Moral question about "unjust" laws and those who enforce them

[FoxWolFrostFire]

Okay so long story short. In my game the king's son was made sick using Arcane magic. So he under the advice of his adviser passed a law stating all arcane casters need to register with the state. Those who don't will be hunted. The law made registering cost more gold then most low class folk could have and the students of the low arch mages went full freedom fighter and terrorist.

So One actively attacked and killed 6 guards while trying to free sorcerers and poor magic casters. The other merely killed guards for hunting her down since she didn't want to sign up because she was morally opposed to it. She killed five. Also a child wild magic sorcerer killed three by mistake. She didn't even know they were real people thinking they were just toys she broke.

The law was rewritten and suspended for a time thanks to the party. The question now is. Should the three casters that killed guards be set free or hunted for murder?

More context. It was heavily implied that if caught they would be killed with out trial and every one mostly agreed the law was very unfair and was put into action way to fast. But those guards are now dead and gone.

The sorcerer who had a favor from the king traded 500 gold for each guard's life to their family and his personal royal favor for helping save the son's life to get them all off the hook. But I wanted to know what you all thought. Fair trade, should the casters be punished, should they have just been let go no questions asked?

[Aussiehams]

What was the punishment for not registering?

[FoxWolFrostFire]

What was the punishment for not registering?

For those mages in question it was death. For not signing up it was imprisonment. It would likely be adjusted to forced military service

[sithlordnergal]

Okay so long story short. In my game the king's son was made sick using Arcane magic. So he under the advice of his adviser passed a law stating all arcane casters need to register with the state. Those who don't will be hunted. The law made registering cost more gold then most low class folk could have and the students of the low arch mages went full freedom fighter and terrorist.

So One actively attacked and killed 6 guards while trying to free sorcerers and poor magic casters. The other merely killed guards for hunting her down since she didn't want to sign up because she was morally opposed to it. She killed five. Also a child wild magic sorcerer killed three by mistake. She didn't even know they were real people thinking they were just toys she broke.

The law was rewritten and suspended for a time thanks to the party. The question now is. Should the three casters that killed guards be set free or hunted for murder?

More context. It was heavily implied that if caught they would be killed with out trial and every one mostly agreed the law was very unfair and was put into action way to fast. But those guards are now dead and gone.

The sorcerer who had a favor from the king traded 500 gold for each guard's life to their family and his personal royal favor for helping save the son's life to get them all off the hook. But I wanted to know what you all thought. Fair trade, should the casters be punished, should they have just been let go no questions asked?

There are three different answers for this, as all three have very different causes for the deaths:

The freedom fighter/terrorist should be hunted down for terrorist acts.

The one who defended herself should be hunted down, but not executed. She needs to be punished for murder, yes, but due to the fact that it happened while she was defending herself, and that defense came from an unjust law, a fine or light prison sentence should do.

The child should be free to go, but sent to a school to learn how to control their magic.

[AdAstra]

From a moral perspective? The King is responsible for those deaths. His order, his unjust law, his consequences. Those Guards died unnecessarily trying to enforce a law that was by all accounts, including the King's, not justified.

From a practical political perspective? The last two should be let go but kept under reasonable surveillance, the first should face either prison or compulsory government service, depending on how willing they are to work for the King that imprisoned and presumably killed so many mages. NOTE: Don't just take their word for it, either, make sure they're actually repentant and willing to work to make things right.

In this case, the King didn't just pass an unjust law, he knew, at least after the fact, that it was wrong. In a purely military environment, a combination of harsh punishment and limited concession could be justified, since they swore an oath to obey. For regular citizens? Why would mages ever trust a King who did that? The King effectively would be saying "I hurt you, for what I now know is a stupid reason, and you will be held responsible for fighting back to protect yourself and others". If I were a mage, or any other person of interest? I wouldn't stay in that kingdom any longer than I had to if the king decided to execute any of those people. That king would have a hard enough time regaining my confidence after passing that law in the first place.

[Aussiehams]

Fair trials for all. 1 and 2 are equally guilty so death/imprisonment/restitution depending on the Judge and laws.
3 should be trained and made to atone for the deaths.

The Dragon Age games have a similar situation with mages and are quite interesting. The 2nd game sucks though.

[Yunru]

{scrubbed}

I'm honestly not sure that everyone would feel the law unfair (except for plot reasons).

[Sception]

What should happen, or what feels accurate to the setting?


What *should* happen is that the king should be deposed, the feudal monarchy dismantled, all royals, nobles, guards, soldiers, knights, & so forth who upheld the system should be barred from public service of any kind, the wealth accrued by the monarchy and nobility under the unjust feudal system should be repossessed and distributed to the people, and a new more democratic system with strong legal protections for basic sentient rights should be established, so that one person's bigotry can never again threaten the entire social fabric.

The situation described isn't just a one time event that can be put in the past and forgotten about, it is a stunning indictment of a governmental system that is at its core fundamentally unjust.


What feels more realistic to the setting is that warrants for the arrest and execution of all the accused in question would be issued and they would be forced to flee with their families to a foreign nation to live out their lives in exile - possibly with the king instructing the guard that they be allowed to leave if he really does feel repentant about his 'mistake'. At least their magical talents should allow them to build new lives for themselves somewhere.

If an anti-monarchist movement surfaces in the future, the "terrorist" mages would likely sneak back into the country to take part.

[da newt]

What does Moral have to do with the decisions of the Monarchy?

A 'historically' reasonable outcome of "The sorcerer who had a favor from the king traded 500 gold for each guard's life to their family and his personal royal favor for helping save the son's life to get them all off the hook." would be that the King decides they are off the hook - he honors his decision / favor, especially if the King believes that his original rule was a mistake.

