Was Haley's thievery against the two kids morally justified?

[SoC175]

Rescuing Durkon's purse was one thing, but stealing from the poor children? They're obviously poor street urchins who need their meager loot for survival. The loss of the 12 silver pieces could very well mean that they won't get anything to eat for the next week

PS: Yes, the thread is a joke

[Tyrael]

There's nothing wrong with it at all. Rich made it pretty clear that the kids weren't starving beggars, just thieves.

Don't over-analyze everything.

[Xesirin]

:smallannoyed: *facepalm*

Roland, I summon thee!

[Foryn Gilnith]

No. Thievery is never morally justifiable. Is it out of alignment? That's a long debate that there's no reason to go into.

[RecklessFable]

There's nothing wrong with it at all. Rich made it pretty clear that the kids weren't starving beggars, just thieves.

x2


Don't over-analyze everything.

But then this wouldn't be a fan forum!

Up next, a discussion on whether V is actually more good now than he/she was due to casting the Familicide spell. After all, killing evil things adds points to your goodness score!

[Fayd]

I can't tell if this is a serious question...or merely mocking all of the other "Was (Character)'s (action) (detail about action) morally justified?" threads.

[The Tygre]

I can't tell if this is a serious question...or merely mocking all of the other "Was (Character)'s (action) (detail about action) morally justified?" threads.

Ditto. If it's serious... I weep for humanity.

[Anthea]

And... does Haley have morale? And if she would, would that go against her morale?

[Murdim]

No. Thievery is never morally justifiable. Is it out of alignment? That's a long debate that there's no reason to go into.Of course. And as is killing. Oh, wait...

Anyway, for the reason already explained by Fayd, I think the topic is intended as a joke... not to say another word who already cost me an infraction.

[Xesirin]

I can't tell if this is a serious question...or merely mocking all of the other "Was (Character)'s (action) (detail about action) morally justified?" threads.

Last time this happened, ("Was Blackwing morally justified in trying to throw Xykon's phylactery into the rift?") (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122601), the Sheriff of Moddingham made it clear that even the joke threads are annoying, and I agree. :smallannoyed:

[Kobold-Bard]

And... does Haley have morale? And if she would, would that go against her morale?

Although this thread is (I assume) soon for the locking, I feel I must point out the difference between morale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morale), and morals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality).


...Up next, a discussion on whether V is actually more good now than he/she was due to casting the Familicide spell. After all, killing evil things adds points to your goodness score!

I fear we've long since passed that point.

[Kish]

I find myself wondering if this is a sideways bid at getting the original "morally justified" thread locked.

[Andore Mordre]

:smallannoyed: *facepalm*

Roland, I summon thee!

:smallsigh: This.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Since the OP specifed in the opening post this thread was a parody, I shall parody the other side's argument:

"no cuz stealing is wrong and haley is clearly evil for stealing even from thiefs!!! i dont no y durkon and roy dont give her a stern speech right dere about good and stealing and how the 2 dont mix"

In light of reading all the calls for locks (Apparantly, these threads are worthy of a lock, now, and I was unaware) my parody response has now been spoiler'd.
Have a good 'un.

[Woodsman]

No. Thievery is never morally justifiable.

What about Robin Hood?

[SoC175]

Since the OP specifed in the opening post this thread was a parody
Nice spot check :smallbiggrin:

[Thanatos 51-50]

You are young in the ways of White-text-fu. You shall learn.

[FujinAkari]

Please don't clutter up the forum with this crap.

And of course it was. *rolleyes*

[Optimystik]

I find myself wondering if this is a sideways bid at getting the original "morally justified" thread locked.

I do believe you're on to something.

If that ends up being an actual outcome I might be moved to salute this failure of a thread.

[Acero]

a hand for a hand, and an eye for an eye. in this case, its
a purse for a purse:smallbiggrin:

[Linkavitch]

Was Haley's thievery against the two kids morally justified?

Yes, it totally was.

[Mc. Lovin']

Was __________ morally justified? threads are never funny and never end well ...

[the_tick_rules]

Consider it theivery training.

[Wizzardman]

YES. ALWAYS.

You saw those action lines. Those kids had it coming.

[Tannhaeuser]

To assume, for the moment, that this actually is a serious question, is Haley justified in doing any more than recovering Durkon's own property, or is she justified in punishing the thieving kids herself, in a context where there is clearly no effective local law enforcement? Dr. Samuel Johnson opined that in places where law was not available, one was justified in taking the law into his own hands. Is Haley justified here?

Foryn Gilneth said above, "Thievery is never morally justifiable." However, a number of moralists have concluded that stealing may be justifiable in the case of extreme need as Soc175 seems to indicate. (In Germany after the War, Cardinal Frings authorized the theft of coal for the needy (a practice called "fringsing"). ) As Tyrael points out, it is pretty obvious these kids were in no great need. However, if they had been, would Haley be justified in recovering Durkon's goods, if it meant that the kids would starve? I am inclined to think she would, but would also have a responsibility to relieve their poverty, if possible.

[Demonicbunny]

You know, what I'm worrying about is where the hell does Haley get all her skillpoints from?

So far she's displayed pretty much every rogue class skill, and regardless of how much she beat those kids in levels they were still rogues with a specialty that probably means maxed spot&sleight of hand (not to mention that she think she could do it against someone that's of a higher level than those two kids).

She doesn't rank THAT high in Int.

[Ted The Bug]

I thought this thread was going to be a snarcastic (it's a word now) look at all the other threads like this! Guess not.
Yes, it was fine. No, it does not matter.

[Murdim]

You know, what I'm worrying about is where the hell does Haley get all her skillpoints from?

So far she's displayed pretty much every rogue class skill, and regardless of how much she beat those kids in levels they were still rogues with a specialty that probably means maxed spot&sleight of hand (not to mention that she think she could do it against someone that's of a higher level than those two kids).

She doesn't rank THAT high in Int.Are you sure ? Even with her minimum of 10 skill points each level (8 from class, +1 Int modifier, +1 human), Haley can max out Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, Bluff, Hide, Move Silently, Listen, Spot and Sleight of Hand, while still having a comfortable quantity of points to spend in other useful skills like Tumble or UMD.

[JonahFalcon]

Stealing string is always morally wrong. Evil, even. :smallmad:

[Harr]

Not to belabor the tired joke of the 'morally justified' thing (which I have no interest in) but I am genuinely curious how we're concluding that these kids aren't orphans or in some situation where they need to steal to eat.

Again: Not trying to argue whether it is or it isn't 'justifiable'... just curious how people are arriving at that particular conclusion about the children. Since I don't see anything that would point either way.

[Optimystik]

Are you sure ? Even with her minimum of 10 skill points each level (8 from class, +1 Int modifier, +1 human), Haley can max out Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, Bluff, Hide, Move Silently, Listen, Spot and Sleight of Hand, while still having a comfortable quantity of points to spend in other useful skills like Tumble or UMD.

No UMD, but she's also displayed proficiency with Sense Motive, Use Rope, Swim, Climb, Forgery, Jump and I think Balance.

Keep in mind though that she doesn't really need huge ranks in any of these, as her (and everone else in the Order's) dice are weighted by plot. They merely need the respective skill on their list to make things reasonable.

[Sholos]

And... does Haley have morale? And if she would, would that go against her morale?

Of course Haley has morale, and I'd say right now it's doing okay, but could be better. The thieving just now probably didn't do much to change it.

Now, if you're talking about morals, that's a whole 'nother topic. :smalltongue:

[Kish]

Of course Haley has morale,
But she's a PC.

[B.I.T.T.]

It was only a matter of time before we got to the "morally justified" thread wasn't it? Just as it was only a matter of time before someone paraphrased MST3K.

...just repeat to yourself "It's just a comic, I should really just relaxe."

[David Argall]

Rescuing Durkon's purse was one thing, but stealing from the poor children? They're obviously poor street urchins who need their meager loot for survival. The loss of the 12 silver pieces could very well mean that they won't get anything to eat for the next week

PS: Yes, the thread is a joke

Joke or not, it gets a serious answer, and deserves one.

