City Rules

[JNAProductions]

You know, I find it odd that Wizards of the Coast included a list of deific houserules in their own PHB. After all, if FR is the only legit way to play, why would you need Greyhawk deities, or Eberron, or Dragonlance?

Ah well. One of life's mysteries.

[MrStabby]

Hate to break it to you, but FR is the default setting and most people use it. If you're using something else, you're in the minority.

But more importantly, this is a forum about 5e. In order to have a conversation at all, we all need to be on the same page. That means, at a minimum, that we don't speak of our house rules as though they were the default, normal, or apply to anyone else.

Anything that isn't FR is a house rule. You wanna discuss it? Fine. But put a disclaimer on your post, because I sure as hell will tell you when something doesn't fit the standard mechanics or setting.

So many, many pages on how to build your own world in the DMG but the assumption is that you won't use them and will instead go to a pre-built world? Seems crazy, even more crazy to suppose that of all pre-built worlds there is one that is "standard".

I am, off and on, playing about 4 games at the moment. One out of these 4 is in the forgotten realms. Sure, it is a sample size of 4 games - not 500, but so far the evidence I see is against FR being standard.

[Jophiel]

More to it, if we're only allowed to discuss Forgotten Realms, there's no need for the OP. Just do whatever the FR modules tell you because that's the "default"

[AvatarVecna]

Regardless of whether FR is the default setting for 5e (it seems to be, for the most part, for what it's worth), and regardless of whether playing in a different setting than the default constitutes a house rule (that's really ****ing stupid), I don't see why Easy_Lee is so against people asking for help fleshing out how to handle things in-game for their alternate setting or houserule. I think it's really weird to look at "I need help fleshing out this fluff thing that doesn't fit the default setting", and then assuming they're operating in the default setting and lecturing them on why it doesn't fit the default setting, instead of assuming that they're not running the default setting and giving advice on how to flesh out the thing they're doing.

[War_lord]

Regardless of whether FR is the default setting for 5e (it seems to be, for the most part, for what it's worth)

I disagree, it might have the marketing push behind it, but officially D&D is a multiverse that happens to contain the FR, among others. It's not the default setting in the way that Westeros is the default setting for the ASoIaF RPG or the Old World is the default setting for Warhammer fantasy.

[Nifft]

If you're playing in the Forgotten Realms, then you can steal from the Baldur's Gate series:

- You can't enter certain cities without an expensive or exclusive tax (like how Candlekeep requires payment of a rare book to enter).

- You can't use Arcane magic in certain cities, or the Wizard Cops will teleport in and attack you (like how the Cowled Wizards respond in Athkatla).

- Some cities are prejudiced against certain races or even classes (Tradmeet was a good example of this, but there were plenty of others -- walking around with Viconia was a great way to get insulted by racist NPCs).

[LordEntrails]

Common sense? I mean if I go into a new city or a new country today, the local police or immigration authority really doesn't tell me much. They may search my belongings for illegal items, but they don't waste their time telling me I can't do something. I don't think medieval or fantasy situations should be much different.

Now, if you commit a crime, knowing you were or not, they are going to come after you.

Common sense says if you drop a fireball in a tavern (like a player of mine did), it really doesn't matter that you are good aligned. They are going to hunt you and put you on trial.

If you can not carry weapons, then the gate guards or the first city watch to see you are going to tell you / confiscate them / arrest you.

Now, it does make sense to give you characters an outline of what is "common" in your world. These are the things to consider (imo):
- who can carry a weapon? (is it the wild fringes or a civilized metropolis)
- coercion (magical or otherwise) is illegal, to do so for gain (monetary or personal) is worse
- hurting others or their property without cause is illegal
- stealing is illegal
- lying is bad
- trespassing (magical scrying or otherwise) is illegal
Or just look at the 10 commandments, those are fairly universal

[lunaticfringe]

No Droids.

[Easy_Lee]

The OP,, Beefgood, hasn't posted in this thread since the OP. Assuming he's running FR, like most people, is much safer than assuming he isn't.

I realize a lot of people on this forum don't like FR. I don't care. It's what most people are playing.

Do what's fun for you and your players, that's all I ask. I've presented a lot of reasons why arbitrary limiting laws in cities are a bad idea. Use them anyway if it fits your table. But don't act like it's standard practice, because it isn't.

Want to know what standard laws look like, OP? Check out the ten commandments, a historic starting point, then apply something similar to the city based on the dominant religion of that city. That's more interesting than disjointed laws.

[JNAProductions]

So, looking in the recruiting thread, we have the first game in not even close to FR.

The second is Ravenloft, which I think IS FR, so...

The third is homebrew.

And the fourth (which is closed) is in Dark Souls.

So, out of the four 5E games on page one of the recruitment subforum... One is FR. By those numbers, we should give him advice based on Lordran, or whatever the Dark Souls world is called.