500 gp for a guard's life is pretty reasonable considering the a skilled arisen or mercenary's normal daily wage is 2 gp, and a non skilled hireling is 2 sp/day (PHB ch 5). I'd think a guard was somewhere in between (guard duty is way less dangerous than mercenary work). A modest lifestyle can be had for 1 gp/day, a draft horse is 50 gp, and a small estate can be bought for 100 - 1000 gp (DMG pg 128).

What fit's your world's narrative?

[FoxWolFrostFire]

What does Moral have to do with the decisions of the Monarchy?

A 'historically' reasonable outcome of "The sorcerer who had a favor from the king traded 500 gold for each guard's life to their family and his personal royal favor for helping save the son's life to get them all off the hook." would be that the King decides they are off the hook - he honors his decision / favor, especially if the King believes that his original rule was a mistake.

500 gp for a guard's life is pretty reasonable considering the a skilled arisen or mercenary's normal daily wage is 2 gp, and a non skilled hireling is 2 sp/day (PHB ch 5). I'd think a guard was somewhere in between (guard duty is way less dangerous than mercenary work). A modest lifestyle can be had for 1 gp/day, a draft horse is 50 gp, and a small estate can be bought for 100 - 1000 gp (DMG pg 128).

What fit's your world's narrative?

He's a man of his word, but he is very soft spoken. Often passive. He does believe the law tried todo good, but was put in place in way to much haste. The kingdom was already some what in debt, Owing more and more to noble houses and the land. I thought it was a fair off. The player gave up nearly all his magic items to make the payment which was a cool IC move.

[HappyDaze]

Those are not unjust laws, as the case of the sorcerer "accidentally" murdering people proves. Likewise, you cannot claim self-defense when acting against the sovereign or his/her agents. All of those characters are threats to the public and should be subject to the full weight of the law (i.e., executed, imprisoned, or pressed into service of the state).

[KorvinStarmast]

{Scrubbed}

In my game the king's son was made sick using Arcane magic. So he under the advice of his adviser passed a law stating all arcane casters need to register with the state. Those who don't will be hunted. The law made registering cost more gold then most low class folk could have and the students of the low arch mages went full freedom fighter and terrorist.
If you are trying to be internally consistent, you can expect that the King will decree all of those freedom fighters as "outlaw" - they can be killed on sight by anyone, and are to not be given any food, shelter or aid within the bound of the Realm.

If you have not already done that, I suggest you do so in order to get the situation to fit, thematically.

So One actively attacked and killed 6 guards while trying to free sorcerers and poor magic casters.
There should be a bounty on their head, wanted dead or alive.
The other merely killed guards for hunting her down since she didn't want to sign up because she was morally opposed to it. Many a fine terrorist is opposed to "something" as justificaiton for whatever violence they do. (I'll not digress into RL examples, but it's a standard pattern of behavior) You are still in "Wanted, Dead or Alive" category.

She killed five. Also a child wild magic sorcerer killed three by mistake. She didn't even know they were real people thinking they were just toys she broke. Dragging a child into this is, to me, a red flag. Why was this necessary?

The law was rewritten and suspended for a time thanks to the party. This makes little sense, based on your set up. This is the king giving into the freedom fighters / terrorists / outlaws / aracne whatevers. Sheriff of Nottingham pardons Robin Hood? Nope.

The question now is. Should the three casters that killed guards be set free or hunted for murder?
Hunted down and captured or killed. You are still in the situation of "Wanted dead or alive." And then you throw in this ...

The sorcerer who had a favor from the king traded 500 gold for each guard's life to their family and his personal royal favor for helping save the son's life to get them all off the hook. OK, the sorcerer paid a weregild. Most of the above might be called off. You do not explain how they saved the son's life. Honestly, what is going on here?

Fair trade, should the casters be punished, should they have just been let go no questions asked? Has recompense been made for everyone who has been killed? If not, back to "wanted dead or alive" or King sends message saying, "You can get a full pardon when you have paid a weregild for all who died because of your actions. And you still owe the registration fee." If all weregilds are paid, you can see the King rescinding the "outlaw" designation.

But why are you asking us?
You are the DM.
Only you can decide how the King feels about this.

Since the King has already publicly backed down to these terrorists / freedom fighters (characterize as you see fit) the King has either publicly forgiven them, in which case the point is moot, or he's been badly embarassed and these loose cannons need to be brought to justice. Or gotten rid of.

But if your intention is that this law is to be permanently stricken from the books, then this arc of your story is over. Players win. And that, it would seem, would be tied to "save the King's son's life" deal that you throw in as an afterthought.

If that law is to be revived and registration required, then "wanted dead or alive" is the way ahead unless the PC's lead the way and publicly pay the registration.

NPC assassins are a thing. Bounties are a source of income.

(If you want some fascinating historical reading in re assassinations and ruling families, the history of the Eastern Roman Empire, circa 400 AD to about 1200 AD, is full of intrigue, palace coups, and even assassinations. Great fodder for your world building).

[iTreeby]

The king should have a high level cleric summon a wise and ancient celestial to judge the actions of the citizens. After the angel killes everyone in the court for their various failings, the advisor tells the king that he should start a cleric registration program for public safety.

[Hail Tempus]

Those are not unjust laws, as the case of the sorcerer "accidentally" murdering people proves. Likewise, you cannot claim self-defense when acting against the sovereign or his/her agents. All of those characters are threats to the public and should be subject to the full weight of the law (i.e., executed, imprisoned, or pressed into service of the state). Yeah, nothing the OP wrote about this law would lead a Lawful Good Paladin to conclude that resisting the sovereign's agents is acceptable. That Paladin would be required to help the guards arrest the spellcaster, and if the spellcaster resorted to the use of deadly force the Paladin would be fully justified in responding in kind.

