This is an excellent example of how to make a non-combat-heavy campaign into an interesting one. The PCs could be investigators, bodyguards, legal defense, etc. trying to clear her name.
Assuming a fair trial, PCs could be aiding a lawyer in clearing her name. (Being the lawyer themselves is possible too but you'd need to do a bit of research to make sure the setting "fits" with what a lawyer would do.)
Issues that the lawyer would need help with:
- The issue is proving the girl's innocence. How are they going to do this? If it is similar to the American system of adversarial representation, then the lawyer will likely look at the procedural ways to throw out the case before it even gets to trial.
- Insufficiency of complaint or summary judgment. The first basically says that procedurally, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Here, it could be that the PCs simply look at the papers filed by the opposing side and compare it with the legal requirements. If the papers fail to show that the opposing side has suffered an injury by this woman, and that the law court can give them redress, then the case dies.
Summary judgment is slightly less pedantic but still based on the overarching law rather than the facts of the case. This is where the Defendant says something akin to "Even if everything you say is absolutely true, this court should throw out the case because it can't give relief for these people against this person for these supposed crimes." Who are the Plaintiffs? The PCs might be able to identify some members of the Plaintiff group who have no business being in this case because the girl's activities don't affect them at all. Pointing this out would require the Plaintiffs to drop those parties.
These are highly legalistic issues at the start of the case and not likely ones that the PCs themselves can do. So we move onto the real soap-opera type struggles that the common man can understand and help out with.
Generally speaking though usually a case will have to specify very clear and specific charges. Remember Saddam Hussein - even though history accredits him with very sweeping crimes and brutality, the case against him ultimately devolved to focus only on one specific instance of alleged massacre.
Here, the girl probably won't just be generally charged with "Being a heretic". She'll probably be charged with specific counts, e.g. "1) Speaking heretical thoughts in a place of worship on January 23, 376. 2) Holding an assembly of religious nature barred by law evenings of January 28, February 4, February 12, and February 25, 376. etc. et al"
This makes it easier for the PCs and defense team to know what it is they have to disprove in order to clear her name of the charges against her.
What are the elements of heresy? Obviously, U.S. law doesn't have a record on this, but consider these:
- Publicly espousing doctrines clearly in opposition to, and formulated specifically to target and undermine, those established doctrines of [whatever recognized religions], AND
- Holding assemblies, in private or in public, to further spread these doctrines under color of religious authority.
That might do for a starting point. Here, you have to show that the person actually did something in public (espousing doctrines... it doesn't matter if anybody listened to her in public), AND that she did something in private or public and somebody else DID listen to her.
The first part is enough to allow the law to move against crazed unwashed prophets in the village square... provided they target an established religion. (So presumably a prophet who said "Give away all your possessions" would be ignored, but one who said "Give away all your possessions and resist the materalistic lure of [Fill in the blank with a religion]" would be in trouble.)
The second part is enough to allow the law to move against organized meetings, again targeting an established religion. (So a meeting of four or five people discussing a completely unrelated religion could be safe.)
See any plot hooks for saving the girl's life? Your PCs might try to argue that even though she was talking about a religion targeting that church, she wasn't doing so publicly. Or maybe she was talking publicly, but she wasn't targeting any religion.
You could even argue that her claim to be a prophet of the religion is so far removed that it no longer even counts as the same religion.
(Bear in mind that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all recognize a large number of prophets and historical figures in common - Moses appears in all of them, as does Abraham... but nobody would get them mixed up these days. As opposed to, say, Buddhism, which has absolutely nothing in common.)
So now you can play with that and figure out what your PCs need to prove. Then it's time to go about proving it.
- Finding eyewitnesses and testimony. A series of Gather Information checks would help here, as would Diplomacy or even Bluff. PCs would find eyewitnesses who could prove that the girl was not where the opposition says she was, or didn't engage in the midnight naked dancing that they said she did (for example).
However, getting witnesses to testify is a different matter. Even in the best of times, witnesses don't like to be bothered. In court, they're going to face cross-examination, obnoxious questions, and sometimes even personal attacks on their character. The PCs are going to have to be persuasive to get these particular eyewitnesses to testify. Even things like browbeating or bullying them into doing what's right may be necessary.
Others may simply be too scared of the opposition to dare to cross them. Say a village alderman knows the girl is innocent and holds key testimony that she never even entered the place of worship on January 23, 376 (thus disproving the first allegation against her). But say the alderman's daughter is married to a church member. He doesn't want to alienate her family by testifying on behalf of an accused heretic.
Sounds like a ripe time for Diplomacy for the PCs. They could go between the houses, trying to convince them that the girl is not a heretic. Or they could pressure the alderman into testifying (although they'd better be careful once he gets on the stand to make sure he doesn't say anything unexpected).
Or say another man (who had fairly unscrupulous reasons for doing so) saw her bathing at the time that she was supposed to have been in church espousing heretical claims. Understandably he'll be reluctant to come forward to present that evidence. The PCs will have to persuade him that he will not be subject to prosecution for his actions. They may even have to do some research on what Peeping-Tom laws are. (It might just be enough to talk to the girl and get her word that she will never press charges against the peeper.) Or it's possible that he was doing something else that was objectionable - perhaps he was casing her house in preparation to rob it, or hiding in the bushes near her house playing hooky from millgrinding duty, etc.
Sometimes, it can be a case of stealthily acquiring documents from the other side to show as proof. Or to trounce the opposition's henchmen so badly in a fight that they stop trying to intimidate your witnesses. It can be digging up dirty news about the opposition's witnesses to present in court so nobody will believe what they say. It can be searching far and wide for an expert (or a mage!) who can use their methods to prove that the blood drops or weapon scars or poison or whatever was NOT what the plaintiffs say they were.
Either way, have fun with this and I hope it gives your players a sense of triumphing with the pen, not the sword.
And never forget the example set by
Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney.
.
) rather than allow her to grandstand at a trial and draw more attention to herself. The odem wouldn't want this -- indeed, it will probably stop at nothing to prevent it -- as the girl might be subjected to divine magic in an attempt to cure her "illness", once committed, thus revealing the evil spirit's influence.