The answer is essentially yes, she is justified.

We don't want kids, or adults, going around robbing people. It is just a cost for all of us. So we want these brats discouraged from thievery and making thievery a losing proposition is a good idea. Less kind societies tend to chop off the hand, or the head, of a pickpocket.

There is the matter of proportion of course. The thieves are only bothering Durkon a little, and so deserve less punishment. But that does not free them from all punishment, and as Haley remarks, 12 silver does not even pay for her time in preventing the theft. The kids get off light.
Note too that the pickpockets in Greysky made off with a fortune in diamonds. To discourage them too, we need to punish those who are caught many times harder than their particular crime requires. Those brats could morally end up as merchandise in the local slave market.

Whether the kids were starving, or rich and looking for excitement, doesn't matter. One does not gain any rights to the property of others by being hungry.

[Optimystik]

Inflammatory exhortations aside ("kids can morally end up as slaves?" lolwut?) I do agree that the kids got off light. The good of steering them from a path of thievery outweighs the peccadillo of the counter-theft itself.

[SirKazum]

I find myself wondering if this is a sideways bid at getting the original "morally justified" thread locked.

Is posting a "is X morally justified" thread to get the original "morally justified" thread locked morally justified?

Also: While you're trying to wrap your heads around the question, I stole all of your purses.

[Ozymandias9]

You know, what I'm worrying about is where the hell does Haley get all her skillpoints from?

So far she's displayed pretty much every rogue class skill, and regardless of how much she beat those kids in levels they were still rogues with a specialty that probably means maxed spot&sleight of hand (not to mention that she think she could do it against someone that's of a higher level than those two kids).

She doesn't rank THAT high in Int.

If Durkon gets his "pocket picked in every single city they visit" then she could prepare for it, warranting a fair circumstance bonus. If she actually cares enough to actively watch for for it, that could warrant a 2nd circumstance bonus.

Moreover, they're quite young. Too young, to my eyes at least, to meet the the starting age for a character class. Some form of variation on the apprentice level rules from the 3E DMG, properly modified for a single class, might be appropriate for those NPCs.

[Elfin]

:smallannoyed: *facepalm*

Roland, I summon thee!

Seconded.
Or thirded, as the case may be.

[Hoyty]

Of course it was! Stealing from children is fun.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go punch a baby to steal it's pacifier so I can sell it to Maggie Simpson for her last few pennies.

[Leliel]

Uh...Yes?

I think it's perfectly justified to steal from people in the process of robbing your friends.

And yes, I know it's a joke. Some people don't seem to. Reporting it anyway.

[Gift Jeraff]

Is the making of this thread morally justified?

[Porthos]

Those brats could morally end up as merchandise in the local slave market.

According to Word of God, attempting to sell someone into slavery is an evil act in OotSland.

Thus, not morally justifiable. :smallsmile:

This was brought up in the orignal batches of "Is Belkar Evil" debates long long ago.

[King of Nowhere]

The best thing would have been to turn those thieves to the autority and return their money to the legitimate owner.
Giving the children to the police, we should know how the law works in that part of the world to know it it is good or bad. Return the stolen money to the leguitimate owners, it wasn't possible to determine the legitimate owners.
So giving them a little "eye to eye" in the end was the best among the available solutions.

[Optimystik]

So giving them a little "eye to eye" in the end was the best among the available solutions.

The best, morally and legally, would be to call them on their theft, make them return the contraband, and give them a sound lecture on upright behavior. Naturally, this is not Haley's style, and I love her for it. :smallamused:

[Elfich]

I believe that Haley provided an object lesson: "Don't steal from me and mine".

The lesson cost 12 silver pieces and some pieces of string.

[Raging Gene Ray]

J
Note too that the pickpockets in Greysky made off with a fortune in diamonds. To discourage them too, we need to punish those who are caught many times harder than their particular crime requires. Those brats could morally end up as merchandise in the local slave market.

Whether the kids were starving, or rich and looking for excitement, doesn't matter. One does not gain any rights to the property of others by being hungry.

You sound like a parody right now. A disturbing one at that.

[ericgrau]

The answer is really quite simple. Get back at those who cause trouble to stop them from doing it again, or it will only increase. Use your conscience to keep your response from going too far, and defer to appropriate legal punishments if available & practical. Ignore anyone who whines about how your actions are immoral, because by their own standards they won't do anything to stop you anyway. That would be "immoral" :smalltongue:.

[Coplantor]

To the OP, Rule of Funny, just, Rule of Funny.

[hamishspence]

Practically, you can't discourage crime on one continent by punishing it extra-severely on another.

Plus, punishing criminals more severely than is right, to discourage other criminals- is unjust- any form of "deterrent" which exceeds the bounds of "appropriate penalty" is- you can't just ramp up the penalty in order to "deter crime".

Penalties should not be dependent on the frequency with which the crime is being committed, but on the harm the particular crime causes.

[Coplantor]

In a perfect world, irony would decide punishment.

[hamishspence]

In D&D sources, there are groups both LN and CG that tend to a view of "let the punishment fit the crime"

Avengers in Dragon 310, are built around avenging wrongs, and are a CG counterpart to the paladin (Possibly a prototype for the later Paladin of Freedom variant in Unearthed Arcana)

Hoar, deity of vengeance, in Forgotten Realms, is LN, and also tends toward "poetic justice" at least, he is encouraged in this by Tyr, LG god of Justice, who wishes to steer Hoar away from straight vengeance.

so "vigilantism" can be Lawful Neutral, just as it can be Chaotic Good.

(the nastier forms might tend toward Evil.)

[Coplantor]

Very intresting indeed, now I feel compelled to check the FR books, nice!

[Fluffles]

Who says they were children? It could very well have been a halfling. And how the hell can you tell how old a kobold is?

[Mc. Lovin']

Seconded.
Or thirded, as the case may be.

I think it's beyond thirded by now ...

[hamishspence]

Faiths and Pantheons details Hoar.

Underdark details a prestige class built around vengeance- either taken for the self, or on behalf of others- the Imaskari Vengeance Taker- would-be entrants must be Lawful, and must have slain a creature purely for vengeance.

This doesn't mean vengeance is always Lawful, though. One Deity of Vengeance (Kiaransalee) is CE, so really, it can be lawful or chaotic.

[Xsesiv]

Utterly. Nothing more to say.

[Coplantor]

Faiths and Pantheons details Hoar.

Underdark details a prestige class built around vengeance- either taken for the self, or on behalf of others- the Imaskari Vengeance Taker- would-be entrants must be Lawful, and must have slain a creature purely for vengeance.

This doesn't mean vengeance is always Lawful, though. One Deity of Vengeance (Kiaransalee) is CE, so really, it can be lawful or chaotic.

I always saw vengance as a more chaotic behaviour, you know? A lawful character would act according to law while vengance it dealing the "justice" yourself. Anyway, I should shut up now, getting away from the original topic I must not!

[hamishspence]

Who says they were children? It could very well have been a halfling. And how the hell can you tell how old a kobold is?

It doesn't look much like a kobold (teeth look wrong compared to Yikyik, Yokyok, and the Oracle, and it has a crest)

And if the other thief was a halfling, wouldn't they have Belkar-style feet?

I figure that a lawful character in a lawless environment, would be a good candidate for taking vengeance. Eugene, notably. "Blood Oath of Vengeance" and a candidate for Celestia who failed to get in due to not completing the Oath.

[Optimystik]

Durkon also wouldn't call them "young'ns" if they were fully-grown midgets rather than children.

[neriana]

Those brats could morally end up as merchandise in the local slave market.

Okay Inspector Javert. Actually that's an insult to Javert. Slavery is kind of a way greater crime than pickpocketing. Like, by a factor of about a bajillion. They aren't on the same plane.

"I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice." - Abraham Lincoln.

