PDA

View Full Version : LG and goodie criminals



Castamir
2007-06-22, 07:58 AM
How would a Lawful Good character react to good-aligned criminals? This can happen especially in settings with objective good+evil.

A sample scenario: a thief from the good side steals a horse which belongs to a local evil lord. The lord hasn't done anything wrong to the thief directly -- his evilness comes from being on the "evil" side, perhaps being harsh to peasants, etc. Yet, this can be explained as a good act since the lord will either be unable to move as fast or will have to dismount one of his goons.

Too bad, the thief got caught. In many medieval settings, the laws on Grand Theft Equine are quite clear: murdering a human gets you a trial with a chance to explain yourself, rustling a horse gets you hanged on the nearest dry branch. Now, let's suppose the PC comes when a patrol who caught the thief has the noose on his neck, etc, etc. How does the PC act?

Chaotic Good - of course, he's obliged to beat the bad ugly law enforcers

Lawful Evil - help with the execution

Chaotic Evil - lots of options, starting with just enjoying the show up to killing the patrol, taking the expensive horse and then hanging the thief just for fun

Lawful Good - ???
Saving the thief would be interfering with just law. Not saving him would let evils kill a goodie.


Being someone who always roleplays evil, I kind of fail to see how a LG person would react. Any explanations?

Kurald Galain
2007-06-22, 08:09 AM
Insist the law is unjust, demand a fair hearing and more reasonable punishment (such as imprisonment, paying for the horse plus substantial fee, indenture, something less lethal). Work within the system to get a good outcome.

Dragor
2007-06-22, 08:14 AM
Insist the law is unjust, demand a fair hearing and more reasonable punishment (such as imprisonment, paying for the horse plus substantial fee, indenture, something less lethal). Work within the system to get a good outcome.

I'm seconding this one. Seems reasonable.

But what was the motive for the thief stealing the horse? Personal benefit, or to aid someone else (or use the horse as a means to an end to help someone else)?
If it was for selfish purposes and 'because it was there' (possibly granting the thief more evil points?) may make the LG character more inclined to agree with the Lord, even with his evil-ness.

Tengu
2007-06-22, 08:22 AM
Lawful Good - ???
Saving the thief would be interfering with just law. Not saving him would let evils kill a goodie.


This point of view represents the first common misconception about the lawful alignment. It has nothing to do with following the laws! Being lawful means that you act in an orderly fashion and prefer truth to deceit.

Xuincherguixe
2007-06-22, 08:24 AM
Insist the law is unjust, demand a fair hearing and more reasonable punishment (such as imprisonment, paying for the horse plus substantial fee, indenture, something less lethal). Work within the system to get a good outcome.

And if they just ignore the character? Dismiss the guy as someone who obviously doesn't know what they're talking about. Bla bla bla we have to protect ourselves from lawlessness, only fear of death can maintain order etc etc...

In short, what happens when the system more or less fails. I can't see death to horse rustlers as being a 'Lawful Good' society.


Now that I think about it, I have my answer. Is the character more good, or are they more lawful? A Lawful GOOD character would first try and work the system. If it's a particularly crafty Lawful Good character they would find all sorts of ways to exploit loop holes in the system. In the event it fails? More likely than not they would bust the guy out, and leave behind some means of compensation for the theif's actions and his.

A LAWFUL Good character would do his best, but if it wasn't enough would let them die. It's a tragedy, but he has no place questioning the system in his current standings. Were he of a higher standing, he would do his best to make sure Horse Rustling laws were amended.

Both would be extremely conflicted, and feel that there is no right answer. But each would feel one is more right than the other.

Castamir
2007-06-22, 08:25 AM
The law is set, and the punishment is in line with a lot of other crimes: burning at a stake for heresy, cutting the nose or ears for theft, hanging for poachers in the king's forest, etc, etc. In fact, hanging horse rustlers prevailed in RL for much longer than most other customary corporal punishments, including all of those I listed in the previous sentence.

And because of aggravating circumstances (the person who got stolen from), I don't really see anyone being prone to bending the law just due to a stranger begging.

Tengu
2007-06-22, 08:27 AM
A LAWFUL Good character would do his best, but if it wasn't enough would let them die. It's a tragedy, but he has no place questioning the system in his current standings. Were he of a higher standing, he would do his best to make sure Horse Rustling laws were amended.


I don't think that anyone who lets someone who didn't deserve it die, despite having the power to stop it, deserves to be called good.

squidthingy
2007-06-22, 08:36 AM
As far as laws go for LG's the Law itself has to be good in order to be upheld, if the Law is an evil Law than the LG can break it, literally and figurativly

Xuincherguixe
2007-06-22, 08:41 AM
I don't think that anyone who lets someone who didn't deserve it die, despite having the power to stop it, deserves to be called good.

Well, that's the thing though. This less good character doesn't like it, but he doesn't have the ability to stop him see? Because it is against his morals to interfere that strongly against the system. He did his best to work within it, but it wasn't enough.

Someone who sacrifices their own morality has done worse than let someone die, by the book of exalted deeds. It's a no win situation for the LAWFUL Good character.

Castamir
2007-06-22, 08:44 AM
... someone who didn't deserve it die ...Except, the thief did steal the horse, and the punishment for that by law is death by hanging. Not the harshest punishment, doesn't include being dismembered, burned, tortured, etc -- cruel by our standards but nothing unusual for the setting. It was the custom for example in 17th century Polish "wild east".

The guilt of the thief is not in doubt, and he's about to receive the customary punishment. There's no wiggle room even if you somehow could get the guy to a court -- he was caught red-handed, and if a judge is going to bend the law, it would be in favour of the lord, not the thief.

So if the PC decides to help, it would be freeing a criminal because he did a good act.

Tengu
2007-06-22, 08:47 AM
Well, that's the thing though. This less good character doesn't like it, but he doesn't have the ability to stop him see? Because it is against his morals to interfere that strongly against the system. He did his best to work within it, but it wasn't enough.


Since the character is less good, then isn't it Lawful Neutral? Being neutral does not mean that you're completely selfish and disinterested in anything that does not include you or your friends/family.



Someone who sacrifices their own morality has done worse than let someone die, by the book of exalted deeds. It's a no win situation for the LAWFUL Good character.

Something like that is really written there? Wow... I hope that by sacrificing one's own morality, they mean "take part in a dark ritual, including self-mutilation and sacrifice of innocents and puppies", not "lie, even though I told myself I never will". Because in the second option, it's utter bullcrap.


Except, the thief did steal the horse, and the punishment for that by law is death by hanging. Not the harshest punishment, doesn't include being dismembered, burned, tortured, etc -- cruel by our standards but nothing unusual for the setting. It was the custom for example in 17th century Polish "wild east".


Death might be what a thief deserves by the laws of the land where the situation takes place, but not by objective morality.

barawn
2007-06-22, 08:48 AM
This point of view represents the first common misconception about the lawful alignment. It has nothing to do with following the laws! Being lawful means that you act in an orderly fashion and prefer truth to deceit.

By the SRD, lawful is:


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

and


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.

I highlighted the important part. If there's an evil lord in the area, he's still the lord, and an LG character who recognized his authority would obey those laws.

In this situation, the LG character would plead with those in authority for the thief to face a lesser crime, and then face a nice little ethical dilemma if they didn't.

Tengu
2007-06-22, 08:52 AM
I highlighted the important part. If there's an evil lord in the area, he's still the lord, and an LG character who recognized his authority would obey those laws.


Accent on recognized. A lawful good character, after seeing that the laws are cruel and too harsh, would not recognize the authority of the one who set them anymore.

