Do kings have "detectives"?

Inquisition may work directly for king rather than by proxy for church.

Adventurers.

The Queen owns the police in the UK.

>common law

Jesus louises what a savage place that would be...

A more modern era kingdom surely has some detectives or the equivalent. In a middle age style setting its all about who has more oath witnesses but at some point inquisitorial processes start and its about finding the actual truth. Then the development of state authorized investigators is only a matter of time.

That... actually explains a few things.

>Jesus louises what a savage place that would be...
Roman/Continental law is garbage.

there's no way that's a real cop

>not recognising an official from the penis inspection bureau

She is, in fact, a porn actress named Mia Li.

Okay my naive anglo Friend.

If lying to yourself helps you sleep at night.

Btw its Civil Law. Shows how '"deep'" your knowledge is.

Yes, actually. They're called reeves.

I might buy that she is a cop.
IF she had a partner.

Also Agents.

>detectives
That's an asian

that might be the guy responsible for seeing the law is enforced, but it's not quite the same job as a modern detective.

By god, you've cracked the case.

Is that an actual detective or is that Mia Li?

I figured that would fall under the duties of the Kings Spymaster.

Tangentially related but I really wish more fantasy settings would avoid professional police forces. It adds a lot to the olden times vibe if you emphasise to players that there's no organisation called the"guard" or "watch", there's just soldiers who are occasionally deployed to keep order and enforce the lord's commands.

Didn't the Roman Empire have like two cops?
Makes you think.

Why not both?

Nah, common law is the superior system.

>Btw its Civil Law. Shows how '"deep'" your knowledge is.

I never claimed to be a SME, an attorney, or a judge. I have no idea why you feel the need to try and feel superior by being pedantic, as if someone who actually was a SME wouldn't know what I'm talking about when I use the word Continental or Roman.

But I suppose you felt the need to try out a new word you learned in school over some anonymous poster on Veeky Forums.

>Veeky Forums
get out

Nah, I think I'll stick around.

Wow... I just watched several of Mia Li's videos and she's really not that noteworthy as a pornstar.

The byzantine emperor had quaesitores. Kinda interesting really. Used that as the basis of what are becoming detectives for my goblin character.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaesitor

Fun fact: that's a root word for Inquisitor.

In thirteenth and fourteenth century England small groups of knights (being figures of standing) were often called upon to help settle disputes and investigate the veracity of criminal accusations.

Yeah, but players sometimes expect them, sometimes to the extent that they'll think it's unrealistic for a setting NOT to have a professional-type "Watch," and then you have to explain that that sort of thing wasn't really that common at all, actually. Which, in practical terms, just bogs shit down.

I like to compromise by having a semi-official paramilitary style organization enforce some kind of order in the bigger cities exclusively. A large port town has a big Navy presence, and if you shout for help, a handful of sailors or officers might come running depending on how close to port you are. If you're near the Grand Temple, there might be some zealous acolytes of the Church running around trying to look just/virtuous enough to get promoted. As you can see you can also use this to inject a bit of local flavor into your settings.

It's like horses in movies: horses running on soft ground shouldn't make clip-clop noises, and when they do make clip-clop noises they don't sound like they do in movies. But if you don't have those noises with the horses, you might confuse your audience, so they have a foley guy bang some coconut halves together because that sounds close enough anyway.

I usually put a limit in terms of community size when dealing with whether there's a town guard of some kind or not. In very small communities (

>Reeves>Inquisitors>Sherifs>Constables>Chef of Police>Chief of District>Detective
Kind of chronology of what we now know as the Police Detective. People saying shit like spies and accusers are more related to private investigators and magistrates.

This reads like the opening narration to a procedural.

>In thirteenth and fourteenth century England small groups of knights (being figures of standing) were often called upon to help settle disputes and investigate the veracity of criminal accusations, these are their stories.

DUN DUN!

*harpsichord cover of Law and Order theme*

>muh Common Law is the superior System
>muh I am no judge or attorney
>hahaha why are you pedantic
>I guess you learned that in school

Or I actually studied a Civil Law system and qualified in Common Law. You know, not talking out of my ass. What do you base your oppinion on?

Oh and being pedantic language wise is important in both Law systems btw.

Imperial China had various secret police orgs for a long time, the most famous probably being the Ming dynasty Jinyiwei, plus the even earlier Imperial Censors who investigated corruption cases.