[Hurkyl]

Plus, punishing criminals more severely than is right, to discourage other criminals- is unjust- any form of "deterrent" which exceeds the bounds of "appropriate penalty" is- you can't just ramp up the penalty in order to "deter crime".

Penalties should not be dependent on the frequency with which the crime is being committed, but on the harm the particular crime causes.
The amount that is right is not so obvious. Do recall that once, cutting off the hands of a thief was considered a just punishment.

Is not one of the purposes of attaching punishments to crimes to deter others from committing those same crimes? If so, then the need for deterrence must factor into the level for punishment.


I also offer into consideration the possibility that if some crime is rampant, then the current penalty might be more lenient than is right.

[hamishspence]

yes- in D&D (According to Book of Exalted Deeds), and OOTS (Going by Roy & Haley's reaction to Belkar's suggestion) slavery is evil, whether its a crime or not.

There might be places where the law permits criminals to be sold into slavery, but, by D&D standards, such laws would be Evil.

Mutilation, and other physical punishments, are considered normal in LE societies (according to Fiendish Codex 2) but they should be much rarer in non-evil societies.

Crime being common meaning the punishments are not severe enough, does not necessarily follow.

A more likely conclusion, would be that law enforcement is too weak- lack of police. Hanging children for minor thefts was a common endpoint of escalating penalties in response to crime waves- which is a symptom of a society moving toward tyranny.

Its a common theme in fiction- a reflection of this trend- to have the villains say "Society is in chaos- the only solution is to expand execution to cover lesser crimes"

Better police makes more sense than harsher punishments.

[SoC175]

Hoar, deity of vengeance, in Forgotten Realms, is LN, and also tends toward "poetic justice" at least, he is encouraged in this by Tyr, LG god of Justice, who wishes to steer Hoar away from straight vengeance.

Unfortunately it didn't work out due to Tyr's dead. Nowadays Hoar is evil and serves Bane, the deity of tyranny

PS: Actual content aside, I didn't expect 3 pages

[Optimystik]

The amount that is right is not so obvious. Do recall that once, cutting off the hands of a thief was considered a just punishment.

That is a consideration of law, not morality. Mutilation/Death for theft is Evil.


Is not one of the purposes of attaching punishments to crimes to deter others from committing those same crimes? If so, then the need for deterrence must factor into the level for punishment.

This is a fallacy; you are assuming that less severe forms of punishment will fail to deter theft, and you are also assuming that forms of punishment this severe will always succeed in doing so. An alternate hypothesis is that if you cut off a man's hand, he will be less able to find legitimate work and thus induced to return to a life of crime. (Assuming he even lives, in which case you've committed murder in exchange for theft.)

He may be less able to pick pockets himself with a missing hand, but he can serve as a lookout/distraction for other thieves or even attach a dagger to his stump for armed robbery.

[Haven]

Durkon also wouldn't call them "young'ns" if they were fully-grown midgets rather than children.

And he would know, too.:smalltongue:

[Rhuna_Coppermane]

Ditto. If it's serious... I weep for humanity.

Yes.

(Which I think is really all that needs to be said, but the post-scanning software disagrees.)

[Porthos]

Are people not reading the original post of this thread? :smallconfused:

If one reads it in its entirety, then one has an answer as to whether or not this was a "serious" thread. :smallsmile:

PS: Pssst. There's such a thing as "White Text" on this board. :smallwink:

[Ozymandias9]

Who says they were children? It could very well have been a halfling. And how the hell can you tell how old a kobold is?

While it would be reasonable to assume that their appearance was manufactured to take advantage of their short racial stature and appear young, their whispered conversation with each other after running away used dialogue that appeared childish (or at least, it seemed so to me).

[Tannhaeuser]

Are people not reading the original post of this thread?

People are -- they just don't care. Some people do find the moral question is actually interesting, even if the original intention was mere snarking.


Do recall that once, cutting off the hands of a thief was considered a just punishment.

Cutting off the hands was a mitigation, actually. Fagin, in civilized 19th century England, was hanged for pickpocketing. Until at least the first decade of the century in that country, theft to the amount of 5 shillings (about a dollar) from a shop or warehouse was punishable by death.

[Jade_Tarem]

yes- in D&D (According to Book of Exalted Deeds), and OOTS (Going by Roy & Haley's reaction to Belkar's suggestion) slavery is evil, whether its a crime or not.

While you made some good points, I feel compelled to point out that none of the fluff in BoED should ever be taken seriously for any reason at any time - by logical extension of the "rules of goodness" presented you WILL fall the first time you end up in a remotely adversarial position against something or someone that isn't actively eating babies.

Case in point, it is an evil act (according to the BoED) to invade someone's brain via magic or whatever and extract information needed to save the entire bleeping world - regardless of the fact that this is the only way to save billions of people, you are evil and bad and evil for committing such a badevilwrong act of evilness. The book actively punishes characters for trying to make a reasonable decision in a situation where morality is the slightest bit grey around the edges, and it does so with such a sappy, badly written load of tripe that upon reading it I realized that those responsible for its creation had never even looked at an ethics book.

The best part? Not invading their brain is also evil. So yeah.

Like I said, the rest of your points were pretty good. Just... leave the BoED out of everything. It's for the best.


I know this is a joke thread, but someone else mentioned that we're unsure if the children are starving orphans or just troublemakers. While no hard evidence is presented, I think their dialogue after they run off makes it pretty clear that they're not relying on the money for food. They're not relieved that they'll get to eat again, they're exuberant that they've gotten away with something. Just a thought.

[Porthos]

People are -- they just don't care. Some people do find the moral question is actually interesting, even if the original intention was mere snarking.

I was referring to the fact that some people were still wondering whether or not the OP was being entierly serious.

As for the actual topic of this thread, an old saying comes to mind:

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

And, if that ain't enuf:

Let the punishment fit the crime.

Seems to be being robbed right back is a fitting punishment, karmically speaking. :smallwink:

[Jagos]

...

Yeah, I'm gonna stay outta this one other than to say the kids should have seen it coming. Punishment fits the crime, the kids weren't harmed and maybe now they can be either better pick pockets or better at another profession.

[Kish]

Every hour that passes without this thread being locked surprises me.

[Spiky]

Better question:

Are threads joking about morals morally justified?

[Scarlet Knight]

See what 'appens when you repeal child labor laws? Urchins runnin' 'bout, pickin' pockets , instead of being gainfully employed in the mines where'd they'd be useful! :smallsigh:

[Prak]

No. Thievery is never morally justifiable. Is it out of alignment? That's a long debate that there's no reason to go into.

Really? What about when one is starving and has no way to eat, other than to steal food?

Also, yeah, I think she was "morally justified," she was also helping the kids by teaching them there are other thieves out there and they need to get better if they're going to keep being thieves.

[Optimystik]

PS: Pssst. There's such a thing as "White Text" on this board. :smallwink:

Psst. There's a reason this thread was left open when the other ones were locked.


Cutting off the hands was a mitigation, actually. Fagin, in civilized 19th century England, was hanged for pickpocketing. Until at least the first decade of the century in that country, theft to the amount of 5 shillings (about a dollar) from a shop or warehouse was punishable by death.

Saying he was hanged "for pickpocketing" is quite misleading. Most pickpockets don't organize crime rings of children, and Fagin's punishment was also clouded by Dickens' initial anti-semitism.


The best part? Not invading their brain is also evil. So yeah.

You're basing that on...?

BoED consistently puts the rights of the few over that of the many (pg. 9, "Ends and Means.") You're free to disagree with it's view, but that's not the same as saying it's inconsistent.

[Carteeg_Struve]

It was morally justified because it was funny.

And yes, that reasoning does extend into real life. :smallbiggrin:

[Optimystik]

Another consideration:

we don't know if Haley's going to even keep the silver yet. She was just looking in Scaly's pouch, not retying it and tossing it in a bag of holding. So she might still give it back, or even toss it in the air for the whole market to grab.