Xuincherguixe
2007-06-22, 09:03 AM
Something like that is really written there? Wow... I hope that by sacrificing one's own morality, they mean "take part in a dark ritual, including self-mutilation and sacrifice of innocents and puppies", not "lie, even though I told myself I never will". Because in the second option, it's utter bullcrap.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I've got to agree with you on this one actually. And however it was originally intended, I would not play a game like that. I'd probably even let 'for the greater good' stretch a fair amount.

Looking back on things, I think you're probably right about this. What it ultimately comes down to amounts to, "Is this law just?" If it's with regular D&D morality then it's a set part of the universe regardless of if it makes sense or not.

Alignment is actually fuzzy. Not every Lawful Good character is as Lawful, or as Good as the next.

Still, short of arbitrarily declaring a law that horse theft being punishable by death is just? It's probably unjust. No. If the Universe declares it unjust, the universe is wrong. Please feel free to make a character who goes against it, and has to suffer alignment penalties despite being right.


I think my assessment is mostly right, but probably the second character is going to be more Neutral than Good in this case. Of course if he believes the Law is just... well then there isn't a problem. He just isn't going to help the horse thief. Messed up thing is he might still be good.

Tengu
2007-06-22, 09:06 AM
It helps to treat alignment more as rough guidelines than set rules.

Xuincherguixe
2007-06-22, 09:09 AM
Amen to that!

The game is painful when everything is set in stone.

Does make discussion harder though.

barawn
2007-06-22, 09:10 AM
Accent on recognized. A lawful good character, after seeing that the laws are cruel and too harsh, would not recognize the authority of the one who set them anymore.

Well, that's presumptuous on the situation and the person. The evil lord could be appointed by a LN king who the LG character is strongly allied with. The LG character might not even be aware of the cruelness of the laws. He could also be being lied to, as well. If this situation exists, there's some chicanery going on. I agree an LG character wouldn't serve an evil lord if he recognized what was going on. He wouldn't choose between them. He'd just leave.

Ignoring all of that in any case:

The question still is "what would the LG person do?" - the interesting question is "assume they recognize that the law is unjust, that the thief broke the law, but the lord is evil (and he's just realizing this), but are forced to make a decision. What does he do?" I don't think there is an easy answer to that. It's a moral dilemma - which does he stick with, his oath, or his beliefs?

It depends on the person. I don't think all LG characters would go one way or the other.

Tengu
2007-06-22, 09:14 AM
Oath? Since when you need to take such a thing to be LG?

I think that, while many LG characters would behave differently in this situation, those who let the thief die would be questionable in their goodness at best, and lawful neutral or evil but played by a DM/player with lots if misconceptions about alignments at worst.

Ditto
2007-06-22, 10:09 AM
The theif broke the law. It doesn't matter whose horse it was, he should be hanged. Being LG does not in any way preclude such a strict law - it's the same as in one of Robert Heinlein's stories about a colony on the moon. People steal stuff and cheat each other, sure - but you don't touch another man's pressure suit. Instant sentence: Out the airlock. It's the same sort of thing... horses in the wild west (or perhaps in this D&D town, it seems) are sacred. Leave well enough alone! Stealing the horse was not an evil act; good people can be criminals, too; the owner of the horse doesn't matter.

If that law bothers you, oh well. Work to change it. That doesn't change the fact that he broke the law, and should be punished under the law that he broke.

Space 'im.

barawn
2007-06-22, 10:19 AM
Oath? Since when you need to take such a thing to be LG?

You don't. But if you're in a position to mete out justice in a society, you probably have.

Maglor_Grubb
2007-06-22, 10:24 AM
This lawful good guy is not a time-traveller from our time. He is a person favoring order and tradition and someone did a horrible crime and he will get the punishment he was raised to belief is good for that, a punishment the thousants of earlier horse-thiefs also got. Furthermore, he is good through order: he does not look at the individual case, but the system. Is it good to punish horse thiefs? Yes, or everyone would steal horsies. Making exceptions based on the circumstances is chaotic.

I agree that lawfulness is not mindlessly following laws, but rather having an orderly character, favouring tradition, consistency, systems and conforming, but such a character had a youth and was raised with certain beliefs, reflected in the laws. Therefore, even though a lawful character has nothing to do with the law, it will follow the laws of his birthplace.

Allthough good and evil are objective in D&D, good and evil character do not live in a vacuüm. Order and chaos will dictate how the beliefs surrounding them influenced them and their conception of good.

Fixer
2007-06-22, 10:24 AM
If the LG is a paladin they are in more serious straits but ultimately it comes down to the same thing.

1) Is the lord an opponent of the LG character? If so, any act of defiance not violating their alignment is not chaotic, it is either resistance or an attack against the lord.
2) Is the thief an ally of the LG character? If so, they have a moral obligation to try to save the life of their companion, even if they got themselves into a silly mess.
3) Does the LG character believe the law is just? If so, they might want to reconsider their alignment choice to LN as death for a horse would only be balanced if lives depended on possessing horses.

A paladin must be good, but the lawful they can break for a VERY good reason. Any other character can behave chaotic or even evil in single instances if it is their character's personality. (Like a LG fighter whose friend is murdered by a group hunting down and killing every member of that group without giving quarter (especially if it is asked for). Definitely not LG, but as a single instance not enough for an alignment change.)

Castamir
2007-06-22, 10:38 AM
I think that, while many LG characters would behave differently in this situation, those who let the thief die would be questionable in their goodness at best, and lawful neutral or evil but played by a DM/player with lots if misconceptions about alignments at worst.
Er, what? Now that's totally wrong. Had I been your DM, even just voicing such strong an opinion would be a stone towards alignment shift if your character was of any lawful alignment.

My question was whether the LG person would be allowed to beat the guards at all. After all, the crook did the crime, there are no doubts about the law (it's the law of the land since forever, not a new whim of someone), and the only reason for considering helping the thief is that he's on the "good" side and the law enforcers on the "evil" one.

And if your problem lies in the law being harsh, then well, that's what punishments in medieval times looked like. Even now, stealing a car won't get you detained for 48 and then released. It's not a petty theft which would in the past result in getting branded on the face, cutting of a hand or at the very least being tied to the pillory and pelted with refuse.

Kioran
2007-06-22, 10:54 AM
Er, what? Now that's totally wrong. Had I been your DM, even just voicing such strong an opinion would be a stone towards alignment shift if your character was of any lawful alignment.

My question was whether the LG person would be allowed to beat the guards at all. After all, the crook did the crime, there are no doubts about the law (it's the law of the land since forever, not a new whim of someone), and the only reason for considering helping the thief is that he's on the "good" side and the law enforcers on the "evil" one.

And if your problem lies in the law being harsh, then well, that's what punishments in medieval times looked like. Even now, stealing a car won't get you detained for 48 and then released. It's not a petty theft which would in the past result in getting branded on the face, cutting of a hand or at the very least being tied to the pillory and pelted with refuse.

Besides, attacking ther guards, especially if they are not Evil but maybe N or LN could easily escalate into an evil act in of itself if they guards come to serious harm.

I donīt quite get why so many people fail to see Patrols or Guardsman as human beings.......

A LG character would likely do a lot of nonviolent things that might save the offender, like pleading or negotiating on the thieves behalf, maybe even bribing someone(depends on the degree of Lawful though), but would probably let the thieve hang before the situation escalates into slaughter.

Fixer
2007-06-22, 11:22 AM
LG does not mean pacifist.