Then again, if you want a lower level sort of detective, you could base an entire campaign off the Judge Dee stories, a Tang dynasty magistrate who investigates and then judges crimes which pop up everywhere he goes. He even has a full adventuring party to assist him: his assistants are a loyal family retainer and two ex-bandit buttkickers who he converted to his cause by being awesome.

Don't forget fancy hats for everyone.

Lol thanks for reminding me why I only come to Veeky Forums for the Traveller threads.

Common law is superior for the same reason the presidential system is to a parliamentary or semi-presidential system: the legislature should not be the sole holder of power in governance. Common law allows for a certain amount of power in creating law to be held by the judiciary due to judicial discretion.

>What do you base your oppinion on?

Graduate level education.

>Oh and being pedantic language wise is important in both Law systems btw.

Yes, but being a pedantic autist isn't necessary in casual conversation. If we were in front of the bench arguing then it would be appropriate to be a pedantic cunt, being one on an anonymous imageboard serves no purpose other than to be a pedantic, autistic cunt for its own sake.

So is this your first year or did you just take a basic judicial structure class in high school?

Agents of the crown historically have always been a thing, usually dedicated to rooting out enemies of the king, or handling major issues such as tax evasion and counterfietting. Among other things, such as the bread police whose job it was to make sure bread was being made to standard. No, that was a real thing.

>muh the judiciary can only hold Power in a Common Law system

Seriously just shut the fuck up. You have no idea what you are talking about or how a Civil Law system works. The judiciary holding too much Power actually is a concern here. That was literally the most retarded argument you could have used. Law is created by judges in Civil Law quite frequently.

>muh is this your first year because I don't know shit about Law but just assume I have superior knowledge

After your utterly wrong "muh division of power statement" that doesn't work as an argument at all I don't have to answer your question right?

Btw your ranting about the superior presidential System was also bullshit.

* defacto law is created by judges in Civil Law quite frequently.

Too be more precise.

>They typically just have both the accuser and accused and any witnesses brought before them and make judgements based on the testimonies.
Being brought before the king is rare. Being brought before the local feudal lord is more likely (and he might delegate jurisdiction to judges). A feudal lord might dispatch one or more of his men to look into a crime. Or he might not. Don't expect any modern investigation in either case.

>Common law allows for a certain amount of power in creating law
So does civil law, dimwit. The "bouche de la loi" ideal is exactly that: an ideal. It's impossible to uphold in real life, but civil law judges are simply more conservative in their lawmaking properties (ie. more likely to say "not my problem, take it to parliament"). Do you know what made the Brits the most butthurt about EU law? Not any of the treaties, but the Van Gend & Loos case elaborating on the importance of those treaties. Case, as in case law, as in a judgement by a civil law judge.

>Graduate level education.
Not in civil law clearly.

>Common law is superior for the same reason the presidential system is to a parliamentary or semi-presidential system: the legislature should not be the sole holder of power in governance.
Alright, what the fuck? Now you just stop making sense. In a presidential system like the US the president has next to zero legislative power, while in a parliamentary system like the UK or the Netherlands the cabinet has the exclusive right of initiative. All laws in America were initiated by a congressman.

And on top of your lapses in knowledge, your argumention makes very little sense. Why exactly should the legislative power not be the sole legislator? That's kind of its job within the Trias Politica. Or do you oppose that form of separating powers?

>The judiciary holding too much Power actually is a concern here.
Yeah, civil law systems often have more caution towards the judiciary power. For example, it was only in the early 2000s that, under pressure of the EU, Britain gained its own separate supreme court.

>but civil law judges are simply more conservative in their lawmaking properties

Which quite frankly is a good thing. Lawmaking needs legitimization and with judges thats always a slippery slope. So restraint actually is very positive.

>In a presidential system like the US the president has next to zero legislative power, while in a parliamentary system like the UK or the Netherlands the cabinet has the exclusive right of initiative. All laws in America were initiated by a congressman.

The most irnoic thing imho is that in most parliamentary systems the legislative actually is weaker because the government has a far greater influence on the parliament. Iniative is only one point there. Just look at stuff like faction disciplin in the parliament etc.

>And on top of your lapses in knowledge, your argumention makes very little sense. Why exactly should the legislative power not be the sole legislator? That's kind of its job within the Trias Politica. Or do you oppose that form of separating powers?