So people might be jumping the gun by denouncing her here.

[spargel]

Every hour that passes without this thread being locked surprises me.

That's because people keep posting serious responses.

[Tannhaeuser]

Saying he was hanged "for pickpocketing" is quite misleading.

You're right, Optimystik; Fagin was not the best example -- but I was looking for a familiar example, and a lot more people have a copy of Oliver Twist than have The Newgate Calendar. It is nevertheless a fact that one could be hanged for very minor crimes: between 1749 and 1771, of the people found guilty at the Old Bailey alone, 109 were executed for shop-lifting.

[Spiky]

Another consideration:

we don't know if Haley's going to even keep the silver yet. She was just looking in Scaly's pouch, not retying it and tossing it in a bag of holding. So she might still give it back, or even toss it in the air for the whole market to grab.

So people might be jumping the gun by denouncing her here.

Ah, but they seem to be keeping the string.

[Morquard]

I can see it now, those two kids will be the newest addition to the Linear Guild, to take disproportionate revenge over this quasi-imagined slight! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0257.html)

[Random832]

There's nothing wrong with it at all. Rich made it pretty clear that the kids weren't starving beggars, just thieves.

Don't over-analyze everything.

Um, the idea that they steal to survive is a perfectly legitimate interpretation. Not all thieves do it for fun.


I can't tell if this is a serious question...or merely mocking all of the other "Was (Character)'s (action) (detail about action) morally justified?" threads.

Why can't it be both? Just the fact that it plays off of an existing pattern doesn't mean it can't be discussed in its own right. It's a legitimate topic for discussion, and would probably not be locked if it had a different subject line, so... I think there's a serious question as to whether Roland's locking of this thread would be - not gonna finish the sentence but you see where i'm going. :smallcool:


Who says they were children? It could very well have been a halfling. And how the hell can you tell how old a kobold is?

Kobolds are orange, and halflings have hairy feet. This was a lizardfolk child and a human child.


Cutting off the hands was a mitigation, actually. Fagin, in civilized 19th century England, was hanged for pickpocketing. Until at least the first decade of the century in that country, theft to the amount of 5 shillings (about a dollar) from a shop or warehouse was punishable by death.

"about a dollar" is deceptive. The amount of silver in five shillings (three ounces) would today be worth nearly 45 dollars. (In fact, I'm not entirely sure where you got that from: It would be $3.88 according to the silver standards in place at the time for both currencies, whereas as a quarter of a pound, it would be worth 40 cents if carried forward into the modern British pound and converted to the modern US dollar.) Certainly hanging wouldn't be justified for it, but neither is "about a dollar" a fair description.

[hamishspence]

Case in point, it is an evil act (according to the BoED) to invade someone's brain via magic or whatever and extract information needed to save the entire bleeping world - regardless of the fact that this is the only way to save billions of people, you are evil and bad and evil for committing such a badevilwrong act of evilness.


Couldn't find anything like that. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but thats it.

There are non-evil mind-invasion spells, you know. Brain Spider from Complete Divine, for example.

It goes out of its way to say that a charmed enemy is morally the equivalent of a helpless enemy, but thats it.

It also said that if you commit an evil act, for a good reason, you still Fall or lose exalted feats- because you've committed an evil act. This is sort of to be expected- if they create classes or feats that Fall (or are lost) for committing an Evil act, why are you complaining that Falling happens?

A morality that says "any act, no matter how vile it would normally be, is non-evil if its motivated by Saving The World" is inconsistant with the way D&D in general is written.

[Optimystik]

It also said that if you commit an evil act, for a good reason, you still Fall or lose exalted feats- because you've committed an evil act. This is sort of to be expected- if they create classes or feats that Fall (or are lost) for committing an Evil act, why are you complaining that Falling happens?

A morality that says "any act, no matter how vile it would normally be, is non-evil if its motivated by Saving The World" is inconsistant with the way D&D in general is written.

Precisely. If you, as an Exalted character, really think that the ends justify the means, then that's what Atonement and Geas were made for. Do the crime, save the world, then do the time; that's what any paladin would do.

[Rustic Dude]

Is Mr. Scruffy's claim of the string morally justified? Come on, Elan wanted it.





*Not cluttering the forum with amusing, but pointless, threads*

[Scarlet Knight]

"dibbs" ranks : npcs < bards < animal companions/familiars < real classes

[Harley]

Technically, Elan is a multi-classed Bard/Dashing Swordsman, which has been made into a real class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29882&highlight=Dashing+Swordsman) on these very forums. Ergo, if we go by your list Scruffy is in the wrong for claiming the string, Knight.

[Rustic Dude]

Technically, Elan is a multi-classed Bard/Dashing Swordsman, which has been made into a real class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29882&highlight=Dashing+Swordsman) on these very forums. Ergo, if we go by your list Scruffy is in the wrong for claiming the string, Knight.

Evil, evil cat. Not only he is greedy, but also it's an usurper.

[David Argall]

According to Word of God, attempting to sell someone into slavery is an evil act in OotSland.
I think you are mistaking WOG for word of Roy here. At least I can only find Roy glaring on the subject in 171. Of course Belkar also suggests it, and Haley is also against it, at least while Roy is watching and when there isn't a lot of gold to be made.


Thus, not morally justifiable.

This would be true and false. The writer can impose his view of morality on the characters in his story, but he can't be deemed a particularly valid view of morality. His job is to tell us an entertaining story, not to provide something dull and uplifting.
Now it is fairly easy to condemn slavery in general. It is generally simply a form of theft, stealing a body instead of other property. However, just as we have certain cases where theft is justified, so we have cases where slavery is acceptable.
Criminals are such a case. The criminal has caused a loss of one sort or another to his victim, and thus should be expected to pay that loss back, which is something he can't do sitting in a cell [and living at our expense by the way.] So selling the criminal into slavery gets compensation for the victim and keeps the criminal under control.
An outsider would look at most modern judicial systems and wonder how such a crazy idea took hold. You put the criminal into an undesirable environment at heavy expense to you, and of no utility to the criminal either, and he gets out a worse criminal than when he came in. What part of this makes any sense?
Selling the criminal into slavery seems superior on all points. Victim, taxpayer, and criminal all are better off. [Prison is bloody boring and any sort of job is eagerly fought for.] The results are not pleasant [nor are they intended to be], but they are superior to the alternatives.
Just what else are we supposed to do with our little brats here? Stow them in some cell with a bunch of other criminals where all they will learn is how to be better criminals? Most of the other alternatives seem to be wish fantasies that somewhere one can find loving families that will take them in. But the kids would not be on the street if that was an available choice. We are stuck with kids that nobody wants, and are active problems. What do we do with them that is actually better than slavery?



Practically, you can't discourage crime on one continent by punishing it extra-severely on another.
Well, you aren't concerned about the other continent. You are wanting to suppress it on your continent [or your block to be more precise]. And the idea that extra-severe punishment will not deter is rather obviously suspicious at best. We may question whether it is efficient deterrence, but that it provides added deterrence seems obvious.
Back in the days when burglary was a lightly punished crime, a lot of criminals carried unloaded guns. They were still sufficient to keep the homeowner at bay while the thug got away, but they didn't go off and ramp the charge up to murder.


Plus, punishing criminals more severely than is right, to discourage other criminals- is unjust- any form of "deterrent" which exceeds the bounds of "appropriate penalty" is- you can't just ramp up the penalty in order to "deter crime".
But it is quite common. Drunk driving is absurdly harshly punished when viewed as just itself. The punishment becomes rational only when you consider the minority of cases where the drunk is not lucky enough to get home without incident. Most of the punishment of the drunk driver is to discourage the other drunks from driving.


Penalties should not be dependent on the frequency with which the crime is being committed, but on the harm the particular crime causes.
And as with the drunk driver, that does not mean just the individual crime, but the entire set of results from that crime. Since a vast majority of pickpockets get away with their crime, the punishment of the few caught can be quite severe without even reaching balance here. Our pickpocket might get $100 a wallet with only a 1% chance of being caught, meaning he does $10,000 worth of damage by the time he is on average caught.