So, I'm not seeing the moral conflict here. Requiring people with dangerous powers to register with the authorities and only use those powers in a legally permitted way is not immoral or unjust. A lawful good monarch could pass such a law without any qualms, and authorize his agents to arrest lawbreakers.

[Yunru]

Yeah, nothing the OP wrote about this law would lead a Lawful Good Paladin to conclude that resisting the sovereign's agents is acceptable. That Paladin would be required to help the guards arrest the spellcaster, and if the spellcaster resorted to the use of deadly force the Paladin would be fully justified in responding in kind.

So, I'm not seeing the moral conflict here. Requiring people with dangerous powers to register with the authorities and only use those powers in a legally permitted way is not immoral or unjust. A lawful good monarch could pass such a law without any qualms, and authorize his agents to arrest lawbreakers.
The only moral issue is the requirement to pay to register.

[KorvinStarmast]

The king should have a high level cleric summon a wise and ancient celestial to judge the actions of the citizens. After the angel killes everyone in the court for their various failings, the advisor tells the king that he should start a cleric registration program for public safety. Laughed, I did. :smallbiggrin:

[Hail Tempus]

The only moral issue is the requirement to pay to register.Well, that's no different than requiring someone to pay a registration fee for their car if they want to operate it on public streets.

The king here doesn't seem unreasonable. Perhaps a cash-strapped spellcaster could pay the registration fee by providing spellcasting services?

[Yunru]

Well, that's no different than requiring someone to pay a registration fee for their car if they want to operate it on public streets.

The king here doesn't seem unreasonable. Perhaps a cash-strapped spellcaster could pay the registration fee by providing spellcasting services?
Maybe, if the registration fee for a car cost more than most people have in capital.

Although I agree that it is easily worked around. But we lack the information needed to know if they were allowed or not (I'm guessing not because plot).

[Segev]

From a moral perspective? The terrorists are still guilty for engaging in terrorism, though if they were genuinely acting to free people who were in imminent danger of death, killing those who were holding them in peril is justifiable. The woman acting in self-defense is, barring gross evidence that she could have completely safely used nonlethal means (and thus was killing out of vindictiveness, carelessness, or malice), also justifiable. The child needs help if the child thought that humans were toys. (Though depending on the circumstances, it may be more reasonable. e.g. if the kid's wild magic turned them into toys without the kid's knowledge, and the kid just thought he was playing rough with some literal and apparently-obviously nonliving toys.)

On the subject of "you can't claim self-defense when acting against the sovereign or his deputies," that's silly. Sure, the LAW may say so, but we're discussing potentially-unjust laws already. From a moral standpoint, self-defense doesn't cease to be a right just because the ones trying to unjustly and unrighteously kill you have badges or multipointed metal hats.

If Sheriff Kruked has decided that you're a menace to society because you had an aggressive look in your eye when he pulled you over, and you didn't let him thoroughly pat down your girlfriend without complaint, and starts beating you up while telling you to stop resisting arrest, you still get to claim "self defense" in court later when your efforts to keep him from killing you result in his gun going off in his eye. In the US, assuming that reasonable doubt that you really were in danger of your life can be shown, the law even backs you up: Sheriff Kruked was breaking the law, abusing his power, and trying to commit murder (amongst, perhaps, other crimes), and just because he's the Sheriff doesn't legally make you have to lie down and let him murder you. (Not going into the likelihood that you'd get a just and fair trial, here. We're talking about morals and theoretical legalities, not practical enforcement.)

From a moral standpoint, you're not guilty of murder. Yes, you killed Sheriff Kruked, but he made it justified when he tried to kill you (and potentially do as much or worse to your girlfriend) without just provocation (i.e. neither of you were a threat to his life nor society before he decided to make up excuses to kill you). Him being a Sheriff rather than a Yakusa Boss doesn't change the moral calculus one whit.

[Yunru]

From a moral perspective? The terrorists are still guilty for engaging in terrorism, though if they were genuinely acting to free people who were in imminent danger of death, killing those who were holding them in peril is justifiable. The woman acting in self-defense is, barring gross evidence that she could have completely safely used nonlethal means (and thus was killing out of vindictiveness, carelessness, or malice), also justifiable. The child needs help if the child thought that humans were toys. (Though depending on the circumstances, it may be more reasonable. e.g. if the kid's wild magic turned them into toys without the kid's knowledge, and the kid just thought he was playing rough with some literal and apparently-obviously nonliving toys.)

On the subject of "you can't claim self-defense when acting against the sovereign or his deputies," that's silly. Sure, the LAW may say so, but we're discussing potentially-unjust laws already. From a moral standpoint, self-defense doesn't cease to be a right just because the ones trying to unjustly and unrighteously kill you have badges or multipointed metal hats.

If Sheriff Kruked has decided that you're a menace to society because you had an aggressive look in your eye when he pulled you over, and you didn't let him thoroughly pat down your girlfriend without complaint, and starts beating you up while telling you to stop resisting arrest, you still get to claim "self defense" in court later when your efforts to keep him from killing you result in his gun going off in his eye. In the US, assuming that reasonable doubt that you really were in danger of your life can be shown, the law even backs you up: Sheriff Kruked was breaking the law, abusing his power, and trying to commit murder (amongst, perhaps, other crimes), and just because he's the Sheriff doesn't legally make you have to lie down and let him murder you. (Not going into the likelihood that you'd get a just and fair trial, here. We're talking about morals and theoretical legalities, not practical enforcement.)

