The party has come across a devil and an NPC locked in a dispute about how to resolve some technical language in a deal struck between the two. This is an actual solution a group of players (not my own group) came up with to resolve the Vault of Devil Frustration.
Upon learning of the deadlock between the devil and NPC, the party is asked to help resolve the matter and they agree, though the devil and NPC both require that the party swear to reach an impartial decision. The party agrees to those terms. After hearing the evidence and reasoning from both sides, what they decide to do is…
Flip a coin.
Their argument is that a coinflip is impartial.
Has the party fulfilled their promise? Let’s start by getting a few definitions.
From Merriam-Webster: “not partial or biased : treating or affecting all equally.”
From the OED: “not favouring one party or side more than another; unprejudiced, unbiased, fair, just, equitable.”
And from Black’s Law Dictionary: “Unbiased; disinterested.” [Just to clarify, “disinterested” means you don’t have a personal stake (an “interest”) in the outcome; it doesn’t mean “uninterested.”]
I think it’s very tempting to say that a coin flip is unbiased, that it treats both sides equally, it’s unprejudiced, and shows no favoritism. I would also urge resisting that temptation.
Imagine we’re not dealing with some technical magical legal gobbledygook, but instead a poker tournament and it’s down to the final two players. They’re of roughly equal skill, but have arrived at this final showdown with very different chip stacks, with one player having several multiples more than the other. Spectating the game is a Cleric of Seshat, goddess of (among other things) record keeping and mathematics, who has (correctly) determined that the player with more chips has an 85% chance of winning. Then lighting strikes the venue, the lights go out, chaos ensues, both competitors catch SARS-CoV-3.5, the government is replaced in an uprising and the new regime outlaws card playing. The players are asked to find an impartial way of determining a winner.
Flip a coin?
Surely the player with the 85% chance of winning will be able to argue, quite forcefully, that this is deeply unfair and amounts to a windfall for the competitor in the weaker position. Rather than an 85% chance to win, he’s now been reduced to a 50% chance, while the competitor more than tripled his chance to win. How is that fair, just or equitable?
Now back to our legal conundrum. If one side has a much stronger case than the other, can’t they argue that a coinflip is far from impartial, and instead is showing immense favoritism towards the weaker side?
What is the fair resolution? It’s easy if one side’s argument is not only stronger but in fact compelling. That side wins outright. But what if the players are genuinely uncertain about how to weigh different arguments? Or the case relies on some factual dispute that can’t be known for certain?
In a civil court (which this is the equivalent of), we’d use the preponderance standard, which says the side with the stronger case wins. But, they win even if just marginally stronger. Not an 85-15 split, but as little as a 51-49 advantage. That latter scenario would seem deeply unfair to the weaker side, as it turns what was essentially just a coin flip into a guaranteed victory for the 51% side.
I am partial to the preponderance standard, since it certainly would seem odd to hand victory over to the side with the weaker case. But, perhaps there’s another option.
Don’t flip a coin; roll a percentile die. The stronger side maintains its advantage, but the weaker side doesn’t forfeit any relative strengths of its own position.
These scenarios should always keep in mind how the parties to the dispute will react to the outcome. What happens if the loser in the coin toss felt they had a much stronger case? The players might think a coinflip is impartial, but that doesn’t mean a that devil thinks it just got robbed is going to agree.
[Incidentally, in my miniatures wargaming community, there’s often a question about line of sight, obstruction, range, etc. In casual games, a coin flip may be used to answer the question. But, if a judge or other ‘impartial’ third party is asked to make a determination, them deciding to resort to a coin flip seems to violate the social norm contract. The players could have flipped a coin themselves, but are asking for a judgement call. It’s unseemly to then refuse to exercise your judgment. Just make a call one way or the other. Even players who get ruled against tend to appreciate that more than winning a coin flip.]