If a LG character believed that the death of this thief was not appropriate to the crime they would take actions necessary to prevent the death of the thief but not simply excuse them from the crime. If guards tried to prevent the LG from freeing the thief, the LG would try to use non-lethal methods to persuade them otherwise, but if attacked would defend using equally dangerous means.

LG walks up, asks guards what's going on, and is apprised of the situation.
LG insists the judgement is unfair and asks if the thief can make other reparations.
Guards say no, just doing their job.
LG insists that the thief be released.
Guards say no again.
LG begins to take actions to release the thief.
Guards try to prevent LG from succeeding, using methods depending on their own alignments. (LN, possibly weapons. Evil, weapons. Chaotic, probably do not care and join said thief unless under fear of life. LG, TN or NG, probably fisticuffs unless the LG draws a weapon first.)

Telonius
2007-06-22, 11:27 AM
To the OP: It depends on the character. The character's decisions determine the character's alignment, not vice versa.

I suspect that a hypothetical "epitome of LG" character might blame the crime on the failure of the legitimate king to properly look after his peasants. The crime is lamentable, the punishment is severe; but the peasant knew the laws. If a king forces his peasants into a situation where they have to choose between breaking the law and starving to death, he's not acting chaotically, he's acting evilly. First option would be to try to convince the king that he's in the wrong (working within the system, as said before). If it comes down to it, the character would have to choose which is more important: upholding the law (king's word goes), or upholding the good (being kind to the peasants). If a character genuinely tries to balance the two at first, I wouldn't say it would call for an alignment shift.

Now if the law is truly some obviously unjust thing, then the king might actually be a tyrant. Some codes of ethics hold that a king is right no matter what. Others say that if the laws are harmful or nonsensical, or if the king violates some divine edict, the king is a tyrant and shouldn't be obeyed. That depends on your setting's customs, and the severity of the issue involved. "Anyone wearing pants on their head will be burned at the stake," might be a cruel and unjust law, but it's probably not worth staging a revolution over.

Tengu
2007-06-22, 12:30 PM
LG walks up, asks guards what's going on, and is apprised of the situation.
LG insists the judgement is unfair and asks if the thief can make other reparations.
Guards say no, just doing their job.
LG insists that the thief be released.
Guards say no again.
LG begins to take actions to release the thief.
Guards try to prevent LG from succeeding, using methods depending on their own alignments. (LN, possibly weapons. Evil, weapons. Chaotic, probably do not care and join said thief unless under fear of life. LG, TN or NG, probably fisticuffs unless the LG draws a weapon first.)

I agree with this course of action. Also, the LG character, knowing that the guards are probably only doing their job, would refrain from using lethal means of stopping them.



And if your problem lies in the law being harsh, then well, that's what punishments in medieval times looked like. Even now, stealing a car won't get you detained for 48 and then released. It's not a petty theft which would in the past result in getting branded on the face, cutting of a hand or at the very least being tied to the pillory and pelted with refuse.

Medieval laws were cruel. Cruelty, or permission for cruelty, is not the part of LG-ism.

Human Paragon 3
2007-06-22, 12:42 PM
I agree with this course of action. Also, the LG character, knowing that the guards are probably only doing their job, would refrain from using lethal means of stopping them.



Medieval laws were cruel. Cruelty, or permission for cruelty, is not the part of LG-ism.

OK, Let's say your Lawful Good but you are in today's world. As a Good person in the modern world, lets say you are against the death penalty for any reason. Now, you hear that somebody on the news has been sentanced to death. I think it highly unlikely that you will attempt a prison break weather you're Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, or Chaotic Stupid.

Let's face it: a Lawful character will not slaughter the gaurds to save the thief (some of them will die in D&D combat no matter how careful you are).

Cubey
2007-06-22, 12:44 PM
LG would do the same thing as CG, only in a more orderly, thought-of way.

Is it time for me to point at my signature? Remember, it's from wizards, so it's official! (as inconsistent they can be)

Tengu
2007-06-22, 12:47 PM
OK, Let's say your Lawful Good but you are in today's world. As a Good person in the modern world, lets say you are against the death penalty for any reason. Now, you hear that somebody on the news has been sentanced to death. I think it highly unlikely that you will attempt a prison break weather you're Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, or Chaotic Stupid.

We're not talking any death penalty here. We're talking death for stealing a horse, and a law set by an evil lord. Only the most horrible deeds, like murder, rape, torture, should be punishable by death.



Let's face it: a Lawful character will not slaughter the gaurds to save the thief (some of them will die in D&D combat no matter how careful you are).

Show me where I am talking about slaughtering and I'll give you candy. I even stated that he shouldn't use lethal means. Dealing non-lethal damage, sundering their weapons, stunning them in some way... "no matter how careful you are" is an overstatement.

PMDM
2007-06-22, 12:55 PM
The lawful characters would always try to uphold what they think is a just law. Losing your head for jay walking would not be considered a just law by a lawfuly good character, becuase it's too strict. If that was the case, the LG character would try as hard as they could to lower the penalty. Running from the law is a last resort, and that might not even happen, if the LG is more law than good.

The Chaotic character would definatly protect the offender simular to robin hood, or the german civilians in "The Hiding Place", where the civilians created hiding spaces for jewish escapees during the 1940.

Note: I only brought it up as an example. Don't spiral the thread off topic.

Brother_Franklin
2007-06-22, 01:00 PM
Well I'm assuming I have no title with which to legitamatly challange the nobel directly. In such a case, I will record the event scrupiously and use it to insight the passions of someone who does have such an authority. Ideally, I'd find a competing good nobel, and insight a civil war. Maybe I can earn some rank during this action and have more ability to shutdown unjust and immoral nobels in the future.

Obviously. (Just kidding there are many ways to play any Alignment.)

barawn
2007-06-22, 01:02 PM
Losing your head for jay walking would not be considered a just law by a lawfuly good character, becuase it's too strict.

I really disagree there. That sets up an objective "fair/unfair" system, which doesn't exist. It's not even objective good/evil - it's "what is a fair punishment for this crime?" which is entirely outside all of the alignments.

A good character reveres life, yes, and so he wouldn't like to see someone killed by any law. But if he believes the law exists for a good reason (and someone with enough Bluff/Diplomacy could do that) then they could easily still consider it a just law.

Tengu
2007-06-22, 01:10 PM
I really disagree there. That sets up an objective "fair/unfair" system, which doesn't exist. It's not even objective good/evil - it's "what is a fair punishment for this crime?" which is entirely outside all of the alignments.


I disagree. You can ALWAYS objectively judge whether a deed is fair or unfair, no matter the cultural background, time, et cetera. It just requires a lot of time in some cases, and you need to analyze each case separately instead of using a set of rules - so it's more chaotic than lawful.

And a fair punishment for a crime is both good and lawful.

barawn
2007-06-22, 01:41 PM
I disagree. You can ALWAYS objectively judge whether a deed is fair or unfair, no matter the cultural background, time, et cetera.

How?

I have no idea what you're talking about. How can you possibly judge whether a punishment fits the crime, objectively? We can't do that today, much less in medieval time.

Tengu
2007-06-22, 02:04 PM
How?

I have no idea what you're talking about. How can you possibly judge whether a punishment fits the crime, objectively? We can't do that today, much less in medieval time.

It's not a matter of "we", it's a matter of "me". It requires a very wise and far-sighted individual, and those are, of course, rare.