Ehh imho he has just spouted some hollow takin points from a class he took years ago without having a clue. I wouldn't even argue that Common Law isn't a viable system if done right and I was honestly edgy with my initial remark but his arguments are blatant uninformed anglo surpremacism. I encounter that shit often.

One time a dude tried telling me on Veeky Forums that thriving economies can only work with common law. After asking about Japan and Germany as examples he had no real follow up.

Well, she's the nominal head, like she does not need a drivers license test cause their given in her name. Just like Passports. Scotland Yard serves in the name of Queens Justice and she's nominal head of them and the judges who pass sentence.

That, again depends on time and place. In Tang dynasty China, for example, a magistrate or his yamen (combined office/courthouse/official residence) officials would be required to investigate a crime before the magistrate could render a verdict. Of course, most of the local yamen officials were just that, local, so they could very well be in league with the criminals, so magistrates would have their own minions to do investigations as well.

And on investigation: the first forensic pathology manual was published during the Song dynasty, in 1235.

I'd watch this.

How about a sheriff?

Now if only they made a TV show of the Crowner John books... then again, it would probably look like a gritty detective drama set in 1190s Exeter and not an accurate take on medieval life.

somewhat related, book series about an old monk who just wants to tend his herb garden but has to keep using his superior skills of deduction to solve murders that keep happening around him

Sure, they could. Our idea of a "detective" is closely tied with modern policing methods that never coexisted with absolute monarchs IRL. But there's nothing to say they could not coexist. You've still got crimes, and a desire to enforce the law. If a detective-type position proved the best way to do that, why not?

There's some precedence for the private detective model in fantasy and historical fiction. William of Baskerville from NotR is modeled closely after sherlock holmes, obviously, just transplanted to the 13th century.

There was also a TV show of that.

Played a bit like a medievel Murder She Wrote.

kind of that is what a reeve or bailiff does the word sheriff comes from the phrase shire reeve basically a guy the king puts in charge of investigating crimes and collecting taxes in a shire or township. That is England though the doge in Venice had a robust spy network of at least 4 separate organizations some of which were just fancier cops. In Russia they just used militia men , and France had the jeandarmeree

Yep, read that one and even got some of the books left. I'm a giant fan of both detective stories and fantasy stuff, so historical detective stories double-tap me.

If someone wants to jump in, my recommendations:

>Robert van Gulik: the Judge Dee series (Tang dynasty China magistrate investigates)
>Lindsey Davis: the Marcus Didius Falco series (Roman private investigator)
>David Wishart: the Marcus Corvinus series (another Roman investigator)
>Steven Saylor: the Roma Sub Rosa series (yet another Roman investigator)
>John Maddox Roberts: the SPQR series (once again a Roman investigator)
>Bernard Knight: the Crowner John series (1190s Exeter "crowner", or coroner)

Kings had spymasters.

Some civilizations like China and Rome had more sophisticated police-forces.

>Looks like the victim was killed.
>Murder weapon?
>Don't know. A sword? Or a big knife. Or a very sharp ax.
>Let's try to narrow down when he died.
>It was before now because otherwise he'd still be alive. But not too long ago because he's not a skeleton yet.
>Wait, isn't this one of the workers from Sir Dunswell's field?
>I think so.
>Oh, then nevermind. Not my vassal not my problem, that's what I say.

anyone got a good idea for a medieval detective murder mystery in a village near a big city, the city is renowned for its culture and the village produces high quality fruit n veg, wine, beer and cheese for the city but doesn't like outsiders.
the village is under protection of the big city for its valuable produce and a small party of the town guard are sent to inspect when one of the villagers ends up murdered

In a world where magic is readily accessible, I don't see why the royalty wouldn't assemble a crack-magical investigatory team. Especially if they produce results.

>In Tang dynasty China
>And on investigation: the first forensic pathology manual was published during the Song dynasty, in 1235.
china? that is a weaksauce counterargument under the fairly safe assumption that we're talking about western fantasy here, son.

kings dont care about the fate of individual peasants they have never met

No Cadfael? Monk in medieval england who solves mysteries. If you haven't read 'em they're decent & there's a reasonable tv adaption to boot.

Yeah, I remembered Cadfael about 5 seconds after I hit Post. I have read them though, and I do recommend them.

...

>No Cadfael?
We were talking about Cadfael 10 posts up.

She's a porn star, so she probably won't.

Not usually, because your typical medieval King is not responsible for the Town Watch or Police Force, but rather the Army.