Mutilation/Death for theft is Evil.
It can be of course, but it may be the least evil option available.
Just what do you do with the thief? Prison is not at all nice, and does little or nothing to reform the thief. Not to mention being really expensive. So just why is this a more effective system than cutting off limbs or heads?



you are assuming that less severe forms of punishment will fail to deter theft, and you are also assuming that forms of punishment this severe will always succeed in doing so.
Not at all. One routinely assumes cost-demand curves and that a given level of punishment will deter a certain amount of crime, but not all, and that more punishment means more deterred. Now whether a doubling of the punishment causes crime to drop by 50% or 5% is another story that has to be considered on a case by case basis, but one is not assuming anything like absolutes.



An alternate hypothesis is that if you cut off a man's hand, he will be less able to find legitimate work and thus induced to return to a life of crime.
As can be seen from recidivism rates, prison apparently has this problem too.

[Omegonthesane]

Canna be bothered to make a full reply to the full post, but...


This would be true and false. The writer can impose his view of morality on the characters in his story, but he can't be deemed a particularly valid view of morality. His job is to tell us an entertaining story, not to provide something dull and uplifting.
Now it is fairly easy to condemn slavery in general. It is generally simply a form of theft, stealing a body instead of other property. However, just as we have certain cases where theft is justified, so we have cases where slavery is acceptable.
Criminals are such a case. The criminal has caused a loss of one sort or another to his victim, and thus should be expected to pay that loss back, which is something he can't do sitting in a cell [and living at our expense by the way.] So selling the criminal into slavery gets compensation for the victim and keeps the criminal under control.
No. Nononononononono. Selling the criminal into slavery destroys his life forever, and creates a legal slave market. Once you have a slave market, people will start illegally adding to it, breaking into criminal records databases to screw around if they have to.

Community service, on the other hand, would probably have the effect you're going for. Reparations are paid, and the criminal is effectively slaved to the government for a temporary period - whereas the assumption with selling him off is that it's FOREVARRR. Furthermore you can make him train employable skills while on community service, making him less likely to need to resort to crime when you're done with him.


An outsider would look at most modern judicial systems and wonder how such a crazy idea took hold. You put the criminal into an undesirable environment at heavy expense to you, and of no utility to the criminal either, and he gets out a worse criminal than when he came in. What part of this makes any sense?
This is the worst view of the system. In practice... yeah, it is pretty much this crap, primarily because the prisons are overfilled and underfunded IIRC. However, the basic idea is sound - repurpose the actual process to rehabilitation, rather than punishment, and make it a lot harder for employers to discriminate according to criminal background checks.


Selling the criminal into slavery seems superior on all points. Victim, taxpayer, and criminal all are better off. [Prison is bloody boring and any sort of job is eagerly fought for.] The results are not pleasant [nor are they intended to be], but they are superior to the alternatives.
Hm... Locked in a cell for years, and if I'm lucky and don't get sent to a real hellhole, come out with some capabilities that aren't criminal and a chance to rebuild my life... or forced to serve an evil tyrant for the rest of my life, because there would be no demand from nonevil people for unwilling slaves. I'll take the former thanks.


Just what else are we supposed to do with our little brats here? Stow them in some cell with a bunch of other criminals where all they will learn is how to be better criminals? Most of the other alternatives seem to be wish fantasies that somewhere one can find loving families that will take them in. But the kids would not be on the street if that was an available choice.
Depends. What's causing it to not be an available choice?


We are stuck with kids that nobody wants, and are active problems. What do we do with them that is actually better than slavery?
Suggestion 1) Mind Rape them to LG, then murder them so they go straight to the Upper Planes. Morally ridiculously reprehensible, but in context better than slavery.
Suggestion 2) Just kill them, with no prior mind-raping. I take the position that death is preferable to a lifetime of unwilling slavery, though, so your mileage may vary.
Suggestion 3) Conscript them for a few years. If they aren't at all fit for society after you're done, then put them in special military units accordingly.


Well, you aren't concerned about the other continent. You are wanting to suppress it on your continent [or your block to be more precise]. And the idea that extra-severe punishment will not deter is rather obviously suspicious at best. We may question whether it is efficient deterrence, but that it provides added deterrence seems obvious.
If you want a good deterrent, increase the capture rate. A 1% chance of ridiculously dangerous consequences is infinitely preferable to a 99% chance of being chucked into Rehab. Because that's the fundamental flaw with any prison: it should be a retraining facility, not a holding facility.
If you go too far with over-deterring everything, it gets counterproductive. If I'm going to be hung for cutting your purse, I might as well be hung for cutting your throat so you can't reveal that I cut your purse. For a more extreme example, if a rapist gets less of a sentence for murder than for rape, obviously he's going to kill any victim he can't restrain if he's reasonably sane.


And as with the drunk driver, that does not mean just the individual crime, but the entire set of results from that crime. Since a vast majority of pickpockets get away with their crime, the punishment of the few caught can be quite severe without even reaching balance here. Our pickpocket might get $100 a wallet with only a 1% chance of being caught, meaning he does $10,000 worth of damage by the time he is on average caught.
This means you've done your math wrong when prioritising. You should be directing resources primarily to increase that 1% at any cost, because that's a much better deterrent than ramping up the dangers inherent in that 1% chance.


Just what do you do with the thief? Prison is not at all nice, and does little or nothing to reform the thief. Not to mention being really expensive. So just why is this a more effective system than cutting off limbs or heads?
You're sending him to the wrong prison if it isn't going to reform him. But, this is a flaw in the prison system, so working with what we've got you have somewhat of a point.
The difference is, 5 years of crappy life doesn't make you permanently unemployable in the same way as losing limbs. And if you're going to use a penalty of death as a deterrent, you save it for murder, because otherwise everyone who commits death-row crimes has a very good motive to kill all the witnesses.

TL;DR David's primary assumptions are that OotS prisons make the same mistakes as most IRL prisons despite the added resource of magic, and that prison never benefits anyone. My basic position is that this is a flaw that can conceivably be fixed not an inherent feature of prison.

[Irbis]

I am the only one who finds the whole 'escalate punishment to combat minor crime' disgusting? Let's face it - it never worked. Never. Even NKVD and Gestapo, in the middle of the second World War, in their most brutal and merciless phase, when any crime (like owning a bird) could get one shot immediately - even they failed to stop even the base crimes and half-legal acts.

Oh, and the alternate approach (rehabilitation and reintroduction to society) has consistently produced superior results.

And yet, people still believe this medieval 'disproportionate response' nonsense.

Now it is fairly easy to condemn slavery in general. It is generally simply a form of theft, stealing a body instead of other property. However, just as we have certain cases where theft is justified, so we have cases where slavery is acceptable.

Bollocks. It is never justified. You would be extremely hard pressed to construct a scenario where it would be merely neutral act.

Criminals are such a case. The criminal has caused a loss of one sort or another to his victim, and thus should be expected to pay that loss back, which is something he can't do sitting in a cell [and living at our expense by the way.] So selling the criminal into slavery gets compensation for the victim and keeps the criminal under control.

Um, there is the slight issue with most good people never accepting money from such a source. Oh, and you easily glossed over the simple issue - who exactly is going to buy them? To create a marginal gain, you allow an entire industry based on one of the most abhorrent activities to thrive. Yeah, an excellent way to build a society :smallsigh:

An outsider would look at most modern judicial systems and wonder how such a crazy idea took hold. You put the criminal into an undesirable environment at heavy expense to you, and of no utility to the criminal either, and he gets out a worse criminal than when he came in. What part of this makes any sense?

First, 'heavy' is nonsense. Today, even a pet dog or a prize cow eats way more (in terms of money spend) than someone in prison.

Second - worse criminal? Maybe in a nation where people still buy "harsh repression" BS.

