We apologize for this inappropriate comment. Those responsible have been sacked.

I replied to the other thread before you, but it’s a good point that atrociously unjust laws are good targets for jury nullification. Bathroom laws are a good example, although I fear that we wouldn’t necessarily be on a jury where all other 11 members agree with us that it is an obvious violation of a trans person’s rights, sadly. Especially in the states where those laws exist. A hung jury, where not everybody agrees is better than a conviction, but a “not guilty” verdict can’t be re-tried (in almost all circumstances).

Okay, that’s fair. I was thinking more along the lines of when the law is questionable, not patently unjust , as you put it.

And Jim Crow laws are a good example, as are sodomy laws that essentially outlawed gay relationships for a long time in many states (struck down by Lawrence v. Texas, but not until 2003!). Usually when people think of jury nullification (outside of the more recent obvious case), they’re thinking along the lines of drug laws, which are often grey. Both of those examples probably DO warrant nullification.

That being said, I think it’s unlikely that a case which can get 9 12 jurors to oppose it based on an unjust law would occur in a state where that law exists. Those sodomy laws I referenced were mostly only present in conservative states by 2003. However, federal laws might be more susceptible, as a state that’s the opposite political ideology of the current US government could have a jury like that.

But I’ll concede the point that atrociously immoral or unjust laws could and should be targets for jury nullification. It’s a good addition.

This is really important. You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.

In addition, sentencing is (usually) separate from conviction and is the judge’s decision, although a jury can recommend a sentence. If someone is found guilty of theft for stealing a loaf of bread, they’re not going to get 20 years in jail except in musicals.

IMO, nullification should be used as an absolute last resort. Have a sympathetic defendant accused of second degree murder? Knock it down to a lower-level manslaughter and find them guilty. The sentencing of that might have a low maximum.

There are only a few rare problems that actually need nullification. It (generally) shouldn’t just be used for laws that you disagree with. One such problem is mandatory sentencing minimums. If someone steals that load of bread and they’ve already been convicted twice for theft or other crimes, they may be subject to things like 3-strike laws and get a sentence that is WAY more than they deserve, and the judge can’t do anything about it. The judge might feel that they deserve to give only 20 hours of community service as a sentence, but they legally have to sentence the convicted to 6 months in prison. Nullification is probably warranted there. Someone found with 1.25 ounces of marijuana in a state where only 1 ounce is legal, so they get charged with a drug distribution felony? And the judge/prosecutor refuses to lower the charge? Maybe find them not guilty. But it should be the last resort, not the first option.

I would probably not rule this as an attack. Lighting a creature on fire? Sure. But lighting oil, which happens to catch a creature on fire? Nah. IMO, aggressive actions aren’t attacks unless they make contact with or directly (not indirectly) affect an enemy. At least, that’s how I’d rule.

That being said, keep in mind that invisible creatures aren’t undetectable , just unseen. Someone dumps out a flask of oil? As soon as that oil leaves the flask (so it’s not being worn or carried), it’s visible, and leaving a trail for any enemy to follow. Attacks against targets you can’t see are made with disadvantage, but can still be made. A bunch of goblins swinging axes at the air are eventually gonna hit something. Are you having invisible characters make stealth checks? They’d get advantage, but if they make noise (e.g., strike a tinderbox), every enemy in the area should get a chance to roll a Perception check against Stealth, not just use passive Perception.

All that being said, if your players come up with a cool idea, roll with it. I actually really like the idea of an invisible PC lighting a fire on their enemies. But (most) enemies aren’t dumb, and they’re not going to sit around doing nothing if a clumsy, noisy invisible thing dumps out oil all around them and then lights it on fire. Plus, sometimes a half-executed idea is more fun than a perfectly-executed one (oh shit, remember when we lit the thieves den on fire but then had to run away because they were so furious and nearly killed Gary?!?)

Don’t be afraid to change or define the rules as necessary. It’s your game. If every single time they infiltrate, they’re turning invisible and setting fire, then say, “it’s going to be an attack from now on, and you’ll lose invisibility.” FORCE them to be creative. Lastly, let the players know that they can always ask. A PC casting invisibility would know if an action is going to cancel it. So they can check with you in the moment, you make a ruling, and then they can decide what to do. If later you decide you were wrong, tell them that next time it’ll be different.

Hope that helps!

“Jacked up and good to go”

-Marines from StarCraft