GURPS Martial Arts - Home

Martial Arts in Court
Contrary to longstanding urban legend, black belts don’t
have to register their hands as deadly weapons. This myth is
traceable to publicity stunts before professional boxing
matches and to outlandish claims made in the movies.
Nowhere in the modern world is there a legal requirement
for trained martial artists to register with the authorities.
Martial-arts experience can influence the case against a
defendant on trial for a violent crime, though. If he’s a martial
artist, he can expect investigators to bring up his background
in an attempt to show that he had the training to
cause harm – or the knowledge and experience to show
restraint. Major considerations include whether the initial
attack was provoked, whether either party acted in selfdefense,
and whether the martial artist used “reasonable
force.” Most jurisdictions allow lethal force only if a life is at
stake. In the U.S., there’s precedent for considering an
attacker’s martial-arts training in a self-defense claim; a
court could even find that someone who shot an unarmed
assailant he knew to be martial-arts master was acting in
“self-defense.” On the other side of the coin, muggers have
brought assault charges against victims who’ve fought them
off – and the more injured they look in the witness box, the
better the chance of convincing a jury.
In the eyes of the law, the best policy is to avoid a fight.
If you can’t, then “reasonable force” – such as restraining
your attacker without harming him – is second-best. In such
a situation, the police might opt not to intervene or simply
to send everybody home: no harm, no foul. Unnecessary
force – for instance, striking a drunk and stomping him after
he hits the ground, or using any weapon against an
unarmed man – is an excellent way to attract serious police
attention in even relatively lawless parts. Macho posturing
isn’t a great way to avoid legal trouble, either. Remarks such
as “Even with that knife, he didn’t have a chance against
me!” and “I could kill a guy in three seconds
flat!” aren’t conducive to a successful
defense.
Ultimately, the police, magistrates,
judges, jury, etc., who examine the events
leading up to a fight or an assault may or
may not see things from the martial
artist’s perspective . . . and it’s their judgment
that counts. Lethal force or even
unnecessary nonlethal force can mean
prison time. The GM should keep all this
in mind if the PCs in a modern-day campaign
get too “karate happy.”
These considerations might not apply
in historical or fictional settings. In some
game worlds, the nobility might possess
absolute, life-and-death power over commoners.
A commoner striking a noble,
however lightly, might receive a death
sentence. A noble killing a commoner to
test his new sword technique might be
guilty only of showing off – or at most of
damaging another noble’s property by
slaying a valuable peasant.
Teaching
Through most of history, all that a would-be teacher
needed was the will to hang out a shingle. Instructors thus
varied greatly in terms of skill, teaching ability, enthusiasm,
and fees. Of course, if dueling was legal, the
unskilled were unlikely to risk claiming mastery unless
the money was excellent. But where dueling was illegal or
looked down upon, and the martial arts rarely saw use in
anger, false masters flourished alongside true ones.
In some times and places, though, martial artists did
require a license to teach. For instance, in medieval and
Renaissance Europe, those who wished to sell instruction
sometimes needed a royal charter – which in turn
required them to produce certification of their mastery.
No such legal requirements exist today, but modern fighters
must often join a federation or an organizing body in
order to compete.
Separate from the issue of “who’s a master” is the matter
of injury – physical, psychological, or social.
Historically, if a student suffered injury or was shown to
be less skillful than his reputation demanded, the master
could lose noble patronage or social approval. The teacher
might face the law if he struck a social superior – even in
training. Worries of modern teachers include insurance,
lawsuits (for injury or harassment), half-hearted students,
and concerned parents. Any of these things could lead to
watered-down techniques, emphasis on Combat Art skills,
and non-contact training.
Lastly, an instructor might not wish to teach just
anyone lethal techniques for fear that an irresponsible
student might use them unnecessarily, resulting in legal
consequences! This was a serious concern for historical
masters, and a realistic (and relatively benign) reason to
apply the “Trained by a Fraud” lens (p. 145) to a style.
Style
The names of many martial-arts styles – e.g., Hwa Rang Do (pp. 163-
164) and Shorinjikempo (see Kempo, pp. 172-173) – and schools (such as
Dog Brothers Martial Arts, mentioned under Escrima, pp. 155-156) are
trademarked. Martial Arts doesn’t append the trademark sign () because
this isn’t a legal requirement for a game. What the law does require is that
those who sell martial-arts instruction under these names have the
trademark-holder’s permission.
There’s a good reason for this. Historically, the first fake teacher probably
set up shop 15 minutes after the first real one. Today’s laws protect business
from this kind of theft. Of course, a trademark sign says nothing about
the quality of the martial art. Trademark law protects the fraud who wants
to keep competing scam artists off his turf as well (or as poorly) as it protects
the true master.
Historical style founders would have adopted trademarks if they could
have – especially the frauds! Such self-promoters as E.W. Barton-Wright
(see Bartitsu, p. 167) would have appreciated the veneer of legitimacy
that a legal trademark provided back when such things still impressed the
masses. In the absence of such protection, warrior and swindler alike had
to resort to more direct action if they wished to defend against misuse of
their good (or at least popular) name . . .
HISTORY 27