Question about Lawful Good and fulfilling justice

[Dr TPK]

A lawful good character encounters a savage tribe in the middle of nowhere and he/she hears that an archmage has murdered one of the tribesmen. Their justice system works as follows: The criminal must be brought before the village elders and they will judge the criminal as they see fit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer). Justice system is very formal and tribalistic. Any attempt to talk about any other possibilies fail automatically (no diplomacy rolls allowed). They don't want to leave the village. The lawful good character is not allowed to touch or see the evidence (there's none, anyway). He/she makes a successful sense motive check and feels that the murder case is very real and it's almost certain that the archmage is the murderer.

The lawful good character travels thousands of miles and meets the murderer in a civilized city. What does he/she do?

[hamishspence]

BoED had an interesting example of this very dilemma - a suspected murderer escaping justice on a technicality, because of a possibly corrupt court:


Divided Loyalties

For better of for worse, a paladin is not just good: she is lawful good, sworn not just to uphold the principles of good but also bound by a code of conduct, and subject to local law as well. Many paladins are also members of a specific deity's church, a knightly order of some sort, or both. Ath the best of times, these various loyalties - her code of conduct, her church's laws, her order's demands, the laws of her nation, and the abstraction of her alignment - are all in harmony, and her path is clear before her. When circumstances are not so ideal, she finds herself torn between conflicting demands: her superior in her knightly order commands her to kill a brutal murderer who has escaped punishment in court on a legal technicality, for example. Her personal code requires that she punish those that harm innocents, and this killer certainly falls in that category. However, her personal code also instructs her to respect legitimate authority, which includes both her knightly superior and the local law that has let the killer go free. The demands of her good alignment suggest she should punish the wrongdoer, but the demands of her lawful alignment insist that she obey the judgement of the court. It is entirely possible that either her superior or the magistrate in the case is corrupt or even possessed. Whom does she obey? How does she sort out the conflicting demands of her loyalties?

Paladins are by no means alone in this situation. Any character who tries consistently to do good eventually finds himself in a situation where different loyalties are in conflict. Chaotic Good characters might care far less about a potentially corrupt or at least ineffectual court system, but they might have other personal standards or obligations that cause conflict in similar or different situations. In the end, however, many such conflicts boil down to a question of priorities, and for a character who aspires to exalted deeds, good is the highest priority. In the example above, the murderer must at least be captured, if not killed, before he can kill again. If she has reason to suspect corruption, either in the court or in her own order, the paladin must attempt to uncover it, though it might mean being cast out of her order, punished under local law, or both. Her paladinhood and her exalted status remain intact, since she acted in the cause of good even when that required questioning the legitimacy of authority. Magistrates or knightly superiors who serve the cause of evil while posing as agents of good are not legitimate authority, and the paladin is right for exposing their corruption.

It's worth keeping in mind though that Sense Motive alone might still give a wrong or misleading result.

[Yahzi]

What does he/she do?
The way I handle alignment, everyone has the same moral code. What changes is who you apply that code to. NE doesn't apply it to anyone; CE only to those stronger than yourself; LE to those who can make you a profit; CG to your peers and kin; LG to everyone who agrees to follow the rules; and NG to everyone.

So in my world, if the savage tribe had no extradition treaty (i.e. the tribe would never turn over one of their own to face trial in a distant city) then he has no particular obligation to turn the arch-mage over to them. However, if the arch-mage is liable to be a danger to other people, he can certainly investigate or even put the arch-mage on trial in his own land.

If the tribe would reciprocate, then he still has some reasons not to bind the arch-mage over to them for trial. If their system is not fair or likely to produce justice, then he is not obligated to support it. Probably he would seek to resolve the issue in a way that produced fairness and brought the tribe into the "community of nations," i.e. made them rule-followers along with everyone else.

A NG person would actually have more freedom of action. His only requirement is to do right by everyone, and hence what the tribe's rules are (or even what the tribe wants) are largely immaterial. What matters is that justice is done; with that in mind he would certainly bring the arch-mage to trial in whatever court he thought would be fair.

On the other hand, a CG would make the judgement based on whether he identified with the tribe more than with the arch-mage. If the tribe and character are human, and the arch-mage is a goblin... well, looks bad for the arch-mage.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Whatever his characterizations dictate. Lawful good describes patterns of behavior that emphasize respect for legitimate authority, tradition, the idea of the rule of law, etc as well as compassion, charity, mercy, and so on.

Such a character might do any of a fairly broad range of things. He could spring into action to immediately strike the wizard down, already believing his cause is just or he might simply keep an eye on the fellow until some proof of his crime presents itself or he might trhy to drag the wizard back to the village in chains. Alignment alone is not enough to make a reasonable determination of what a character would do, just a range of things he might do.

[hamishspence]

The lawful good character travels thousands of miles and meets the murderer in a civilized city. What does he/she do?

That does raise some questions about what happened after the tribe tried to put him on trial. Did the archmage go through with it and get acquitted, or are they on the run? And does the paladin have a certain obligation to at least try and find out which?

[Andezzar]

A lawful person normally respects legitimate authority. The elders however have no authority over people not of their tribe nor does the paladin have any obligation to the elders (as far as we know). All he has to go on is an unsubstantiated claim that the wizard killed someone of the tribe. I don't see that the paladin would be expected to do anything except maybe watching the wizard to get a better idea about him. If the wizard then committed other crimes, he may be prosecuted for those, but as I see it the paladin has no right to drag the wizard before the elders.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Lawful Good, to me, means that you have a certain moral code that is 'good' under D&D rules, and that you believe it applies, or should apply, to everyone, for a certain value of 'everyone' greater than 'me and my people/faction/species'*. That is, you believe that it's wrong to cast mindrape, and you apply that to almost everyone. The more Lawful you get, the broader your morality applies, to the point where the Inevitables apply the same rules to everyone in the multiverse.