[War_lord]

The OP,, Beefgood, hasn't posted in this thread since the OP. Assuming he's running FR, like most people, is much safer than assuming he isn't.

There's literally no reason to assume that, the safest thing is to assume OP is looking for setting agnostic suggestions.

I realize a lot of people on this forum don't like FR. I don't care. It's what most people are playing.

So you've gone from "FR is the standard setting", which was disproved. To "most people on the forum use Forgotten Realms", which was disproved. To "I don't care, I've decided to talk about FR" It's becoming increasingly clear to any reader that you seem to have some sort of issue that prevents you from having any consideration of a viewpoint that isn't yours.

Do what's fun for you and your players, that's all I ask. I've presented a lot of reasons why arbitrary limiting laws in cities are a bad idea. Use them anyway if it fits your table. But don't act like it's standard practice, because it isn't.

How on earth do you know what standard practice is? As has been covered, even the Forgotten Realms, which you claim is the only setting worth discussing, has its share of cities and states with their own approach to law enforcement.

Want to know what standard laws look like, OP? Check out the ten commandments, a historic starting point, then apply something similar to the city based on the dominant religion of that city. That's more interesting than disjointed laws.

Or they could, you know, read historical records from the medieval era that tell them exactly what restrictions the towns had. Way to add more bizarre undertones to your post though.

[Nifft]

The second is Ravenloft, which I think IS FR

Ravenloft is its own setting, with connections to Greyhawk and probably everywhere else (including Planescape and FR).

[JNAProductions]

Ravenloft is its own setting, with connections to Greyhawk and probably everywhere else (including Planescape and FR).

Well, there you go. 4/4 Forum games! Not Forgotten Realms approved! :P

[Honest Tiefling]

The OP,, Beefgood, hasn't posted in this thread since the OP. Assuming he's running FR, like most people, is much safer than assuming he isn't.

And you know what's even easier? Asking questions. Seriously, if you're confused as to what is going on in a thread, just ask. I didn't think this was such an inconvenient thing.

Also, you never did show any proof that NOT banning public magic or peacebound weapons wasn't standard in FR, so it wouldn't matter, as most of the agnostic replies are still perfectly in line with the information provided.

[Nifft]

Also, you never did show any proof that NOT banning public magic or peacebound weapons wasn't standard in FR, so it wouldn't matter, as most of the agnostic replies are still perfectly in line with the information provided.

Banning public magic is common in FR.

Citation: Baldur's Gate 2, the authoritative source for all FR lore.

[Honest Tiefling]

Citation: Baldur's Gate 2, the authoritative source for all FR lore.

Baldur's Gate is second edition. If we do include 2nd/3rd edition stuff, then no question, publicly casting spells would get you banned in most places, spied upon in others and have angry farmers waving their fists at you in others. However, I am not inclined to say that all editions are canon, since many contradict each other. I doubt tieflings were in second edition, but made it in third. 4th edition lore just gets weird with how much is simply never mentioned again.

It's honestly probably another split in the ways the game is played, with some adapting as much as possible of older editions, some borrowing and others ignoring it outright, almost to the point that anyone discussing the Realms might not even be speaking about the same setting...

[War_lord]

Actually FR does this annoying thing where they never retcon anything, they just come up with increasingly convoluted explanations for every change.

[Honest Tiefling]

Actually FR does this annoying thing where they never retcon anything, they just come up with increasingly convoluted explanations for every change.

That which we call a retcon by any other word would still be as confusing.

[Easy_Lee]

Actually FR does this annoying thing where they never retcon anything, they just come up with increasingly convoluted explanations for every change.

So, you're already biased against FR. Good to know. Funny thing: most people form an opinion first and try to rationalize it after the fact. A good way to tell when someone's done that is to see how angry and defensive they get when challenged.

FR is the default setting, whether any of you like it or not. When they don't say otherwise, it's safe to assume people will use the default setting. Feel free to disagree, but don't pretend to be "right" if you do. There is no right and wrong when it comes to opinions.

[JNAProductions]

So, you're already biased against FR. Good to know. Funny thing: most people form an opinion first and try to rationalize it after the fact. A good way to tell when someone's done that is to see how angry and defensive they get when challenged.

FR is the default setting, whether any of you like it or not. When they don't say otherwise, it's safe to assume people will use the default setting. Feel free to disagree, but don't pretend to be "right" if you do. There is no right and wrong when it comes to opinions.

Methinks there's some irony here.

