Originality is overrated when it comes to GMing; that wild and zany idea of yours will more likely annoy than amaze your players. The best approach is to take existing, solid ideas and twist them around to make them seem fresh and exciting. This is how you should approach law and politics in your campaigns - solid foundations with a twist. It’s not always easy finding those solid ideas and developing the twist. The real world can provide everything you need, just check the news, read a biography of a famous leader, whatever exposes you to ideas. Once you have your ideas just mentally work through them until you find a twist that works. A lot of times this is just imagining how the real world might be changed by the fantastical elements of whatever setting you are using.

Let’s take a look at how death can be worked into the law to create dramatic scenarios.

In a recent D&D adventure, a goblin city had been warring, rather ineffectually, with the homeland of the PCs. The goblins were having problems and sent a peace overture. The PCs had been involved with this conflict for numerous adventures and realized there were bigger issues on the horizon for both the goblins and their kingdom so peace could be advantageous. They convinced their liege to let them negotiate peace. They journeyed to the city and were paraded through its soldiers to meet with the Goblin King, who was a young goblin being propped up by the high priests. Who and what happened to the old king was left unanswered. Often GMs explain too much, a little vagueness and mystery invites the players’ imaginations, which is the ultimate goal when GMing.

The issue with treaties is how they will be enforced. The PCs didn’t trust the goblins and a mechanism was needed to enforce the treaty that would be dramatic. First off use what you got. In D&D you have powerful deities who are fairly active in the setting so make treaties something they indirectly, or directly, enforce. That’s fine for background flavor but it’s actually not that dramatic. In property law there is this concept of a life estate where X bestows ownership of a property to Y for as long as someone, usually Y but not always, is alive. When that someone dies the property reverts either back to X or some other individual designated by X. This came to mind as I was considering the twist for the treaty. The goblins will honor the treaty for as long as a designated person lives, once that person dies they need not honor the treaty. I introduce this concept to the PCs during the negotiations and punted to them to name the person upon whose life and death the treaty hung.

They quickly grasped that whoever this person is would be targeted by the goblins if they ever wanted to end the treaty. On the other hand the longer this person lived the longer the goblins would be bound by the terms of the treaty, which would end their raids on the kingdom. The PCs selected the PC who wasn’t in the city as the player couldn’t make the session. The goblins knew this PC by reputation and accepted the designation - they didn’t realize the PC was an elf. If the elven PC survives there is perhaps centuries of peace. The cost is putting the PC and the party potentially in danger. There’s all sorts of questions the situation does and will raise and that’s what you want to set up. It was also a lesson to players to not miss sessions.

Another example from other D&D campaigns I’ve run is inheritance and how that plays out with undead and resurrections. Let’s say Lord Aeron is killed and then raised. He did die, so shouldn’t all his wealth and titles pass to his heirs. Why not do this? It’s a great story element. You can twist this many ways. An heir tired of waiting for her inheritance kills her father, assumes his wealth and position, then brings him back from the dead. This can produce all manner of scenarios, that can be rather compelling and due to the law and how it addresses this situation. This law would apply to undead, they died so they can’t keep their wealth and titles, plus it’s an easy stretch to establish that undead can’t own anything - they aren’t real persons. Imagine the adventure possibilities. Grandpa just won’t die for some reason and one his heirs wants the PCs to prove he’s undead and if necessary put him to rest. This can be played a lot of ways.

Here’s another idea I used, again in D&D, which is just a blast when dealing with death and the law, a King disappeared a century ago on a quest and was presumed killed. His son took the throne, followed by his granddaughter, and the great grandson. What if he didn’t die? What if was turned to stone and brought back by the PCs exploring a distant dungeon? Succession crisis? Maybe, certainly it could make things very difficult for the great grandson on the throne that his legendary ancestor is not only still alive and fit as a fiddle. The PCs are thrown into the middle of this situation. They might have to negotiate a settlement or work for one or the other monarch against the other, requiring them to make legal arguments why their guy is the right guy to be on the throne.

Finally, I do think the GM should encourage the PCs to express what they want done with their bodies and possessions. This can produce dramatic moments and help clarify how a player perceives her PC’s connections to the setting. Going back to the earlier points, maybe due to the law the PCs have to be a little more sneaky in how they raise a dead comrade to ensure his heirs don’t learn he was dead and claim him titles and wealth. Death is one of those constants in most RPGs and the Lawful GM should be thinking how it plays out in regards to the law and politics of the setting. Use the real world as your foundation and then twist it to make it more dramatic and compelling, often because of a moral elements brought forward in your approach.