Tallis
2007-06-22, 02:09 PM
The problem I see in this thread (and run into in games all the time) is that we all have a natural tendency to apply our modern morality and ethics to the situation. Many D&D worlds try to approximate medievil times. In those times the laws were harsh, because life was harsh. Losing your horse or your cow really could result in starving to death. Slavery was acceptable in most parts of the world. A lot, if not most, people believed that king was king because God said so, therefor he was always right.
In that world executing someone for stealing a horse was reasonable. Would it be okay today? Of course not, but it wouldn't have such a big impact on our modern lives either.
The question isn't about the law, it's about how far the LG character should go to save a thief that just happens to be on his side from the victim who just happens to be on the other side.
I think the reason for the theft is a big issue here. was he stealing the horse for personal gain? He should hang, it's regrettable, but he brought it on himself. If he did it as part of a plan to help someone else or to further the cause of good, then try to save him. Offer to pay for the horse or some other reperations. If that doesn't work try to knock the guards out and free him.
Of course if the thief is a friend then you probably want to free him regardless. You might consider punishing him yourself in some way, since he just made you an outlaw.

barawn
2007-06-22, 02:09 PM
It's not a matter of "we", it's a matter of "me". It requires a very wise and far-sighted individual, and those are, of course, rare.

Um. You do realize that makes it a subjective definition, not an objective definition. Which means it really doesn't apply here.

Vespe Ratavo
2007-06-22, 02:14 PM
Lawful doesn't mean you have to go with unjust laws. Personally, I think (s)he would try to legally get the patrol to stop, then bust the thief out. Personally, I think if you're LG you're more Good than Lawful. If you're more Lawful than Good, you're Lawful Neutral. That's what I think anyway.

PMDM
2007-06-22, 02:24 PM
Right, so it's subjective. Whether the LG character thinks the law is just is the only point that really matters to his shoulder angels, fiends, modrons, and slaads.

Tengu
2007-06-22, 02:25 PM
The life in medieval times was cruel, yes. So is the life in many fantasy settings.

But cruelty is, as I said, not part of a good point of view on the world. Good characters will be against overly cruel or harsh laws (against overly meek ones too, if they're wise).

barawn
2007-06-22, 03:13 PM
The life in medieval times was cruel, yes. So is the life in many fantasy settings.

But cruelty is, as I said, not part of a good point of view on the world. Good characters will be against overly cruel or harsh laws (against overly meek ones too, if they're wise).

A thousand years from now, they'll view things we do right now as cruel. They didn't view those things as cruel then. It was a just punishment for the crime.

You're judging cruel, harsh, meek, etc. laws by today's standards. There are no objective ways to mete out a fair punishment. Theft, for instance: what's a fair punishment? Returning the good? What about the cost/grief to the owner who was stolen from? The costs to society for having to track him down?

If an LE lord convinced the people (Bluff/Diplomacy are wonderful skills) that death was the only way to compensate for those costs, why wouldn't an LG character go along with it? The LE lord would've made a good case for it. And if he hadn't, then the LG character probably would've left (or at least, left his job giving out judgement).

Diggorian
2007-06-22, 03:35 PM
For one, I dont believe alignment is a attitudinal/behavioral straightjacket. LG doesnt stop a character from doing anything, it's a general description of their moral/ethical standpoint that can shift with their actions.

That said, in this hypothectical it seems a LG can advocate for the thief in an orderly way or let them be executed without shifting alignment.

PHB description of good speaks about protecting "innocent" life, which the thief aint. It also speaks of respect for life, which killing/beating/subverting obediant guards doesnt serve. If he can talk to the thief and get the impression that he's good at heart, the LG can plead before the authority to allow him to redeem the criminal through good acts, maybe take him as a paige. This speaks to personal sacrifice.

If he cant appeal the sentence, the last thing a LG could do is pray on behalf of the thief that he receive mercy in the next life.

Tallis
2007-06-22, 03:41 PM
Sounds to me like the laws in this world are based on real world medievil laws. It's not that the Evil Lord inflicts cruel unjust laws on his innocent subjects. These are the normal rules of society, the lord just happens to be evil as well. If I steal a farmer's cows and he dies because he can no longer feed his family or adequately til his fields would hanging be an unjust punishment? What if I steal a knights horse and he dies in battle because he was forced to fight on foot and lost his tactical advantage?
Don't underestimate the severity of stealing an animal in a medievil world.

barawn
2007-06-22, 03:49 PM
Lots of stuff

Well stated. It's also important to note if it happens once, it's not going to make an LG judge up and revolt against the LE lord. If it happens a lot, it might make him rethink his allegiance to the lord.

Counterpower
2007-06-22, 03:50 PM
A thousand years from now, they'll view things we do right now as cruel. They didn't view those things as cruel then. It was a just punishment for the crime.

You're judging cruel, harsh, meek, etc. laws by today's standards. There are no objective ways to mete out a fair punishment. Theft, for instance: what's a fair punishment? Returning the good? What about the cost/grief to the owner who was stolen from? The costs to society for having to track him down?

If an LE lord convinced the people (Bluff/Diplomacy are wonderful skills) that death was the only way to compensate for those costs, why wouldn't an LG character go along with it? The LE lord would've made a good case for it. And if he hadn't, then the LG character probably would've left (or at least, left his job giving out judgement).

Because the LG character does have a fully objective standard of comparison. It's true that we can only subjectively judge cruelty, but... in a world where there are gods to serve as the absolute judges, there is such a thing as absolute morality. The Book of Exalted Deeds:

Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil.
Those are extreme examples, but the message still applies: evil acts are evil acts, regardless of the need for punishment. Even if society accepts killing for stealing 2 coppers' worth of goods, that doesn't make it just punishment. It's still disproportionate to the crime.

About LG following the law: they do not have to. I quote Martin Luther King Jr. now:

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
Just because you break the law doesn't mean you can't be Lawful.

Talya
2007-06-22, 03:53 PM
This point of view represents the first common misconception about the lawful alignment. It has nothing to do with following the laws! Being lawful means that you act in an orderly fashion and prefer truth to deceit.


Even the truth thing is stretching it, although it's usually true. Devils are lawful, remember, and deceit is a specialty of theirs.


Lawfulness means you follow a code of conduct, be it a personal one, an external one, or the laws of the land...even in situations where it is not beneficial to you. It is, as you say, a tendency to order and rules over chaos and whim.

Diggorian
2007-06-22, 04:04 PM
Well stated. It's also important to note if it happens once, it's not going to make an LG judge up and revolt against the LE lord. If it happens a lot, it might make him rethink his allegiance to the lord.

Thanks. I've faced something similar before.

Played a paladin that served a LE king, whom didnt register as evil (magic item). When he killed a party member for failing a mission I smote him to death.

Figured it was worth shifting to NG , turned out he was funding a cult to a LE god to change the historically LG kingdom, so I didnt have to.

barawn
2007-06-22, 04:10 PM
Those are extreme examples, but the message still applies: evil acts are evil acts, regardless of the need for punishment. Even if society accepts killing for stealing 2 coppers' worth of goods, that doesn't make it just punishment. It's still disproportionate to the crime.

Virtually all punishments are evil. That doesn't change the fact that they can be just punishment. It depends what the society considers equal value for the crime. Imprisonment is torture, maybe even slavery. Putting someone in the stocks is definitely torture and discrimination. Murder is definitely evil.

You're even making the same mistake in your quote above: you're suggesting that society accepting killing for stealing 2 coppers' worth of goods isn't just because it's disproportionate - note that you didn't say "evil", or "wrong" - you said "disproportionate" - implying there would be a crime for which killing would be acceptable. And there is no objective measuring stick for those judgments.

Even in a world with gods, it doesn't change things - unless the god himself decrees a punishment system, equivalence is left up to the people to decide.

Jorkens
2007-06-22, 04:16 PM
How would a Lawful Good character react to good-aligned criminals? This can happen especially in settings with objective good+evil.