[Jophiel]

For a little history on weapons in medieval cities:

The course entertainments that were such a prominent part of the social environment in the late medieval city show that emotions were raw and close to the surface. [...] Most people carried at the very least a small knife. The fact that townsmen jousted and had archery contests and in England were required by the Assize of Arms to keep themselves in a state of readiness meant that they usually had weapons at hand. [...] The statutes concerning illicit weapons were more honored in the breach than in practice. Not a single court case in late medieval Zurich made an issue of violation of the municipal statutes forbidding bearing weapons.
The problem was compounded by the presence of many transients in the cities, who had the means to defend themselves on the unpoliced roads while en route. A Nuremberg ordinance forbade sharp knives that could be concealed. Swords were forbidden to all except the prince's officials and the city Schultheiss, and those "who eat their bread". Other laws forbade citizens to conceal weapons in leggings or shoes. The inns were disorderly. In many cities the hostellers took oaths and posted bond. A Lubeck Bursprake of 1350-1 required guests to leave their weapons in their inns. When guests arrived, the landlord was to take possession of their knives and swords. Enforcement was by the innkeeper, not the city police: if the guests refused to surrender their weapons, the hostellers were to refuse to provide food and drink to them or their horses until they complied. The innkeepers of Paris were required in 1407 to furnish the provost with the names of all guests.

-- David Nicholas, The Later Medieval City: 1300-1500

So locals may have been expected or even required to carry weapons (or have access to them) but travelers could not stay at an inn or get food or water until they gave up their arms (and possibly had to post a bond for good behavior).

On imports:

First, that all persons who are not burgesses and freemen of the town of Bristol and who bring there wool, woollen cloth, iron, wood, wine, salt, madder, grain, oil, wax or any other merchandize of avoirdupois should take it to a place specifically designated (by the chamberlain then in office, upon the recommendation of the mayor and common council) as the sole location for the advertisement and sale of all such goods. They are to display and sell the same there alone, and not in any other private location.
[...]
Therefore, it has been the custom since ancient times that every outsider who is not a freeman of the town and who brings there any merchandize for advertisement and sale should pay, for the convenience and benefit in so doing, a monetary duty dictated by the type, quantity and variety of the merchandize they have brought, and according to the length of time they keep the goods in town for showing and selling it.

-- The Great Red Book of Bristol, (originally 1459 AD)

Travelers bringing items of wealth into a city were expected to pay taxes on them (freemen and city merchants were not). They were also limited in where they could sell their imports. Something to consider when bringing that dragon hoard haul back into town...

[Easy_Lee]

Methinks there's some irony here.

That's not even on-topic. There needs to be a button for this sort of thing.

To the OP, do what you think is best. Whatever your choice, I encourage you to base it on and integrate it with the rest of the setting. If your cities have rules, they should feel like a natural part of the world, not like something you threw in because you saw it on a forum.

[War_lord]

So, you're already biased against FR. Good to know. Funny thing: most people form an opinion first and try to rationalize it after the fact. A good way to tell when someone's done that is to see how angry and defensive they get when challenged.

FR is the default setting, whether any of you like it or not. When they don't say otherwise, it's safe to assume people will use the default setting. Feel free to disagree, but don't pretend to be "right" if you do. There is no right and wrong when it comes to opinions.

The lack of self awareness is palpable. FR is not the default setting, the DMG says it's not the default setting, Jeremy Crawford has said it's not the default setting. The person here stubbornly rationalizing their subjective opinion of something as an authoritative fact, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is you, Lee. You are making an assertion that is flatly contradicted by the intentions of the designers, I have provided evidence both reasoned from the text and gleaned from quotation to support this. You decided to ignore all of it, you haven't even attempted a refutation. You're just wrong, and your continued refusal to face that is frankly embarrassing.

[Sigreid]

Truth is, you probably don't need a bunch of laws to reign in the PCs. As an example, I live in a state where open carry is perfectly legal. Very few do it because it brings a lot of unnecessary attention from the authorities and some merchants will flat out refuse to let you in their establishment or do business with you.

Beyond that, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, after a few levels the characters are likely known for their power and their deadliness. Even if there are laws about weapons and spells in the city, many city guards are likely to not want to push the issue unless the party forces their hand. The local mayor may even go so far as to make them welcome and honored guests and provide them a decree to bear arms in order to ingratiate himself and head off any trouble.

Of course boarder and frontier towns are likely to just accept that only a fool goes unarmed.

[napoleon_in_rag]

So, you're already biased against FR. Good to know. Funny thing: most people form an opinion first and try to rationalize it after the fact. A good way to tell when someone's done that is to see how angry and defensive they get when challenged.

FR is the default setting, whether any of you like it or not. When they don't say otherwise, it's safe to assume people will use the default setting. Feel free to disagree, but don't pretend to be "right" if you do. There is no right and wrong when it comes to opinions.

Well, the first book published for 5e was the free download "Player Basic Rules". And the first campaign setting mentioned in that book is Ravenloft. Therefore:

Ravenloft is the default setting, whether any of you like it or not. And the OP is asking about rules for a city in Ravenloft....