From a moral standpoint, you're not guilty of murder. Yes, you killed Sheriff Kruked, but he made it justified when he tried to kill you (and potentially do as much or worse to your girlfriend) without just provocation (i.e. neither of you were a threat to his life nor society before he decided to make up excuses to kill you). Him being a Sheriff rather than a Yakusa Boss doesn't change the moral calculus one whit.
Except it's not the massively exaggerated "pat down your girlfriend, beat you up, don't resist" that you suggest it is. It's "Sir do you have a license to concealed carry a WMD?"

[Sception]

{Scrubbed}

Any Lawful Good character, paladin or otherwise, should work to overthrow it, and implement a more stable social system that puts everyone under the same rule of law, and shapes that law to serve the public good over a lone individual's arbitrary discretion.

[Segev]

Except it's not the massively exaggerated "pat down your girlfriend, beat you up, don't resist" that you suggest it is. It's "Sir do you have a license to concealed carry a WMD?"

Hardly concealed if she's a known practitioner, sufficient they're there to arrest her and deliver her for summary execution.

She wasn't, as far as we've been told, an actual clear and present danger to anybody around her until she was attacked. She was in genuine fear for her life. She has a means to defend herself that is lethal. "It's either my death, or the death of those who will see to my death, and without whose actions none would be in danger of dying," is textbook justifiable killing, based on 'self-defense' principles.

Now, you can invent details not given, and maybe some were present that we weren't told about. Maybe she was a murderess who regularly killed people with magic. Maybe she'd just burned down a tavern with a careless fireball after somebody called her "flat-chested." Maybe she has a dozen ways she could have disabled them and gotten away without killing them. But none of that's in evidence. All we have is that the motive is, "She's a known mage," and that the likely result of her going quietly is her own death for no sin other than not being able to afford to buy her life via that license.

If a bunch of brigands corner a sorceress on the road and demand she give them money or they'll kill her, is she justified in killing them? If the brigands are, instead, orcs whose tribe lives in the region and are charging a "toll" to travel through it, is she justified?

Unless you invent circumstances that make killing her justified in the first place, or where she didn't have to kill them to have a sure chance of survival, she was justified in killing them.

[GlenSmash!]

Well, that's no different than requiring someone to pay a registration fee for their car if they want to operate it on public streets.

The king here doesn't seem unreasonable. Perhaps a cash-strapped spellcaster could pay the registration fee by providing spellcasting services?

Except that people aren't born with cars. Some people are born with spellcasting talent (setting dependent).

What we have here is just the Mutant Registration Act from the X-Men in a feudal system. And like Professor Xavier I think licensing people to live is a poor way of governing.

[ezekielraiden]

It seems to me that we have two concerns:
1. Death, for any reason, is at least a "worst outcome" kind of thing that deserves restitution. Without restitution, there will be no justice for the slain, even if their slaying was done in self-defense (which was *not* true for one of the specific cases).
2. The law was not merely unjust, but flawed, hasty, and dangerous; it both actively caused and passively enabled the situations that occurred here, meaning the crown is at least a causative factor (proximate, perhaps even direct). Failure to recognize the fundamentally wrong nature of the crown's actions in enforcing a wrong, badly made, badly executed law would also be an abrogation of justice.

Therefore, it seems to me that both sides hold some degree of responsibility that must be properly understood in a court of law and addressed. The person who slew guards intentionally is in a dire position; it will be very difficult to prove that what they did was not premeditated murder, but a wise judge may be able to find a solution to that dilemma which does not require their death or imprisonment. My suggestion, without knowing any further details and assuming a genuine "I don't *want* to kill random low-level functionary people just doing their jobs, I just want to live and help my fellows live" attitude, I see a mixture of probation and negotiated fixed employment as a possible solution: that is, the individual will perform community service using their magic, and be paid a reasonable and livable wage by the state for doing so. However, any profits they turn beyond the defined wage will be turned over to a fund (or to essentially pay off a loan) paying for the legally determined quantity of lost income that any dependents of those guards would have received. This respects that these killings caused much greater harm than merely opposing an unjust law warrants, while also recognizing that this situation would never have happened but for the failures of the crown in the first place.

The child's case is trivial: as a child, especially one so young as to see guards as merely big "toys," she is too young to know what she did and cannot be punished in that way. She owes no liability for skills she cannot help having. However, given that her abilities *have* proven to be a danger to those around her, mandatory schooling to learn to control them is absolutely appropriate. Though ideally a school already exists that her family can afford; if not, the crown should be expected to assist, as this is a matter of public safety that cannot be left to the whims of individual income, fickle and unreliable as they are.

The self-defense case is less open-and-shut, but not by much. Lethal enforcement of a law that is so obviously bad and flawed seems pretty clearly not justifying for the guards' use of lethal force. Unless the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mage had ample nonlethal alternatives (and I strongly suspect that that is false, given what you've said), self-defense is and should be an absolute defense against a charge of murder. However, similar to the first case, restitution for the deaths *may* be warranted. I could see a fair ruling where the defendant mage would need to perform a lesser form of community service (perhaps agreeing to provide the crown with reduced-cost services or to complete some reasonable tasks for free) so as to assist the families of the deceased in dealing with their loss.

But yeah, overall this king done f**ked up big time, and is exceedingly lucky that he didn't start a full-blown rebellion over this. I would not be surprised if this one law, stricken though it may be, haunts the politics and social forces of this nation for generations to come. Especially since it's very unlikely that these are the only cases of injustice caused, directly or proximately, by this awful law.