A sample scenario: a thief from the good side steals a horse which belongs to a local evil lord. The lord hasn't done anything wrong to the thief directly -- his evilness comes from being on the "evil" side, perhaps being harsh to peasants, etc. Yet, this can be explained as a good act since the lord will either be unable to move as fast or will have to dismount one of his goons.

It's not really relevant, but I don't think 'objective' good and evil is the word you're looking for. Objective just means that you have definitions of good and evil such that any two people can look at the definitions and look at a given act and agree whether it's good or evil. Which RAW D&D always has (in theory at least) in the form of the definitions of alignments. Having well defined 'good' and 'evil' sides is something else, I think...

Jayabalard
2007-06-22, 04:49 PM
Virtually all punishments are evil. That doesn't change the fact that they can be just punishment. It depends what the society considers equal value for the crime. Imprisonment is torture, maybe even slavery. Putting someone in the stocks is definitely torture and discrimination. Murder is definitely evil.Torture is inflicting mental or physical pain on someone; imprisoning someone is not torture. Imprisoning someone is just a slightly more regimented form of shunning.

Putting someone in stocks may or may not be torture, depending on the person and the actual conditions, and even if it is in fact torture, whether it's evil or not is debatable.

Murder is unlawful killing. Executing someone is lawful killing, executing a prisoner isn't murder. While I'm sure you can get pretty much everyone to agree that murder is evil, I'm not so sure that you can get a majority of people to agree that killing in general is evil. There are certainly different levels ranging from whether it's planned out and malicious killing, to intentional killing someone in self defense, to accidental killing. Execution has more in common with killing someone in self defense than it does with murder.

Jayabalard
2007-06-22, 04:54 PM
Even the truth thing is stretching it, although it's usually true. Devils are lawful, remember, and deceit is a specialty of theirs.Deciet doesn't necessarily have anything to do telling the truth or not. two of the most "artistic ways to lie" involve being truthful:
-Tell partial truths, nothing false, but leave out enough so that others will draw the wrong conclusion
-Tell the complete truth, and only the truth, but tell it so unconvincingly that your audience is sure that you are lying.

Deceitful? certainly. But you're still telling the truth.

barawn
2007-06-22, 05:01 PM
Torture is inflicting mental or physical pain on someone; imprisoning someone is not torture. Imprisoning someone is just a slightly more regimented form of shunning.

I'm trying to figure out how you can possibly reconcile those two statements. I think it's safe to assume that a generic person does not want to be locked up in a cell, and depending on the conditions, subject to poor hygiene, poor food, and preventing human contact. That qualifies as "mental and physical pain." I doubt you could walk into any prison nowadays (a far cry from then) and the prisoners would tell you that they're happy and cheery.


and even if it is in fact torture, whether it's evil or not is debatable.

and


Murder is unlawful killing. Executing someone is lawful killing, executing a prisoner isn't murder.

The previous statement that was made was that torture, slavery, and discrimination are evil, regardless of "whether or not society views it as acceptable." That latter phrase is a nice summary of "legal." What you're essentially saying is "legal evil isn't evil."

You're just redefining words, in some sense: saying "well, it's not torture, because it's legal" would make the statement "torture is evil, regardless of whether or not it's legal" wrong.

Punishment in any society is balancing an evil act with the illegal act. It's a question of how severe the society wants the punishment to be.

PaladinBoy
2007-06-22, 05:53 PM
I'm trying to figure out how you can possibly reconcile those two statements. I think it's safe to assume that a generic person does not want to be locked up in a cell, and depending on the conditions, subject to poor hygiene, poor food, and preventing human contact. That qualifies as "mental and physical pain." I doubt you could walk into any prison nowadays (a far cry from then) and the prisoners would tell you that they're happy and cheery.

In a sense you are correct, but I would define torture as intentionally inflicting as much mental and physical pain on a prisoner as you possibly can, whereas imprisonment is simply locking them in a cell and giving them food and water every so often. The definitions are not necessarily functionally equivalent then. I'll grant that imprisonment can be quite painful and demeaning, but that depends on the individual prison more than the nature of imprisonment itself. However, though, most D+D jails almost certainly fall toward the painful and demeaning part. That does not mean that they all do, though.


The previous statement that was made was that torture, slavery, and discrimination are evil, regardless of "whether or not society views it as acceptable." That latter phrase is a nice summary of "legal." What you're essentially saying is "legal evil isn't evil."

You're just redefining words, in some sense: saying "well, it's not torture, because it's legal" would make the statement "torture is evil, regardless of whether or not it's legal" wrong.

Punishment in any society is balancing an evil act with the illegal act. It's a question of how severe the society wants the punishment to be.

You have a point, I suppose. Punishment for crimes by its very nature is morally questionable, because the whole idea is to essentially take revenge on the criminal on society's behalf. This is why I prefer the idea of discipline to the idea of punishment. Of course, not many D+D societies care about rehabilitating criminals, so the idea of discipline is probably a little uncommon.

Still, I think that discipline can be good. I can see an LG character, when confronted with any criminal, advocate disciplinary action as opposed to pure punishment. If that failed, then his next actions would depend on the severity of both the crime and the intended (or ongoing) punishment. In the example given by the OP, I think an LG character would try to get the sentence reduced, and if that failed, then he would probably try to subdue the guards to get more time so he could appeal to higher authority. He'd just keep going up the chain of command until he ran out of superiors to go to or until he found someone who listened. If he had any authority or standing in the nation, then he'd try to get the matter transferred to his jurisdiction so he could rule on it.

Roupe
2007-06-22, 05:56 PM
Played a paladin that served a LE king, whom didnt register as evil (magic item). When he killed a party member for failing a mission I smote him to death.

Figured it was worth shifting to NG , turned out he was funding a cult to a LE god to change the historically LG kingdom, so I didnt have to.

1 breach against the alignment (often) doesnt cause a alignment change, Do it twice and you should have switched to NG. unless you could argue for your lawfull alignment.

if you killed a Evil tyrant of a country, if that sole deed caused the country to fall into anarchy (possibly dragging down neighburing countries) & would cause a great suffering, Lawfull Gods would be motivated to punish you for your chaotic act.

Lawful alignment is seperated from good after all, and acts that are good doesnt have to be just ->or (more common perhaps) acts of lawful not nescesserlly good.

Regarding the "unjust" law.
IF the GM, not historian, (and thus the countrys NPC populations assesment) considers the horsethief hanging an injust action of law
->then the Lawful Good would be compeld by both his alignments to act against the execution.

If not ->then the lawfull good would only be compeld by only his good alignment. His Lawfull alignment could see no need to act against the law. Since the alignment are now advising against each other its a more intresting example

One could add more motivation for the lawful alignment to act,
for example that the theif is a friend, the country is an enemy state, etc...

but that would clear the example and not reveal the paradox a Lawful Good character can face.

Counterpower
2007-06-22, 06:15 PM
Virtually all punishments are evil. That doesn't change the fact that they can be just punishment. It depends what the society considers equal value for the crime. Imprisonment is torture, maybe even slavery. Putting someone in the stocks is definitely torture and discrimination. Murder is definitely evil.

If you're referring to the death penalty with that last statement, that's a debate we aren't going into. All I'll say that murder is not the same as the death penalty. And.......... punishment doesn't have to be evil. Is it Evil for the gods to justly condemn an evildoer to the Lower Planes? Yet that's a form of punishment. It is not evil to provide just punishment to a criminal. Such an act serves many different goals (which I will discuss later) that are far from Evil.