However, there is an example of a Fantasy Royal having detectives: the Penitus Oculatus from The Elder Scrolls. Yes, in Skyrim, they're basically just bodyguards who do little other than attack the Dark Brotherhood and fail to protect the Emperor. However, the Penitus Oculatus is first introduced in the book, Lord of Souls, taking place ~200 years before Skyrim.

In Lord of Souls, the Penitus Oculatus operates as half secret police, half FBI, half CIA (and that's three halves, but they can have it because one of their interrogation techniques involves tearing your ghost back from the dead to talk to you further). Members of the PO are called Inspectors and their principal job is to go investigate weird shit going on in the Empire.

>Why exactly should the legislative power not be the sole legislator

I didn't say legislative power you dunce. I said power.

In a presidential system, such as the US, the President holds some the power of veto but also holds reign over most of effective foreign policy (which is again checked by the Senate, in the US example, power to ratify treaties).

>Or do you oppose that form of separating powers?

That separation of powers is why I think a common law system, which allows for the greatest amount of judicial discretion (even though in the US judiciary there very much still exists an attitude that pushes responsibility off of the bench), combined with a presidential system, which allows for a more independent executive is better than a continental and parliamentary combination.

>And on top of your lapses in knowledge, your argumention makes very little sense.

Instead of automatically assuming another poster is completely ignorant and resorting to condescension how about you actually read the damn post you moron. In your hurry to be "correct", and failing, you completely mischaracterized what I actually wrote including inserting words into my post that weren't there.

>Ehh imho he has just spouted some hollow takin points from a class he took years ago without having a clue.

Such a humble opinion. That my opinion is the common law system is better than the continental system doesn't mean I'm simply spouting some talking points that someone else told me.

You can disagree with someone without patronizing or mischaracterizing their statements or arguments.

>blatant uninformed anglo surpremacism.

Like this.

>So restraint actually is very positive.

Judicial restrain exists in the common law system as implemented in the US as well, it's not a characteristic solely of a continental system. The common law system does allow for more judicial discretion in decisions more separate from control of the legislature, though not completely separate due to different options available to the legislature in the US.

This sounds more like you and the other user assume that a common law system as implemented means only chaos with a completely unchecked judiciary able to create law out of whole cloth instead of reliant on both jurisprudence and checks from the legislature in the form of budget and from the executive in the form of enforcement.

>One time a dude tried telling me on Veeky Forums that thriving economies can only work with common law. After asking about Japan and Germany as examples he had no real follow up.

Which doesn't characterize my posts or responses in this thread. So there's no reason to characterize my posts as that user's posts nor respond to my posts in a condescending way that not only doesn't actually address what I post but also makes incorrect assumptions about what you're arguing against.

I never argued that the continental system is useless or that a state couldn't thrive utilizing it vs a common law judiciary.

But I suppose it's more important to be a cunt than to actually address the contents of my post and assume that I'm posting in good faith.

came here to post this, shocked that it took so long

Don't forget Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose

King's may have special agents assigned to discover plots, or specific individuals to handle spy networks (like Sir Francis Walsingham).
At a local level, a lord may appoint a constable to help keep order, and rally a watch or militia to deal with trouble makers. They may be closer to a detective, but it's still quite different.
A thief taker might be what you a looking for, someone hired to catch criminals. But they're more an enlightenment era thing than medieval.

Thank you my good friend

I know what I'm getting from the library next.

>image search OP
>only other place this image was uploaded was an LGBT image gallery

Hmmm...

>chick looks like a guy
>dykes dig her
>user is surprised

You do realize this is basically the female version of a trap, don't you?

What I need is a moor telling me about outlandish street crime

>detective
>cross draw holster slung way too low
>shitty nylon holster
>clips instead of buckles
>full size pistol for someone who draws their gun once a year for qualification.
Elling my A Oh.

I'd still B my L on her Ts

SAUCE ME DAT SHIT NIGGA

Considering she has no hips and wears slacks with no belt, I bet she'd let you. She probably misplaces her clothes all the time.

What do you think boyos

youtube.com/watch?v=8erNetIbwxw

Sheriffs and spies, mostly.

>What is he king for
His father dying abruptly

With tits like that she's still obvious female looking. Thus you are wrong.

>Literally Law and Order, Tang Dynasty version
Nice taste

Do detectives have princes?

My kind of prince (female).