[Yunru]

Hardly concealed if she's a known practitionerBut what she knows is concealed. She could know only household spells like Comprehend Languages. Or she could know devastating spells like Magic Missile or Charm Person.


or where she didn't have to kill them to have a sure chance of survival, she was justified in killing them.
Sure, let's go over the 1st level spells a Sorcerer can know and see ways to escape that don't require killing.
Charm Person.
Disguise Self.
Expeditious Retreat.
Jump.
Sleep.

Yeah, she definitely had no non-lethal ways to escape with her life.
(Side note: If she only has combat spells known such that there were no non-lethal takedown options, that just reinforces the threat posed.)


What we have here is just the Mutant Registration Act from the X-Men in a feudal system. And like Professor Xavier I think licensing people to live is a poor way of governing.

Slightly different. Mutants (often) don't have a choice about being mutants.
Being a spellcaster, however, is (normally) a choice you make. You may be born with the potential, but you still need to actively develop that potential.

[Keltest]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Any Lawful Good character, paladin or otherwise, should work to overthrow it, and implement a more stable social system that puts everyone under the same rule of law, and shapes that law to serve the public good over a lone individual's arbitrary discretion.

{Scrubbed}

[Segev]

Sure, let's go over the 1st level spells a Sorcerer can know and see ways to escape that don't require killing.
Charm Person.
Disguise Self.
Expeditious Retreat.
Jump.
Sleep.

Yeah, she definitely had no non-lethal ways to escape with her life.You're presuming she had any of these spells. And some of them are not necessarily guarantees of safety. Neither expeditious retreat nor jump prevent her from being surrounded nor ensure she can get away in a manner she cannot be pursued, and guards often have ranged weapons. I've had a number of NPC spellcasters decide to nope out of a fight their side was losing using such "retreat" magic, only to be shot dead by arrows in the back by the PCs before he could get out of range.

Heck, disguise self only works if she can get out of sight and blend into a crowd; casting it in front of them is hardly going to help.

Charm person is ENTIRELY useless: she specifically had a number of guards on her, and casting it on one even successfully is only begging for the others to beat her down FASTER. She'd need to whammy all of them before any of them killed her.

Sleep is the only one that actually passes muster as a reasonable non-lethal fight-ender.

And, of course, this assumes she knows any of those spells.

(Side note: If she only has combat spells known such that there were no non-lethal takedown options, that just reinforces the threat posed.)
A man who is trained with a gun he carries may well only have lethal takedown options against a group that is attacking him with lethal weapons. Does this mean that he poses such a threat that this group is automatically justified in attacking him with intent to kill, even if he's made no threats and has not demonstrated a desire to use his gun on innocents?

Just because somebody can be deadly doesn't mean that they deserve to be treated as if they'd already demonstrated a willingness to kill innocents. And they absolutely deserve to use their deadly powers to protect their own life from those who would deprive them of it.



And, no, I can't see "well, it's my bad as King for sending them after you, but still, they didn't deserve to die, so you owe me service for killing my guards," as at all just. If President Lex Luthor orders his secret service agents to shoot Superman, and the bullets ricochet and kill the secret service agents, Superman isn't responsible for the death, and shouldn't be made to provide restitution. Not in a just and moral society. (Superman might still try to help, because he's that swell of a guy, but that's his choice.)

Consider if it were an organized crime boss who sent men to shake down the sorceress's magic shoppe. In self-defense, she kills them. "Your honor," says the gang boss, "I acknowledge that I should pay the men's wives and kids for my part in the loss of their lives, but this sorceress also was the one who actually killed them. IF she'd just let them burn down her shoppe with her inside as an example to others who wouldn't pay me protection money, they'd still be alive. Surely, she owes me some free labor as an enforcer to make up for that crime."

Replacing "crime boss" with "king" and having the King be his own "your honor" to judge the case might make it more likely the King would decide unjustly to conscript her, but it wouldn't make it any more just nor less corrupt than if the crime boss bribed the judge to agree with him.

[Hobbo Jim]

I think there's a bit of a discrepancy in this thread.

Are you asking for the morality of the situation as suggested in your title? This is somewhat complex, but also probably has not a whole lot of bearing what goes down, unless the monarch is a celestial being. Even then, I might argue that while interesting the strict morality of it wouldn't be of too terribly much importance.

Alternatively the body/follow up seems to be asking for help on how the king/kingdom might act. Even if he tries to be just, there are simple social orders that would probably decree that even if it was unfair, no one should question the king (Except maybe his advisers, and nobles may "express concern, but not outright question") and anyone who disobeys and isn't a noble will receive punishment, no trial. In the case of murder/killing, death.

The case of X-Men persecution and licensing them is a good example. A special group was villanized, and the villanized group then proceeded to kill a whole bunch of law enforcement. Sure, each individual case might be special, but this is feudal times, not utopia forensics. In my game, a king/captain of the guard would think "Wow, look how right I was that wizards should be kept track of. I better double the efforts." If deaths escalate, then it would probably become even harsher. Might not be strictly morally right, but I don't think it's too hard to imagine how the king/nobles/etc would be able to justify their actions in their mind, and have a coherent argument for it.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: reminder to everyone: please confine all commentary about political systems, historical or otherwise, strictly to the fictional universe under discussion. Any tipping over to real-life political systems is against the forum rules. It's a fine line, but it's one that we take seriously.

[KorvinStarmast]

Metamagic Mod: reminder to everyone: please confine all commentary about political systems, historical or otherwise, strictly to the fictional universe under discussion. Any tipping over to real-life political systems is against the forum rules. It's a fine line, but it's one that we take seriously. Do I need to delete anything in my post? I can trim it if that is one of the offenders.