You're even making the same mistake in your quote above: you're suggesting that society accepting killing for stealing 2 coppers' worth of goods isn't just because it's disproportionate - note that you didn't say "evil", or "wrong" - you said "disproportionate" - implying there would be a crime for which killing would be acceptable. And there is no objective measuring stick for those judgments.

Even in a world with gods, it doesn't change things - unless the god himself decrees a punishment system, equivalence is left up to the people to decide.

Okay. First: it's wrong BECAUSE it's disproportionate. That was just the language I learned to use in my criminal law class. Disproportionate punishment is not allowed in our world by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (for those of us who live in the States) and incorrect in D&D due to the moral problems with such actions, and the moral code enforced by the gods. I was defining the problem with that punishment more accurately than simply saying "wrong." Whether there is a crime for which killing is acceptable is determined by the DM of each game who sets the appropriate Good actions. And whether there are gods or not IS relevant, since who's to say that the equivalence set down in real life is morally Good? In D&D, there is an absolute judge of such actions, even if said entities aren't proactive.

More details about punishment: in our world, punishment serves multiple goals. We do not throw offenders in jail and indeed kill some of them solely for revenge. Sure, retribution or the attempt to give the criminal his just desserts is one goal. Another is incapacitation. Simply put, that's the imprisonment of a criminal to prevent misbehavior in the immediate future. Another is deterrence. That is the effort to ensure that criminals don't commit crimes on a more long-term scale. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. General is aimed at all criminals. A good example is making punishments public, to tell other hopeful criminals "you shouldn't do that, because this is what'll happen if you do." Specific is aimed at, well, specific criminals. Rehabilitation of a criminal in prison is specific deterrence.

Basically, there is a world of difference between a criminal who kidnaps a person out of their home for ransom money and the police who arrest that criminal out of his house to prevent him doing that again, and it's incorrect to call both actions Evil. Intent matters.

Castamir
2007-06-22, 06:17 PM
I don't think 'objective' good and evil is the word you're looking for. Objective just means that you have definitions of good and evil such that any two people can look at the definitions and look at a given act and agree whether it's good or evil. Which RAW D&D always has (in theory at least) in the form of the definitions of alignments. Having well defined 'good' and 'evil' sides is something else, I think...
In the Real Life we do not have objective good and evil (even though many religions claim otherwise). This changes if you have an absolute alignment scale and "Detect Evil/Detect Good" spells.

So you can have well defined 'good' and 'evil' sides for example by:
1. spells of DE/DG (ie, the fixed align scale)
Here the issue is an otherwise 'evil' law enforcer doing his legal duty against a 'good' criminal. The law wasn't enacted by the enforcer, and he would probably do the same thing were he 'good'.
2. without resorting to magic, let's suppose your land was invaded X years ago. The war is over, the land is administrated by the foes, and no combat happened for a long time. There is no objective good/evil anymore, yet from the PC's point of view we have a strongly "evil" officer (ie, an enemy) enforcing a law that's common to both nations, and a strongly "good" (ie, your countryman) criminal.

In both cases, both for the evil lord who harasses peasants and the enemy officer, we have the good/evil designations come from the outside. Ie, not related to the crime.

Thus, we got:
* the "evil" mark which came from outside (alignment in case 1, allegiance in case 2)
* a crime which is not in doubt
* a perpetrator who's on the PC's 'side' (alignment/allegiance-wise), and a despised victim of the crime

Vyker
2007-06-22, 06:17 PM
To the OP:

I can easily imagine a Lawful Good character stumbling upon the "Guards hanging a horse-thief" and reacting in a variety of ways. I'll toss out a few reasons why he might not interfere, though, since there's been plenty of folks who have argued for the other side.

So, here we go!

He may walk right on by. The guards are hanging someone. He might easily presume that justice is being served by the lawful authorities. It is not necessarily the job of every lawful good character to second-guess every single decision made by the authorities.

He may inquire and be informed that the guards are hanging a horse thief. If hanging horse thieves is the standard punishment for horse rustling, then there's a fair likelyhood that he'll nod and carry on. After all, it's business as normal.

He may inquire, be informed, and (if particularly religious and/or moral) ask that the guards hold a moment while he lectures the criminal.

He may -- may -- choose to interfere. However, for him to want to interfere requires a few pieces of information which he may not have in the first place.

The first is that the thief has a "heart of gold." If the lawful good passerby has never known this thief before this very moment, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the thief is somehow a bad person. After all, the thief is, well, a thief. A criminal. Why would the character somehow jump to the conclusion that a criminal is good?

The second is that the local lord is evil, and that the Lawful Good character knows it. And this may not even matter. If the local lord is really evil, like, "I eat babies for dinner and randomly let daemons massacre peasants at my baby-eating banquets" then the lawful good character is probably already on the warpath, and the question is moot. But if the local lord is only slightly evil, an evil that is unpleasant but someone who you can do business with, then the situation could be very different indeed. After all, the lawful good character may grit his teeth and recognize that open revolt could very well be worse than simply tolerating the lawfully appointed (though morally unpleasant) lord of the region. And, as mentioned earlier, the character might not even know.

The third is whether hanging horse rustlers is lawful or not. If the character doesn't know, he might assume that it is, or inquire (and be told that it is). If he assumes that it isn't, when there's guards available to tell him otherwise, then I'd fault the character (read: player) for not bothering to see how the world stacks up with his preconceived notions, but that wouldn't change the character's decision to interfere. It would be a very strange lawful good character who would attack guards without good, verifiable reason.

Overall, I've (admittedly) tried to play up reasons why a lawful good character would ignore or support the guards over the thief. Part of this is because so few people have (Ditto, great Heinlein reference -- and you're absolutely correct in your assessment, too). But part of it is because it would be wrong to only punish evil people and not punish good people even if the commit the exact same crime. In other words, why does a good person deserve special exemption from the law?

This is not to say that a lawful good character is required to let the hanging proceed. It is simply to say that most lawful good people will not interfere most of the time, and will require additional information, reason, or justification to encourage them to murder guards who are just doing their job by following lawful regulations in the punishment of a guilty criminal.

And, on that matter, a lot of the reasons folks are insisting on interfering stems from the meta-game knowledge that "the character wouldn't encounter the hanging unless he was expected to react to it." I'd like to demonstrate the fallacy of this belief by the following:

Everyone who insisted on the character interefering, violently if necessary, ask yourself this question: How often, upon seeing a cop pull someone over on the side of the road, have you leapt out of your car and begun interrogating both cop and driver as to whether or not any of this is legal and right? How often have you decided that the driver was criminally wrong but morally an okay guy, drawn steel, and run the cop through? How often have you let whomever is the local sheriff, chief of police, mayor, governor, president, or Grand High Poomba alter that decision?

I'd be surprised if anyone has. I suspect that most folks, whether lawful good or chaotic evil, would simply drive right on by. Business as normal and I'm too busy to be bothered and all that.

Tengu
2007-06-22, 06:52 PM
In the Real Life we do not have objective good and evil (even though many religions claim otherwise).

In terms of individuals, or actions? I'm an atheist, but I believe in objective morality.

Though it's probably a topic for another thread, and here I've given my voice already.