In this case, the LG character has likely judged the murder to have been an Evil act. The character will then want to do something about it, if it is judged significant enough (I think this topic more or less presupposes this is the case). Depending on the specific moral code, it may be unneeded - even wrong - to turn over anyone to a legal system that is not compatible with said moral code (after all, legal systems can be Evil). For example, a follower of a divine justice system with ten billion adherents will most likely dismiss the authority of the village council (in the same area), based on sheer size difference alone. Certain high-level characters, especially those with access to divinations, may feel perfectly justified in judging the archmage on their own. You don't have to respect all - or even most - authorities to be Lawful. The Inevitables, again relevant, respect only one authority, which is their own.

If you do respect the village elder's authority on the matter, it is still rather out of your way to bring in just one murderer, no matter how important. You have to make sure you're not harming LG interests by letting yourself be diverted.


*Which I take to be Neutral, Chaotic ranging from 'me and my buddies' to 'me'.

[Andezzar]

I disagree that where you stand on the lawful-chaotic axis is determined by how broadly you apply your moral code. I think this application has nothing to do with it. A chaotic person can still believe that people should do make up their own minds on what to do instead of following some predetermined code and apply that opinion to everyone, whereas a lawful person can also apply his code to no one but himself.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I disagree that where you stand on the lawful-chaotic axis is determined by how broadly you apply your moral code. I think this application has nothing to do with it.
Chaotic people do not behave randomly; they have norms, preferences, and goals. In other words, they behave according to some 'code', even if it isn't explicit. Living according to certain moral principles cannot be the difference between Lawful and Chaotic, because both can be Good and Evil. The key difference, then, between Chaotic and Lawful, is that the Chaotic person does not care to impose their code on others. That is not an adamant belief that everyone should think and decide for themselves (a more neutral attitude), but a personal belief that it's not your business to judge others. A chaotic person reasons from their own position, decides on their own moral code, and does not extend that beyond themselves. A lawful person reasons from some universal constant - which may turn out to be less than universal - and expects that constant to extend to other people, similar to themselves.


whereas a lawful person can also apply his code to no one but himself.
It's certainly possible for a Lawful person to have a moral code in which they take a special place. A knight does not expect everyone to behave according to their knight's code (which is more specific than their moral code), but they do believe that the knight's code is universally valuable, worthwhile, and should be recognized. In other words, a knight expects other knights to behave knightly. A chaotic person might behave according to the knight's code, because they personally prefer it, but they do not recognize the universal value of the code, and will not expect other knights to behave according to the same code.

[darksolitaire]

The lawful good character travels thousands of miles and meets the murderer in a civilized city. What does he/she do?

He/she does nothing/something/anything or none/all of the former. Maybe he/she will go and have a flavored coffee since it's civilized city. Having LG as your alignment doesn't mean you're under compulsion to act in certain way.

Edit: now, if you're talking about a Paladin, it's a different matter.

[Dr TPK]

Edit: now, if you're talking about a Paladin, it's a different matter.

I'm not. Feel free to omit paladins from the discussion, unless you want to have them as an example.

[Keltest]

Chaotic people do not behave randomly; they have norms, preferences, and goals. In other words, they behave according to some 'code', even if it isn't explicit. Living according to certain moral principles cannot be the difference between Lawful and Chaotic, because both can be Good and Evil. The key difference, then, between Chaotic and Lawful, is that the Chaotic person does not care to impose their code on others. That is not an adamant belief that everyone should think and decide for themselves (a more neutral attitude), but a personal belief that it's not your business to judge others. A chaotic person reasons from their own position, decides on their own moral code, and does not extend that beyond themselves. A lawful person reasons from some universal constant - which may turn out to be less than universal - and expects that constant to extend to other people, similar to themselves.


It's certainly possible for a Lawful person to have a moral code in which they take a special place. A knight does not expect everyone to behave according to their knight's code (which is more specific than their moral code), but they do believe that the knight's code is universally valuable, worthwhile, and should be recognized. In other words, a knight expects other knights to behave knightly. A chaotic person might behave according to the knight's code, because they personally prefer it, but they do not recognize the universal value of the code, and will not expect other knights to behave according to the same code.

Sure, ok, chaotic people follow a pattern of behavior, but its a different pattern of behavior than a lawful person would follow. They believe in personal freedoms, and that you have no obligation to follow any authority unless you choose to do so.

[HammeredWharf]

He/she does nothing/something/anything or none/all of the former. Maybe he/she will go and have a flavored coffee since it's civilized city. Having LG as your alignment doesn't mean you're under compulsion to act in certain way.

This. If the character is very committed to catching criminals, (s)he could investigate the mage and determine whether a punishment is necessary. If it is, the LG character could either give the mage to the villagers or to another organization, if an organization better-suited to judge this case exists. The character is under no obligation to return this mage to the villagers.

If it's a paladin, the "organization better-suited to judge this case" could be this paladin's order.

[Arc_knight25]

Need to watch Harvey Birdman Attorney at Law.

They kind of did an episode of this. Sent back in time via a Jacuzzi. Meet up with cavemen. One cave woman doesn't want to be married to her husband anymore.

Harvey then teaches them the importance of the legal system.

Try to talk to the Village Elder, role some diplomacy see if you can implement a different system, one that is fair to both parties.