Third, in a normal nation, with a crime rehabilitation program, the prisoner would be handed a job, with 1/3 of his salary going to victim, 1/3 to safe account he can claim after serving his time, and 1/3 going to his pocket, spendable in prison cantina. Somehow, this tends to produce people who can function in society after the prison, unlike in some (three, actually) countries with millions of prisoners in overcrowded prisons :smallsigh:

Selling the criminal into slavery seems superior on all points. Victim, taxpayer, and criminal all are better off. [Prison is bloody boring and any sort of job is eagerly fought for.] The results are not pleasant [nor are they intended to be], but they are superior to the alternatives.

Are you even aware what 'slavery' is? I think you need to look up this word in dictionary, because no sane man would accept going into it, nor drawing profits from it.

Oh, and guess what? It ceased to make sense (even economically) two hundred years ago.

And that bit about 'superior' is just... You know, there are superior propositions, but somehow they don't involve slavery nor harsh sentences :smallsigh:

Just what else are we supposed to do with our little brats here? Stow them in some cell with a bunch of other criminals where all they will learn is how to be better criminals? Most of the other alternatives seem to be wish fantasies that somewhere one can find loving families that will take them in. But the kids would not be on the street if that was an available choice. We are stuck with kids that nobody wants, and are active problems. What do we do with them that is actually better than slavery?

In modern society they can be sent to rehab or special school, and in few years they (with great chance of success) would be proper part of society. Only if they openly refuse they should be isolated. "Teaching them to be better criminals" is, at least nowadays, problem of societies that only think about harsher penalties, and longer times in prisons. It is the unavoidably of law that counts, not harsh sentences.

In D&D society... well, there is always this shrine of a good god, with a priest with a few spells capable of keeping the kids in check.

Well, you aren't concerned about the other continent. You are wanting to suppress it on your continent [or your block to be more precise]. And the idea that extra-severe punishment will not deter is rather obviously suspicious at best. We may question whether it is efficient deterrence, but that it provides added deterrence seems obvious.

Hello? Ever heard of Europe? Sixty years ago?

Cuz' they tried it, and it somehow never worked, even with squads of machinegunners roaming the streets, waiting for anything suspicious to happen. How much more severe do you want to get? :smallsigh:

Somehow, it is the alternate approach that really works. Suppression only produces more and more criminals, which a look at a few societes today would clearly show.

Back in the days when burglary was a lightly punished crime, a lot of criminals carried unloaded guns. They were still sufficient to keep the homeowner at bay while the thug got away, but they didn't go off and ramp the charge up to murder.

And when it was harshly punished, they simply killed the homeowner, because the sentence was the same.

Wait, how exactly is this going to help? :smallconfused:

Today, when the burglaries have the least severe punishment in history, they also have the lowest rates of them in history. Hmmm, again, harsher approach strangely isn't working :smallconfused:

But it is quite common. Drunk driving is absurdly harshly punished when viewed as just itself. The punishment becomes rational only when you consider the minority of cases where the drunk is not lucky enough to get home without incident. Most of the punishment of the drunk driver is to discourage the other drunks from driving.

No, it is to save lives. You can discourage them and lessen the loss of lives in other ways, and somehow, these other ways work, while harsh penalties failed to.

And as with the drunk driver, that does not mean just the individual crime, but the entire set of results from that crime. Since a vast majority of pickpockets get away with their crime, the punishment of the few caught can be quite severe without even reaching balance here. Our pickpocket might get $100 a wallet with only a 1% chance of being caught, meaning he does $10,000 worth of damage by the time he is on average caught.

No, the way to go isn't to make crime harsher, because it only hardens the criminals. It is to turn that 1% into 10%, then 50%, then...

In it works, unlike the constant threat of headshot from Parabellum.

It can be of course, but it may be the least evil option available.

Escalating the levels of evil and creating even more evil, more abhorrent evil are to you the least evil options? :smallconfused:

And Gestapo was a honest, misunderstood scout service, right? Going by that thinking, the were the least evil organization in the world :smallsigh:

Just what do you do with the thief? Prison is not at all nice, and does little or nothing to reform the thief. Not to mention being really expensive. So just why is this a more effective system than cutting off limbs or heads?

It does, when not in hands of people like "double his sentence".

Not at all. One routinely assumes cost-demand curves and that a given level of punishment will deter a certain amount of crime, but not all, and that more punishment means more deterred. Now whether a doubling of the punishment causes crime to drop by 50% or 5% is another story that has to be considered on a case by case basis, but one is not assuming anything like absolutes.

Except that it never does. Yes, the rates might be slightly lover at the beginning, but after that, criminals shrug and change into more violent crimes, as the penalty is now the same and the "return" better.

The world does not work that way :smallsigh:

And yes, you are assuming absolutes.

As can be seen from recidivism rates, prison apparently has this problem too.

Except in countries with real rehab programs recidivism is marginal problem, unlike countries with "harsher sentences!" and "guns for everyone!" mindset.

[Kurald Galain]

...

So, who thinks Haley is a Magnificent Bastard now?

...

[Babale]

I think you misunderstood David. But in any case, I think I'll try to make sense of what he said, even if what I say isn't his intention.

So, slavery. Lets say someone commits a crime. Rather then being put in jail, he's forced to work for a certain craftsman-artisian, farmer, etc.-for a certain amount of time, depending on the crime's severity. When he's done with his sentance, he:

1) Did labor for the good of the people or nation and remained productive to society.
2) Picked up certain skills which he could use after his sentence to work.
3) Was kept away from mainstream society and was punished for his crime.

All in all, not that bad. Maybe not as LG as prison, and perhaps crueler, depending on the person who he works for; but all in all, not a truly horrible system.

[Zeful]

...

So, who thinks Haley is a Magnificent Bastard now?

...

Well she managed to lift the stolen purse from the theives, write a note identifying the pickpoket and place it in the fake purse and put it in the kid's hands, between panels.

[Harr]

Lets say someone commits a crime. Rather then being put in jail, he's forced to work for a certain craftsman-artisian, farmer, etc.-for a certain amount of time, depending on the crime's severity. When he's done with his sentance, he:

1) Did labor for the good of the people or nation and remained productive to society.
2) Picked up certain skills which he could use after his sentence to work.
3) Was kept away from mainstream society and was punished for his crime.

All in all, not that bad. Maybe not as LG as prison, and perhaps crueler, depending on the person who he works for; but all in all, not a truly horrible system.

It's also not slavery. It's indentured service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant). Difference.


Unlike a slave, an indentured servant is required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract.

[Babale]

And what, really, is the difference?

[Porthos]

I think you are mistaking WOG for word of Roy here.

Nope. I have no idea if the post disappeared in the ether or not during one of the many thread purges, but when people were asking Rich why he thought Belkar was evil, he mentioned that one of the evil things that he did was attempting to sell Samantha into slavery.

And, as far as I can tell, baseline DnD views slavery as evil as well.

As for the rest of your points....

Sorry, ain't taking the bait. :smallsmile:


And what, really, is the difference?

Indentured Servant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant)
Slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery)

Compare and contrast. :smallsmile:

[Harr]

And what, really, is the difference?

Follow the links provided and read. They're very objective definitions... really not something that's up for debate :smallwink:

[Porthos]

Follow the links provided and read. They're very objective definitions... really not something that's up for debate :smallwink:

Of course, there were also many flavors and graduations of slavery, as the links provided show. Not surprising considering it's a well over 4000 year old institution.

For instance, some people actually had the idea of forming slave armies to go out and fight their battles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk).

Crazy. :smalleek:

But, while there were exceptions (letting people have the chance to "buy/work off" their status as a slave), by and large slavery was a one-way ticket to eternal, unpaid work for you and all your descendants. And even in the instances where "elightened" people allowed the chance of slaves "earning" freedom, much much much more often than not, they couldn't.