EDIT: Never mind.

[AdAstra]

But what she knows is concealed. She could know only household spells like Comprehend Languages. Or she could know devastating spells like Magic Missile or Charm Person.


Sure, let's go over the 1st level spells a Sorcerer can know and see ways to escape that don't require killing.
Charm Person.
Disguise Self.
Expeditious Retreat.
Jump.
Sleep.

Yeah, she definitely had no non-lethal ways to escape with her life.
(Side note: If she only has combat spells known such that there were no non-lethal takedown options, that just reinforces the threat posed.)



Slightly different. Mutants (often) don't have a choice about being mutants.
Being a spellcaster, however, is (normally) a choice you make. You may be born with the potential, but you still need to actively develop that potential.

Sleep is probably the only one of those that could be even slightly reasonably expected to work on five guards, assuming they had attempted to arrest/attack her as a group. Even that spell would likely only incapacitate two of them at most. A big factor would be if they attempted to use lethal force immediately or while she was trying to escape from them. In that case it would be easier to argue that lethal force was required to stop pursuit.

As for the "spellcasting is a choice" thing, the child at least was clearly a prodigal sorcerer, and likely developed her powers with little to no training at all, at least not intentionally. The "mage suddenly awakens their power and can't control it well or at all" is a standard fantasy trope. For Sorcerers especially, as well as Clerics, Druids, and Bards in many cases, magic is something that kinda just appears to you. Only Wizards and Warlocks can be said to voluntarily accept or develop their power in all instances, and for Warlocks there could easily be coercion involved.

[fbelanger]

In a medieval fantasy setting, there is no morale with the King’s law.
It is the Law.
And punishment depend on politics, Power, money.

[Hail Tempus]

Except that people aren't born with cars. Some people are born with spellcasting talent (setting dependent).

What we have here is just the Mutant Registration Act from the X-Men in a feudal system. And like Professor Xavier I think licensing people to live is a poor way of governing. In a world where people can spontaneously develop the ability to shoot bolts of energy out of their eyes, it would be perfectly moral and legal to develop a legal system to register and regulate such powers. That would result in some of the super-powered being kept away from society, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, whenever this comes up in comic books, the system of regulation always ends up with Sentinels hunting down kids whose only superpower is the ability to breath underwater or whatever. Because comic book writers aren't really good at nuance.

[Sigreid]

Morally speaking I don't think any of the mages were in the wrong for defending themselves from oppression.

Also agree with an earlier poster that as a mage I'd get out of dodge and the king would find his kingdom poorer and weaker when the majority of mages flee.

[HappyDaze]

The only moral issue is the requirement to pay to register.

Consider that IRL, physicians have to register/become licensed to practice medicine and this (along with the schooling required ) has a cost that might stifle the common person. Here you're talking about people that can do all sorts of harm.

[AdAstra]

Morally speaking I don't think any of the mages were in the wrong for defending themselves from oppression.

Also agree with an earlier poster that as a mage I'd get out of dodge and the king would find his kingdom poorer and weaker when the majority of mages flee.

Or worse, get some nice fellows from the Caster's Union knocking on your door with a Disintegrate. Or someone with a grudge more powerful than some rich kid sorcerer. If the King handles this badly he better invest in some mighty fine wards, and check them very closely for sabotage and backdoors.


Consider that IRL, physicians have to register/become licensed to practice medicine and this (along with the schooling required ) has a cost that might stifle the common person. Here you're talking about people that can do all sorts of harm.

This isn't as good of an example in favor of registering mages as it might sound at first. For one thing, you get licensed as a physician only after you've committed to actually becoming one, typically after years of training. You don't just fall into becoming a trained medical professional.

Also there's the issue of enforcement. If you piss off physicians, you'll have problems only if they collectively organize and strike, depriving people of medical services (which would by itself be a massive ethical issue), or convince enough people to make a stink for them. If you piss off mages, they can blast you with lightning, or magically undermine bridges, or teleport into your bedroom and take a crap on your pillow.

[Corran]

What was the punishment for not registering?


For those mages in question it was death. For not signing up it was imprisonment. It would likely be adjusted to forced military service\
So, it depends on the society you've got there. Does the threat of imprisonment in this society justify murder? Personally I would find it hard to imagine and present even in a slightly realistic way such a society (because the threat of imprisonment justifying murder is a paradox in and on itself), so in order to keep the things making sense in the game world I would go with a society that wouldn't justify it and that would punish it.

Edit:
Players made their bed. Let them sleep in it. Don't turn the game world into a nuisance just to avoid some character deaths.

You made your bed too though. The prince, king, advisors, whoever was involved in the passing of this law:

A) Could see the consequences of this obviously flawed (in its execution) law, and intended to create turmoil in the kingdom.

OR

B) Could not see the fairly obvious consequences of this law, hence they are buffoons.


Making them buffoons just for 1 day so that you can create this impossible/interesting situations for your players, and just after that they are back to normal intelligence, is a heavy blow to your game world and generally it's a very cheap and poor way to move the plot forward. So pick A or B, and stick with it. You made your bed too, so sleep in it.

[HappyDaze]

Or worse, get some nice fellows from the Caster's Union knocking on your door with a Disintegrate. Or someone with a grudge more powerful than some rich kid sorcerer. If the King handles this badly he better invest in some mighty fine wards, and check them very closely for sabotage and backdoors.

The mages might rightly look upon this as the king creating a throne-backed guild. They would probably love the idea.

[Anymage]

{scrubbed}

[AdAstra]

The mages might rightly look upon this as the king creating a throne-backed guild. They would probably love the idea.

