to hire a lawyer in order to cross a street, what law level is that?

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

Originally posted by Ishmael James:
gee..what ruleset is that from?

RULESET?!! We don't need no stinking ruleset! This is TRAVELLER!

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Space Cadet:
If you need to hire a lawyer in order to cross a street, what law level is that?

Gov 9, Law C+. Too many reguations, and too much enforcement

 

[Fritz_Brown]

One thing, though - not all LLs or Gov codes are going to treat you differently based on your apparent SOC. Many planets won't even care that you're a noble from such-and-such subsector - only whether you have any pull on that particular planet will matter. Some places (like a freedom-lovin' representative democratic republic ) might even resent you whipping out that noble card. Some folks really don't appreciate DYKWIA moments.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Oh, I don't know...I'm told a British knighthood gets you far more respect in the US than over here, or at least a better table in restaurants!

 

[Spiderfish]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
Oh, I don't know...I'm told a British knighthood gets you far more respect in the US than over here, or at least a better table in restaurants!

I am to understand that an a appearance on Big Brother is the modern equivalent of a knighthood in Edwardian times in terms of status...

But you can probably blag having a knighthood in America, it's not as if they have a list of everyone with a knighthood, just talk like Toad or Ratty from Wind in the Willows. Try not to impersonate mole...

 

[Kilgs]

Not sure about England or the equivalent in Traveller but wearing a bullet-proof vest in America is illegal in most/all states.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Kilgs:
Not sure about England or the equivalent in Traveller but wearing a bullet-proof vest in America is illegal in most/all states.

Where did you get this idea? Unless you're an ex-felon, it's generally legal.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kilgs:
Not sure about England or the equivalent in Traveller but wearing a bullet-proof vest in America is illegal in most/all states.

Where did you get this idea? Unless you're an ex-felon, it's generally legal. </font>[/QUOTE]Not sure about the current legality of wearing it but I seem to recall there were certain restrictions (high level body armor) in some if not many states for buyers not too many years ago. You were required to be a serving member of a police force or other agency to be able to buy it iirc.

However it now seems that anyone with the money can buy it, even felons since one site I checked seems to rely on the honour system rather than background checks to determine if you are a convicted felon.

 

[redwalker]

Some jurisdictions in America say that any crime committed while wearing armor becomes a felony automatically.

This is not evenly enforced -- it is used to help harass ghetto dwellers who are suspected of being crack dealers.

 

[LordVince]

Right. "Owning" and "Using" is a big Legal Distinction, here in The States. Most folks can by just about any kind of Body Armor -- claim to be a "Collector", claim to be "in the Security Business", hell, don't claim anything, most Sellers will sell it to you without asking!

So, as for so many things, here, the "Owning" isn't any crime. Ah, but USE it! That's something else!

 

[Straybow]

Some types are restricted to class III firearms license.

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by Ishmael James:
I had an idea about law levels...

Instead of 2d-7+gov
how about 2d+gov- player's apparent social standing?

in such a society, high level folk would be harrassed less and get away with more than the dregs and low lifes. A noble could get away with wearing a sidearm whereas a begger couldn't. A noble might get away with murder whereas a dreg would be imprisoned for jaywalking.

This is probably very realistic. Especially in a classed society (such as 3I), the nobility are not held to the same standards of general accountability as the proles are. Otherwise, what would be the point of having a classed society to begin with?

Note that, as developed in the discussion, weaponry restrictions are a separate consideration from general harassment issues. Also note that precedent exists in OTU canon (e.g., "Emperor" Dulinor) that Knights, as Defenders of the Realm, are entitled, perhaps even expected, to be armed at all times while in Imperial space, regardless of local security concerns.

Determining the wisdom of that policy is left as an exercise for the referee...