Thus, evil. :smallsmile:

Of course if one really wants to set off a firecracker in this thread, one would compare and contrast Serfdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom) to slavery.

Thankfully I ain't going to be the one to do it. :smalltongue:

[Hurkyl]

I am the only one who finds the whole 'escalate punishment to combat minor crime' disgusting? Let's face it - it never worked. Never. Even NKVD and Gestapo...
Ah, a classic argumentum ad nazium!

[spargel]

Of course, there were also many flavors and graduations of slavery, as the links provided show. Not surprising considering it's a well over 4000 year old institution.

For instance, some people actually had the idea of forming slave armies to go out and fight their battles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk).

Crazy. :smalleek:


Those people were trained from a young age and brainwashed, so it worked fairly well. And they weren't really looked down upon either.

[Babale]

Alright, wrong wording. What is the difference between indentured servitude and slavery for a certain duration, while giving the owner limited rights, IE, you can make them do work, but you don't own them?

I think me and David both meant Slavery as Labor with No Pay

[Ozymandias9]

Oh, and the alternate approach (rehabilitation and reintroduction to society) has consistently produced superior results.

In a modern society, yes, slavery always has a better alternative. But such a thing presumes at least Victorian level societal means.

Rehabilitation as a staple of a justice system requires a certain minimum level of societal infrastructure and collective means. If rehabilitation isn't generally on the table (which it is for most societies of limited collective means), then the goals are preventing recidivism, deterring others, and providing reparations.

And guess what: we're talking about societies with limited means. They likely lack prisons suited for long term containment. Slavery provides a means of the those goals without placing a burden on society, presuming that the individuals receiving the salve has the means to ensure containment (I.E. the family can afford to keep the slave shackled and in line), thus providing an alternative to execution, maiming, banishment, etc..

Its not ideal, but most societies throughout most of history aren't in the business of ideal.

[Tannhaeuser]

It is entirely possible, Random832, that I was mistaken about the exchange rate of early modern to modern shillings to dollars; I am no accountant and do quite frankly suck at numbers. I am perfectly willing to accept your upper figure of about 45 dollars. It does not alter the fact that the death penalty was in place until fairly recent times in what are considered civilized countries for what we now would consider minor thefts. Hanging for shop-lifting up to forty-five dollars does not seem much more reasonable than hanging for shop-lifting up to one dollar. De minimis non curat lex.

[David Argall]

No. Nononononononono. Selling the criminal into slavery destroys his life forever,
Well, it's hardly a bed of roses, at least if you take out the thorns. But all known slave societies had ways for the slave to purchase his freedom. The Roman system is perhaps the best known, but even in societies that forbad slaves from being freed or purchasing themselves, it still happened. It was simply a matter of self interest on the part of the owner. He could have a slave that worked like a dog to get the money needed for his freedom or he could have a slave that did just enough to avoid being beaten too hard or often. Even tho he technically was buying his freedom with your money, you did the math and saw it was tremendously profitable to let him do so. This is one of the reasons that almost no slave society managed to remain a slave society without a source of fresh slaves.
So the difference between slavery and maybe 20 years hard labor was often enough fairly academic.



Once you have a slave market, people will start illegally adding to it, breaking into criminal records databases to screw around if they have to.
Well of course. Everything gets abused. But slavery is a distinctly inefficient system. It was so common because it was some foreigner who was getting it in the shorts and you were getting a share of the loot from robbing him. When it is you or your neighbor who is threatened, your society must cover the losses, which are much larger than the gains. So our slave society is most unlikely to have much grabbing people off the streets and we can reasonably assume a very large percentage of the slaves are genuine convicted criminals.


Community service, on the other hand, would probably have the effect you're going for. Reparations are paid, and the criminal is effectively slaved to the government for a temporary period - whereas the assumption with selling him off is that it's FOREVARRR. Furthermore you can make him train employable skills while on community service, making him less likely to need to resort to crime when you're done with him.
Here we see the typical case of comparing an idealized alternative with a more negative view of the slavery option. We do have community service, which rarely pays back the victim, and is most unlikely to give the criminal useful skills, or anything but a lighter sentence.



In practice... yeah, it is pretty much this crap, primarily because the prisons are overfilled and underfunded IIRC. However, the basic idea is sound - repurpose the actual process to rehabilitation, rather than punishment, and make it a lot harder for employers to discriminate according to criminal background checks.
And here we see some of the reasons that the real [or fantasy real] version will never meet those ideal projections. The system always will be overfilled and underfunded. But the idea that somehow it can be made to work remains strong.


Hm... Locked in a cell for years, and if I'm lucky and don't get sent to a real hellhole, come out with some capabilities that aren't criminal and a chance to rebuild my life... or forced to serve an evil tyrant for the rest of my life, because there would be no demand from nonevil people for unwilling slaves. I'll take the former thanks.
There are a number of people with the opposite view. As noted, a good number of them are the ones locked in cells for years.



Depends. What's causing it to not be an available choice?
The very fact they are on the street. This option does not require any government actions. And it does happen as much as it can. So the simple fact it hasn't happened means it is not an available option, just as cars circling in a parking lot signal that there are few if any empty parking spaces.



Suggestion 2) Just kill them, with no prior mind-raping. I take the position that death is preferable to a lifetime of unwilling slavery, though, so your mileage may vary.
Since a great many slaves did suffer lifetimes of slavery rather than being killed, the typical mileage varies a lot.


Suggestion 3) Conscript them for a few years. If they aren't at all fit for society after you're done, then put them in special military units accordingly.
But this seems to be little different from the slavery option or the prison option, except it may combine the bad points of both.


If you want a good deterrent, increase the capture rate.
This can work, sometimes. But it cost money to increase the capture rate, and it's fairly easy to see that this extra cost can be quite high at times, making it much cheaper to tolerate a relatively high crime rate, or to just increase the punishment for those caught. This becomes a pragmatic point and there will be times where it is better to add more cop and times when it is better to make harsher punishments.



The difference is, 5 years of crappy life doesn't make you permanently unemployable in the same way as losing limbs. And if you're going to use a penalty of death as a deterrent, you save it for murder, because otherwise everyone who commits death-row crimes has a very good motive to kill all the witnesses.
Or not to commit the crime at all. Again this is going to be a point that has to be decided on a case vs case basis, not by any overwhelming principle.


David's primary assumptions are that OotS prisons make the same mistakes as most IRL prisons despite the added resource of magic, and that prison never benefits anyone. My basic position is that this is a flaw that can conceivably be fixed not an inherent feature of prison.
Now my position is hardly than prison never benefits anyone. Just about anything and everything benefits somebody. But the numbers tell us that the percentage of benefited prisoners is distinctly small.
As to magic, our D&D world is rather magic rare. A first level spell may cost a month's work, and that +1 sword may be a lifetime's savings. Of course one can note that the financial system is not exactly well worked out, but we still have the point that in D&D magic doesn't really affect the life of the average citizen much at all.

[Omegonthesane]

Rant which basically agrees with me
Could you cite some examples of countries that have prison systems that work? It'll strengthen your case. Like, a lot.


Well, it's hardly a bed of roses, at least if you take out the thorns. But all known slave societies had ways for the slave to purchase his freedom. The Roman system is perhaps the best known, but even in societies that forbad slaves from being freed or purchasing themselves, it still happened. It was simply a matter of self interest on the part of the owner. He could have a slave that worked like a dog to get the money needed for his freedom or he could have a slave that did just enough to avoid being beaten too hard or often. Even tho he technically was buying his freedom with your money, you did the math and saw it was tremendously profitable to let him do so. This is one of the reasons that almost no slave society managed to remain a slave society without a source of fresh slaves.
So the difference between slavery and maybe 20 years hard labor was often enough fairly academic.
But, the slave's children would be slaves, and his children's children would be slaves. Whereas with 20 years hard labour, his kids are at least not born with the same duties and punishments that are on his head. Not so academic.