Tallis
2007-06-22, 06:57 PM
If the lawful good passerby has never known this thief before this very moment, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the thief is somehow a bad person. After all, the thief is, well, a thief. A criminal. Why would the character somehow jump to the conclusion that a criminal is good?
*snip*
This is not to say that a lawful good character is required to let the hanging proceed. It is simply to say that most lawful good people will not interfere most of the time, and will require additional information, reason, or justification to encourage them to murder guards who are just doing their job by following lawful regulations in the punishment of a guilty criminal.
*snip*
Everyone who insisted on the character interefering, violently if necessary, ask yourself this question: How often, upon seeing a cop pull someone over on the side of the road, have you leapt out of your car and begun interrogating both cop and driver as to whether or not any of this is legal and right? How often have you decided that the driver was criminally wrong but morally an okay guy, drawn steel, and run the cop through? How often have you let whomever is the local sheriff, chief of police, mayor, governor, president, or Grand High Poomba alter that decision?

I'd be surprised if anyone has. I suspect that most folks, whether lawful good or chaotic evil, would simply drive right on by. Business as normal and I'm too busy to be bothered and all that.

Very well put. The question is difficult to answer without knowing the character's previous relationship to the thief. If he doesn't know him, or at least know of him there's no reason for him to interfere. If he does know him, what does he think of him? If he's a friend then it would be reasonable to interfere, though still not very lawful.

barawn
2007-06-22, 07:05 PM
In terms of individuals, or actions? I'm an atheist, but I believe in objective morality.

Though it's probably a topic for another thread, and here I've given my voice already.

There's a difference between objective (independent of any one human) and objective (independent of all humans).

Good and evil can be defined to be objective (independent of any one human), so that's no problem. Whether it's independent of all humans (i.e. whether it exists independent of our definition, and our definition is attempting to match said objective definition) is another question.

Tengu
2007-06-22, 07:24 PM
You cannot give an individual an alignment, like in DND, and tell that they're objectively good or evil.

But you can objectively measure whether a deed was good or evil.

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-22, 07:39 PM
Well, first, lawful does not translate into just following the law or just believing in order. It can be either, or both. The PHB cites both as examples, linked by or, I believe.

I generally argue that lawful good generally means obeying the law, but the law you're following is an ideal law. This is easiest to see if the LG character follows a god. That character considers all that god's laws as good and absolute. However, any nation's laws are imperfect. Where the nation's laws and the god's laws conflict, then of course the god's law takes precedent. If the god's laws are silent on the issue, then he should follow the nation's laws. And so on down the hierarchy.

Now the god probably doesn't have a specific law for the appropriate punishment for horse theft (maybe he does: there are specific rules for that in the Old Testament, and it's not capital punishment), but the god does say that the punishment must fit the crime, and clearly it doesn't in the OP. Therefore the god's laws take precedent.

If the character doesn't follow a god but rather an ideal, such as law or justice, he's still serving the ideal. And he can see that the lord's laws violate that ideal.

Now, there can be disagreement among LG characters. Just because there is an absolute, objective right and wrong in D&D doesn't mean that the characters know what it is any better than the players do. Following your ideals to the best of your abilities means that sometimes you'll make mistakes. I don't think DMs should penalize this unless there's some clear sophistry going on. It's no fun to lose most of your character's abilities for an honest mistake.

Lord_Kimboat
2007-06-22, 07:44 PM
I think there are a couple of issues here.

First, I agree with several who have posted that alignment shouldn't be seen as a straight jacket to regulate character behavior. There are far more than 9 personality types. Good people can be torturers, seeing their work as necessary to protect their country, family, friends, ect. Chaotic aligned people can follow laws, even be guards and lawyers but may just be slovenly or prone to bouts of inspiration! Alignment is simply a games mechanic, let people play their characters pretty much as they want with little alignment interference.

Second, it has also been pointed out that privative times things could be pretty tough and laws had to be tough to deal with this. However, I would submit that a fantasy setting isn't quite as harsh. I'm not certain but I'm guessing part of the reason for these harsh penalties is because horses were incredibly valuable. A riding horse costs 75gp - a little steep but it's not out of the reach of many people. I'd put the crime as the equivalent of stealing a car in modern times.

We're I the DM, I'd let the LG character come across such a scene and decide for him/her self. But wouldn't penalize the character whatever the decision as long as it was 'in character' (ie. if the paladin suddenly goes on a murderous rampage, killing the guards, the thief and several of the local wildlife - that would be inappropriate!!).

We're I the player, I would protest saying, "this law surely isn't just," and would probably demand at least a hearing for the thief where he could offer an explanation. Although, even if he had a good reason for committing a crime (ie. saving his family from monsters), I still wouldn't object if some form of punishment is meted out. He did commit a crime after all.

Jorkens
2007-06-22, 08:01 PM
In the Real Life we do not have objective good and evil (even though many religions claim otherwise). This changes if you have an absolute alignment scale and "Detect Evil/Detect Good" spells.

So you can have well defined 'good' and 'evil' sides for example by:
1. spells of DE/DG (ie, the fixed align scale)
Here the issue is an otherwise 'evil' law enforcer doing his legal duty against a 'good' criminal. The law wasn't enacted by the enforcer, and he would probably do the same thing were he 'good'.
2. without resorting to magic, let's suppose your land was invaded X years ago. The war is over, the land is administrated by the foes, and no combat happened for a long time. There is no objective good/evil anymore, yet from the PC's point of view we have a strongly "evil" officer (ie, an enemy) enforcing a law that's common to both nations, and a strongly "good" (ie, your countryman) criminal.

In both cases, both for the evil lord who harasses peasants and the enemy officer, we have the good/evil designations come from the outside. Ie, not related to the crime.
Sorry, yeah, I agree with pretty much all of that, I should have read the OP more accurately. *hangs head* I've read a fair number of posts in alignment related threads where people conflate 'objective good and evil exist in D&D' with 'in D&D, good and evil are two sides locked in constant battle, good creatures having the goal of killing as many evil creatures as possible and vice versa.' The second statement may or may not be true (let's not get into it), but isn't the same thing as the first statement. I saw the word 'sides' and assumed that that was what we were getting into...

barawn
2007-06-22, 08:01 PM
You cannot give an individual an alignment, like in DND, and tell that they're objectively good or evil.

But you can objectively measure whether a deed was good or evil.

If your second statement is true, your first statement can be trivially defined. If an individual commits more evil actions than good, they're evil. If they commit more good actions than evil, they're good.

This definition is probably as predictive as the D&D alignment is, in that people generally repeat previous behavior, but not always.

You're mixing the two definitions of objective I mentioned before.

Counterpower
2007-06-22, 08:18 PM
To the OP:

I can easily imagine a Lawful Good character stumbling upon the "Guards hanging a horse-thief" and reacting in a variety of ways. I'll toss out a few reasons why he might not interfere, though, since there's been plenty of folks who have argued for the other side.

So, here we go!

He may walk right on by. The guards are hanging someone. He might easily presume that justice is being served by the lawful authorities. It is not necessarily the job of every lawful good character to second-guess every single decision made by the authorities.

A distinct possibility. I can see that happening.


He may inquire and be informed that the guards are hanging a horse thief. If hanging horse thieves is the standard punishment for horse rustling, then there's a fair likelyhood that he'll nod and carry on. After all, it's business as normal.

Um, not really. If the character is informed enough to know that the standard punishment is hanging, then there may also be the knowledge that this comes without any particular trial, hearing, or anything like that. It does not seem proportionate to the crime to hang a thief, so I, were I RPing a LG character, would probably have an objection to that law on principle. Then I would insist that the person recieve a fair trial and possibly a stay of execution while I attempt to change the law.


He may inquire, be informed, and (if particularly religious and/or moral) ask that the guards hold a moment while he lectures the criminal.

Possible, but I personally would do the above.


He may -- may -- choose to interfere. However, for him to want to interfere requires a few pieces of information which he may not have in the first place.