Backed by whose throne, though? This King clearly has a grudge against mages, that's what caused the law to be so rashly passed in the first place. Why would they trust someone like that to actually be of any use to them? Why would the King trust them enough to let them take advantage of it? Plus, his authority means nothing outside his realm, so it's not all that useful in the first place and carries a lot of risk. If a mage wanted to enter the country, would they have to be registered first? That could seriously get in the way of magical commerce.

[Brookshw]

I'm not seeing how this is an unjust law. Misguided, maybe, but not unjust. Its a minor fee bearing regulation which compliance with carries less risk than having to register for the draft/selective service. The only way it might be unjust could be in the treatment of those unable to pay. However, we do not know if the original prisoners were unable or just unwilling, or what happens if a potential registrant goes to the appropriate court/Lord and says they're willing to comply but unable to pay.

From what was presented by the OP, seems like the "freedom fighter" is in the wrong and committed murder. Justification doesn't seem relevant.

[Pex]

Sokovia Accords

Do you support Iron Man or Captain America. There's your answer.

The registration fee could have been lower or non-existent. Petition the King for that.
Team Iron Man.

[Goggalor]

{scrubbed}

[HappyDaze]

Backed by whose throne, though? This King clearly has a grudge against mages, that's what caused the law to be so rashly passed in the first place. Why would they trust someone like that to actually be of any use to them? Why would the King trust them enough to let them take advantage of it? Plus, his authority means nothing outside his realm, so it's not all that useful in the first place and carries a lot of risk. If a mage wanted to enter the country, would they have to be registered first? That could seriously get in the way of magical commerce.

If you want an example, consider Sigmar's Empire (from Warhammer Fantasy) and its relationship with the Colleges of Magic. It addresses all of your questions. These are throne-backed guilds that hunt down non-member practitioners because of the terrible threat that non-regulated use of magic can cause. Foreign magicians that enter are subject to the full wrath of the Colleges (they police their own kind) unless the outsiders have a special relationship with the Colleges (like the Ice Witches of Kislev and the High Mages of Ulthuan do).

[AdAstra]

Sokovia Accords

Do you support Iron Man or Captain America. There's your answer.

The registration fee could have been lower or non-existent. Petition the King for that.
Team Iron Man.

Here though, there's not really any oversight or surveillance, just a one-time registration. That's less onerous, but also far less effective at actually accomplishing what the law is nominally meant to do.

Also, does this nation have similar laws about say, carrying or owning weapons? Do seasoned warriors need to register? What about Monks, or members of barbarian tribes? What about people with more limited spellcasting, like rangers, or every high elf? All of those people can be just as dangerous if not more so than your average hedge wizard.

[AdAstra]

If you want an example, consider Sigmar's Empire (from Warhammer Fantasy) and its relationship with the Colleges of Magic. It addresses all of your questions. These are throne-backed guilds that hunt down non-member practitioners because of the terrible threat that non-regulated use of magic can cause. Foreign magicians that enter are subject to the full wrath of the Colleges (they police their own kind) unless the outsiders have a special relationship with the Colleges (like the Ice Witches of Kislev and the High Mages of Ulthuan do).

That's a universe where using magic very carefully can still result in you getting possessed by Daemons. There, magical individuals are dangerous just by existing, not merely because they could abuse their power. The same cannot be said for DnD magic, which for the most part is like any other skill. Only really dangerous if they use it to do dangerous things.

[Amechra]

If you want an example, consider Sigmar's Empire (from Warhammer Fantasy) and its relationship with the Colleges of Magic. It addresses all of your questions. These are throne-backed guilds that hunt down non-member practitioners because of the terrible threat that non-regulated use of magic can cause. Foreign magicians that enter are subject to the full wrath of the Colleges (they police their own kind) unless the outsiders have a special relationship with the Colleges (like the Ice Witches of Kislev and the High Mages of Ulthuan do).

I mean, they also hunt them down because magic literally comes from the same place as demons, and (traditionally) is viewed as a result of being an evil cultist. It's more like they show up and go "hey, want to go to Hogwarts, learn the cool (and by that I mean safe) way of using magic, and become super respected?" than anything else. Like, one of the reasons given for Wizard Apprentices to go adventuring is because it's good PR for the wizard colleges.

EDIT:


That's a universe where using magic very carefully can still result in you getting possessed by Daemons. There, magical individuals are dangerous just by existing, not merely because they could abuse their power. The same cannot be said for DnD magic, which for the most part is like any other skill. Only really dangerous if they use it to do dangerous things.

Unless they changed something, that's pretty darn unlikely for anyone who has actually gone through the Colleges. The Winds are pretty safe - it's only when humans try grasping multiple Winds or are casting in places that are tainted by Chaos that you really have to worry about Things Going Very Wrong. The risk is more that you might turn to Chaos for power and validation because your fellow peasants are treating you like garbage, which is where the screaming and the tainting and the demonic possession start coming into play.

It's not Warhammer 40k, where their response to "training Psykers" is "feed the weak ones to the Emperor, and do brain surgery on the rest. It'll be fine."

[Anymage]

{scrubbed}

[HappyDaze]

That's a universe where using magic very carefully can still result in you getting possessed by Daemons. There, magical individuals are dangerous just by existing, not merely because they could abuse their power. The same cannot be said for DnD magic, which for the most part is like any other skill. Only really dangerous if they use it to do dangerous things.

The OP described a child accidentally killing several people with a magical effect. I don't think your last sentence applies as strictly as you think it does.

[Sigreid]

This mostly reminds me of the X-Men and the Mutant Registration Act theme.