[BeefGood]

The OP,, Beefgood, hasn't posted in this thread since the OP. Assuming he's running FR, like most people, is much safer than assuming he isn't
Do what's fun for you and your players,

OP here. Have not posted because there have been so many useful ideas and it takes time to think through them to make sure they are likely to be fun.
Tax to enter city: I had been stuck on flat fees which run into the problem that what's real money to commoners is pocket lint for adventurers. But taxes scale and so could work.
No weapon use creates oppprtunities for grappling and unarmed strikes, gives monks an opportunity to shine. Removing armor makes sense, at least for heavy armor, and would make brawling with the locals more fair. That sounds fun. But then where do they keep their armor? They either have to split the party and leave someone in the inn guarding the armor, or maybe there's a big coat check area where you pay a little money to leave your armor with someone.
Oh--yes forgotten realms, for what it's worth . I have SCAG but do not recall this sort of detail.

[smcmike]

No weapon use creates oppprtunities for grappling and unarmed strikes, gives monks an opportunity to shine. Removing armor makes sense, at least for heavy armor, and would make brawling with the locals more fair. That sounds fun.

Brawling and other forms of controlled combat are tricky. You don’t necessarily have to set rules within the game when the PCs enter the city, though - as DM, you can explain that there is a social expectation that tavern fights generally do not involve weapons, and that pulling a weapon (or casting a spell) is a major escalation of the sort that might have far-ranging consequences.

The ideal resolution of a tavern fight for a good party is usually punching a few jerks and throwing them out into the mud.

[Jophiel]

But then where do they keep their armor? They either have to split the party and leave someone in the inn guarding the armor, or maybe there's a big coat check area where you pay a little money to leave your armor with someone.

The text I quoted before mentioned that (in at least one real life medieval city) you had to check your weapons at the inn as a precondition to staying the night or using the dining hall. Also, you could potentially pay a bond on top of that for good behavior. Act well and you get your money back, cause problems and the inn/city kept your money both as punishment and to offset the damages.

If the party is required to leave gear at the inn then it is the innkeeper's responsibility to make sure its watched. In a game setting, the innkeeper has strong incentive to keep them safe since he doesn't want a reputation as a place where adventurers go to lose their gear. I would avoid the temptation to have any "Oh, while you were out the inn was attacked and all your stuff is gone" moments.

An entry tax on weapons or especially magic could allow you to set a notable fee without it impacting the commoners. Again, it's reasonable because (in a fantasy city) the damage potential from a group of adventurers is likely much higher than that of a couple ash merchants.

I agree that you don't need the guards reading off fifty rules and bylaws upon entry or handing out "Welcome to the City" brochures but medieval cities were typically walled with a few gates and traffic was controlled and checked out (if only to tax imports upon entry). Unless trying not to, adventurers are likely to stand out and get called into the gate house for a couple questions (what's your business? how long?), taxed entry if you're doing that and likely given directions to a nearby inn. After all, the guards would prefer it if a bunch of armed strangers weren't wandering lost in the city looking for accommodations.

[Laserlight]

OP here. Have not posted because there have been so many useful ideas and it takes time to think through them to make sure they are likely to be fun.
Tax to enter city: I had been stuck on flat fees which run into the problem that what's real money to commoners is pocket lint for adventurers. But taxes scale and so could work.
No weapon use creates oppprtunities for grappling and unarmed strikes, gives monks an opportunity to shine. Removing armor makes sense, at least for heavy armor, and would make brawling with the locals more fair. That sounds fun. But then where do they keep their armor? They either have to split the party and leave someone in the inn guarding the armor, or maybe there's a big coat check area where you pay a little money to leave your armor with someone.
Oh--yes forgotten realms, for what it's worth . I have SCAG but do not recall this sort of detail.

The tax is "whatever the tax assessor at the gate says it is." Likely to be higher if the party members look shady. In one campaign I'm in, the elf has pauldrons made of human skulls; if I were the DM, no civilized town would let him in. Note that the tax gatherer will have some thugs on hand.

If they're worried about leaving expensive armor at the inn, suggest that they consider an upscale establishment. If they're wealthy and well behaved, perhaps a local noble or merchant will have them as guests.

For anything along these lines, there are two ways you can have it work: It can just be "local color", a few details to establish the character of the place; or it can be something where the characters have to decide whether they will obey the law, or work around it, or some combination.

[Honest Tiefling]

The tax is "whatever the tax assessor at the gate says it is."

If you ever need to fudge things, consider having the gate guard be crooked. Not only does it become an RP challenge to corcere/convince them that's not in their best interests, it might be worthwhile to hide wealth and weapons. Furrthermore, once actually in the place the team might pick up the hook of dealing with the corruption in the manner they choose.

Remember, the best way to get PCs to grab onto a hook is take away something the player wants. Then they'll chase that guy to the depths of oblivion to get it back and to get revenge.