Does it? I would intervene solely because it isn't fair, to me, to invoke capital punishment for anyone who has only stolen. It doesn't require that the LG person knows of the thief's character or the lord's alignment or the local laws. If I knew that the punishment for horse thieves was death by hanging without a trial, I would solidly object.


The first is that the thief has a "heart of gold." If the lawful good passerby has never known this thief before this very moment, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the thief is somehow a bad person. After all, the thief is, well, a thief. A criminal. Why would the character somehow jump to the conclusion that a criminal is good?

If the LG character didn't know, then the only reason is the one I mentioned above. However, the OP did tell us these details about the thief, so I don't think it's necessarily correct to assume that the LG character didn't know.


The second is that the local lord is evil, and that the Lawful Good character knows it. And this may not even matter. If the local lord is really evil, like, "I eat babies for dinner and randomly let daemons massacre peasants at my baby-eating banquets" then the lawful good character is probably already on the warpath, and the question is moot. But if the local lord is only slightly evil, an evil that is unpleasant but someone who you can do business with, then the situation could be very different indeed. After all, the lawful good character may grit his teeth and recognize that open revolt could very well be worse than simply tolerating the lawfully appointed (though morally unpleasant) lord of the region. And, as mentioned earlier, the character might not even know.

Well, it's not worse, but I suppose that's not the point. You're right here, it doesn't really matter. If the character is already on the warpath he's likely to defy authority anyway, and if he doesn't know then it would come down to other reasons anyway.


The third is whether hanging horse rustlers is lawful or not. If the character doesn't know, he might assume that it is, or inquire (and be told that it is). If he assumes that it isn't, when there's guards available to tell him otherwise, then I'd fault the character (read: player) for not bothering to see how the world stacks up with his preconceived notions, but that wouldn't change the character's decision to interfere. It would be a very strange lawful good character who would attack guards without good, verifiable reason.

I have a good, verifiable reason. Again, I've already gone over it. Whether it's against the laws or not, the question for a character with a Good alignment is whether is Good or not. He can be Lawful either way, but he can only be Good one way.


Overall, I've (admittedly) tried to play up reasons why a lawful good character would ignore or support the guards over the thief. Part of this is because so few people have (Ditto, great Heinlein reference -- and you're absolutely correct in your assessment, too). But part of it is because it would be wrong to only punish evil people and not punish good people even if the commit the exact same crime. In other words, why does a good person deserve special exemption from the law?

He doesn't. Any person deserves exemption from unjust laws. In that sense, all of those three things a character would need to know are moot. If the thief was blackest evil, if I was a paladin coming upon the scene and detected him as Evil, I would still insist he recieve a fair trial and the right to air any mitigating circumstances he felt he had.


This is not to say that a lawful good character is required to let the hanging proceed. It is simply to say that most lawful good people will not interfere most of the time, and will require additional information, reason, or justification to encourage them to murder guards who are just doing their job by following lawful regulations in the punishment of a guilty criminal.

If I knew that standard procedure in these crimes meant not recieving a trial, that's all the information I need. And who said anything about murdering the guards? That's not a good idea. If I was at the scene, I wouldn't touch the guards as much as I could, using only subdual damage if I had to attack at all.


And, on that matter, a lot of the reasons folks are insisting on interfering stems from the meta-game knowledge that "the character wouldn't encounter the hanging unless he was expected to react to it." I'd like to demonstrate the fallacy of this belief by the following:

I haven't assumed that at all. To be brutally honest, I think your arguments rely too much on the assumption that the character knows absolutely nothing about the situation, that he was just walking down the road and saw a hanging. I don't think that's exactly the situation the OP posed.


Everyone who insisted on the character interefering, violently if necessary, ask yourself this question: How often, upon seeing a cop pull someone over on the side of the road, have you leapt out of your car and begun interrogating both cop and driver as to whether or not any of this is legal and right? How often have you decided that the driver was criminally wrong but morally an okay guy, drawn steel, and run the cop through? How often have you let whomever is the local sheriff, chief of police, mayor, governor, president, or Grand High Poomba alter that decision?

Actually, people object all the time to the actions of the lawful authority of the United States. There are people who strongly object to the death penalty, Roe v. Wade, etc.

Even without that, there is a world of difference between stopping by a hanging, where a person's life is in the balance, as compared to a traffic stop. A traffic stop is a much more minor incident than an execution. With the hanging, you would have to do something immediately, or risk not having anyone to object on the behalf of. Even after all of that, D&D heroes are exceptional people (most of the time). I'm not really exceptional, but by the end of my current campaign, my PCs are going to be the most powerful people in the freaking world, both politically as well as in terms of might and magic.


I'd be surprised if anyone has. I suspect that most folks, whether lawful good or chaotic evil, would simply drive right on by. Business as normal and I'm too busy to be bothered and all that.

Yeah, I am too busy to be bothered by a simple traffic stop. I wouldn't be surprised if there were thousands of those daily. I can, however, worry about executions. They are considerably rarer.

Tallis
2007-06-22, 08:32 PM
Second, it has also been pointed out that privative times things could be pretty tough and laws had to be tough to deal with this. However, I would submit that a fantasy setting isn't quite as harsh. I'm not certain but I'm guessing part of the reason for these harsh penalties is because horses were incredibly valuable. A riding horse costs 75gp - a little steep but it's not out of the reach of many people. I'd put the crime as the equivalent of stealing a car in modern times.

You make a good point. I've been assuming that since the laws are obviously based on the medievil, the world is made with an attempt at historical accuracy. Others are looking at it from a modern point of view. We really don't have the background information to know who is right. If the world is closer to the modern world due to the influence of magic, then I would agree that the law is unjust.
We're all just working off our own assumptions of what the world is like. We need more information to give a reasoned answer to the question.

Vyker
2007-06-23, 07:37 PM
Counterpoint,

You've provided a good, well thought out rebuttal. However, if I may, I'd like to point out that any rebuttal misses the point of my post.

Many of your points are based entirely on a personal objection, and one which stems from a modern viewpoint. This is not to say that a lawful good character might not feel that way. But it is to say that a lawful good character who does not feel the same way you do may choose another course of action.

As the original question -- the one to which my statements were addressed -- asks how "a Lawful Good character [would] react to good-aligned criminals," it was my intent to provided a few alternative interpretations to the common theme which many posters, yourself included, had put forward.

Your disagreement is fine. I do not agree with everything you have said, but that's okay. There are many ways to play any alignment, and some of them may even be at odds with one another.

Again, you are not wrong. A lawful good character may very well behave in the manner which you advocate so strongly for. But you are also not right. Yours is simply one possibly explanation, what one man may do. There are many, many ways in which a lawful good character might react.

Castamir, I hope that my possible options help you in your dilemma. And I hope that they've helped other folks, as well. Overall, if there is a "right answer" to this question, I think Lord Kimboat hit it on the head when he said:


Were I the DM, I'd let the LG character come across such a scene and decide for him/her self. But I wouldn't penalize the character whatever the decision as long as it was 'in character'.

So if there's a "right answer," I think that's it. Overall, being "in character" for your character is far more important than adhering to whatever claims of moral behavior someone on the internet (myself included!) claims an alignment written by yet another party means. Ultimately, the question "How does a lawful good character react to good-aligned criminals" depends heavily on the particulars of that lawful good character. There are many options. But the only true answer is what the character on the scene would do.

Counterpower
2007-06-23, 10:45 PM
You are pretty much dead on there. I used the word "I" in my post for a reason. I wouldn't pretend to be the only authority on how people of a given alignment will respond. Considering how there are going to be as many answers to the question posed in this thread as there are people to answer it, no one can.