Well of course. Everything gets abused. But slavery is a distinctly inefficient system. It was so common because it was some foreigner who was getting it in the shorts and you were getting a share of the loot from robbing him. When it is you or your neighbor who is threatened, your society must cover the losses, which are much larger than the gains. So our slave society is most unlikely to have much grabbing people off the streets and we can reasonably assume a very large percentage of the slaves are genuine convicted criminals.
It's also a morally reprehensible system to the point where few people can take rational arguments about it seriously these days.
Also, as I said above, you would need a clause that said all slave children were born free and had no special vulnerability to getting enslaved.
Also also, five words: sex slaves kidnapped to order. Forging a CRB check is probably easier than hiding someone forever.


Here we see the typical case of comparing an idealized alternative with a more negative view of the slavery option. We do have community service, which rarely pays back the victim, and is most unlikely to give the criminal useful skills, or anything but a lighter sentence.
It also frees up a space in the prisons for a real criminal. Still, yeah, it's best saved for crappy crimes and better handled than that. I don't feel strongly enough about this to do my research and cite any examples; Irbis might though.


And here we see some of the reasons that the real [or fantasy real] version will never meet those ideal projections. The system always will be overfilled and underfunded. But the idea that somehow it can be made to work remains strong.
Cynic. :smallamused: Irbis claimed there are cases where it's been crowbared into working. I agree it's currently a mess but why should it be impossible to change the current system in any way? As I said, a community service (read: hard labour, if it makes you feel better) sentence frees up a prison space, so it's somewhat better suited to people who don't actually need hardcore rehab. De-overcrowd the prisons and the buildings themselves will naturally need less funding, but I'm not going into detail because this isn't a politics forum and I'm getting this feeling that we're getting near that area.


There are a number of people with the opposite view. As noted, a good number of them are the ones locked in cells for years.
Huh? Where was that noted?
Personal circumstances probably make a big difference though, and having a lifetime job has its advantages. </devil's advocate>


The very fact they are on the street. This option does not require any government actions. And it does happen as much as it can. So the simple fact it hasn't happened means it is not an available option, just as cars circling in a parking lot signal that there are few if any empty parking spaces.
So the fact they haven't been sorted out yet means they will never be sorted out? Not arguing against that kind of entrenched opinion, I can't be bothered.


But this seems to be little different from the slavery option or the prison option, except it may combine the bad points of both.
You throw someone into a useless prison, you get nothing. You throw someone into slavery, you get a society where slavery is legal and encouraged and people are dehumanised for slipping through your net. You conscript 'em, you get a somewhat rehabbed soldier, a useful investment IRL and an even better one in D&D.


This can work, sometimes. But it cost money to increase the capture rate, and it's fairly easy to see that this extra cost can be quite high at times, making it much cheaper to tolerate a relatively high crime rate, or to just increase the punishment for those caught. This becomes a pragmatic point and there will be times where it is better to add more cop and times when it is better to make harsher punishments.
And in practice there have been vastly more of the former than the latter, if I recall correctly.


Or not to commit the crime at all. Again this is going to be a point that has to be decided on a case vs case basis, not by any overwhelming principle.
Just like everything else except mathematics. But, as a general guideline, a 75% chance of a 'light' sentence is a lot scarier than a 1% chance of death.


Now my position is hardly than prison never benefits anyone. Just about anything and everything benefits somebody. But the numbers tell us that the percentage of benefited prisoners is distinctly small.
Eh, it was the TL;DR section and I remembered it having a "seems to be" clause. Sorry.


As to magic, our D&D world is rather magic rare. A first level spell may cost a month's work, and that +1 sword may be a lifetime's savings. Of course one can note that the financial system is not exactly well worked out, but we still have the point that in D&D magic doesn't really affect the life of the average citizen much at all.
This is the OotSiverse, where being a 3rd level Wizard means you are still in high school. I'd say magic is therefore a lot more common here than the PHB assumes. Like, a LOT more common. Maybe high-level magic users like Durkon and Vaarsuvius aren't running around everywhere, but a 5th level cleric of any good god can feed three people a day at no cost to himself (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createFoodAndWater.htm), six if he has a good Wis score. Or alternately, he can build a 'trap' and use it to feed everybody in the entire world for the rest of eternity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/traps.htm).

[David Argall]

But, the slave's children would be slaves, and his children's children would be slaves. Whereas with 20 years hard labour, his kids are at least not born with the same duties and punishments that are on his head. Not so academic.

In practice it is. The US is just about the only known case of a slave society increasing the number of slaves by natural reproduction. In all others, the slave population had to be maintained by importing new slaves. So whether the child of a slave is a slave or not is going to be of somewhat academic debate because the number of such children will be limited.
And we have already mentioned slave self-purchase. Parents being parents, it is routine for the slave parent to buy the freedom of their children instead of their own. This is aided by the value of a small child being rather trivial, and quite possibly even negative. [The very existence of orphanages where, in the old days, you could essentially get a child for free tells us that there was little value to the slave owner here.]


five words: sex slaves kidnapped to order.
As the daily paper is telling us in California at the moment, it can happen, with or without legal slavery. But it happens quite rarely. The risk is high and the punishment massive.


Forging a CRB check is probably easier than hiding someone forever.
Likely, but we are still talking the rare stuff that makes headlines. Our sex slave likely has friends, who will know the charge is bogus, and while you have found a way to fix the records, eventually that fix is going to be spotted, and the more slaves you grab, the more likely it is to be spotted. So before too long, our slaver is trying to flee the country while those who bought from him are losing their slave, and their money, and trying to explain, to a likely hostile court, why they ignored their "slave's" claims that she was falsely slaved.



I agree it's currently a mess but why should it be impossible to change the current system in any way?
Oh it gets changed all the time, but those doing the changing are those that benefit from the current system or hope to benefit from the new. Neither has any real interest in rehabilitation beyond using it as an excuse and propaganda ploy.



Huh? Where was that noted?
In just about any coverage of prison life that mentions the point. Having a job in prison is a privilege the warden bestows on the usually quite bored prisoner, not something he needs to be forced to do.



So the fact they haven't been sorted out yet means they will never be sorted out?
It's the way to bet, at least when we are dealing with large numbers. Now our individual orphan may find a good home, but there are only so many such homes, and the supply of street kids routinely well exceeds this.



You throw someone into a useless prison, you get nothing. You throw someone into slavery, you get a society where slavery is legal and encouraged and people are dehumanised for slipping through your net.

You also get a society where the victim of crime gets his losses restored, and where the slave does something useful for society instead of making it worse.



You conscript 'em, you get a somewhat rehabbed soldier, a useful investment IRL and an even better one in D&D.
The soldier is useful for keeping the government in power. His utility for helping society is considerably more questionable.


This is the OotSiverse, where being a 3rd level Wizard means you are still in high school. I'd say magic is therefore a lot more common here than the PHB assumes. Like, a LOT more common.
See 413. Azure City, a city of about a half million, has 314 clerics, only 65 of which are above 3rd level. So well less than 1% of the population are spellcasters of any sort.



a 5th level cleric of any good god can feed three people a day at no cost to himself (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createFoodAndWater.htm), six if he has a good Wis score.
And by the figures above, there were about one or two dozen such clerics in Azure City, who can feed a combined total of maybe 100 people. That's not even all the lower level clerics, much less the general population.

[Irbis]

And what, really, is the difference?

The difference is simple - for rehabilitation, the subject has to be willing, otherwise even indentured job won't give him anything, as he will hate it and won't continue it after regaining freedom. So, you give carrot, not a stick, if you want it to work.


Ah, a classic argumentum ad nazium!

Oh, please, be my guest and find better example of ultra-harsh penalties for minor crimes.

Can't find one? Thought so.

Oh, and You Fail History Forever (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.YouFailHistoryForever).

[Roland St. Jude]

:smallannoyed: *facepalm*

Roland, I summon thee!

Sheriff of Moddingham: Is locking this thread morally justified? Thread locked.

Please stop with all the "morally justified" copycat threads.