[AdAstra]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

There's also the issue of who's actually more responsible for the deaths. If the King ordered his men to utilize lethal force against people who can and would defend themselves, for a reason that the King himself later realized was stupid and pointless. whose fault is it that those guards are dead? I would say the King.

Since it's already been established that in-universe, this law is considered unjust and ill-conceived, it would basically be like if the King ordered his men to invade a neighboring country for a petty or pointless reason. Sure, it would be the countries' soldiers who would be killing each other, but the blame would lie on the person who ordered the deed done.

[Keltest]

That's a universe where using magic very carefully can still result in you getting possessed by Daemons. There, magical individuals are dangerous just by existing, not merely because they could abuse their power. The same cannot be said for DnD magic, which for the most part is like any other skill. Only really dangerous if they use it to do dangerous things.

I mean, in general you wouldn't want, say, an armed team of mercenaries wandering around operating on their own agenda without any oversight or accountability either. Yeah, theyre not inherently going to cause death or destruction, but they have qualities such that make the problem far, far worse if it does happen.

[Sigreid]

I mean, in general you wouldn't want, say, an armed team of mercenaries wandering around operating on their own agenda without any oversight or accountability either. Yeah, theyre not inherently going to cause death or destruction, but they have qualities such that make the problem far, far worse if it does happen.

Same could be said of any random group of discharged combat veterans.

[Keltest]

Same could be said of any random group of discharged combat veterans.

I mean, yeah? If you had a squad of, say, elite Purple Dragons from Cormyr who all retired, the state isn't just going to let them vanish off the face of the earth. Doubly so if they started offering mercenary services to non-state groups.

[Sigreid]

I mean, yeah? If you had a squad of, say, elite Purple Dragons from Cormyr who all retired, the state isn't just going to let them vanish off the face of the earth. Doubly so if they started offering mercenary services to non-state groups.

Probably not ignore mercenary work, but really you're more likely to have a problem with a group of proud retired knights if you dont leave them alone.

[Keltest]

Probably not ignore mercenary work, but really you're more likely to have a problem with a group of proud retired knights if you dont leave them alone.

Knights in particular are probably actually landowners, and therefore taxed and watched weather they like it or not even without the skill at arms. Knightly equipment is expensive. Warhorses in particular cost a lot to maintain.

[Sigreid]

Knights in particular are probably actually landowners, and therefore taxed and watched weather they like it or not even without the skill at arms. Knightly equipment is expensive. Warhorses in particular cost a lot to maintain.

Actually, lots of knights had no land of their own but a patron that supported them.

Regardless, my main point is that if you have a body of powerful individuals, it's bad policy to make them feel like they are constantly under suspicion of being an enemy of the state. You want them to feel loyalty and belonging.

[Hail Tempus]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote} Comic book writers typically take a ham-handed approach to mutants because they want to make a point about our society (though I've always been a little leery about the comparison of skin color, on the one hand, and telekinetic and mind control powers, on the other).

It doesn't take much effort to come up with a registration/licensing legal regime that protects both mutants/spellcasters/people with superpowers and society at large.

For example:

1)Type one- anyone with a superpower that doesn't create any risk to the public at large (flight, water-breathing) just needs to register their powers, and there are no restrictions on their use, other than normal laws (i.e., flyers need to follow FAA rules and restrictions)

2)Type two- someone with potentially dangerous powers, that they can control (i.e., telekinesis, magnetism), needs to register their powers, and is legally limited in how/when/where they can use it.

3) Type three- someone with an inherently dangerous power, which they can't control (i.e., when they get stressed or afraid, they emit gamma radiation), may need to be segregated from the rest of society.

[Hail Tempus]

Actually, lots of knights had no land of their own but a patron that supported them.

Regardless, my main point is that if you have a body of powerful individuals, it's bad policy to make them feel like they are constantly under suspicion of being an enemy of the state. You want them to feel loyalty and belonging.
{scrubbed}
In the Forgotten Realms, places like Waterdeep are typically pretty eager to attract retired adventurers with offers of land and the like so that they settle down and have an incentive to defend the city when the next horrible monster comes out of the sea or from the Underdark.

[Beleriphon]

This mostly reminds me of the X-Men and the Mutant Registration Act theme.

Me too, there's a neat blog Law and Multiverse (run by actual lawyers) that discuss stuff like that.

On topic: The Witcher 3 has basically this as a running theme through a good part of the game (which a major questline involving Radovid and the Inquisition). The difference between this scenario is that Radovid is paranoid to an absurd degree, and is not about to rescind his law.

[ezekielraiden]

I'm not seeing how this is an unjust law. Misguided, maybe, but not unjust. Its a minor fee bearing regulation which compliance with carries less risk than having to register for the draft/selective service. The only way it might be unjust could be in the treatment of those unable to pay.
I don't think the OP supports these conclusions. Specifically (emphasis added):

The law made registering cost more gold then most low class folk could have and the students of the low arch mages went full freedom fighter and terrorist.
It's not a "minor" fee. This is a fee that essentially says: only rich people can be spellcasters. Even if you're only a child prodigy who needs training to not be a danger to others, you're not allowed to be a spellcaster or receive training unless you pay more money than your family could ever afford. Oh, you didn't pay up but you still have a magical bloodline coursing through your veins? Now you're a fugitive from justice and lethal force is authorized!



However, we do not know if the original prisoners were unable or just unwilling, or what happens if a potential registrant goes to the appropriate court/Lord and says they're willing to comply but unable to pay.
Whether or not these three specific people could pay (though I'd really like to see how you think a child so young that she believes men in armor are just big toys could afford a fee so high it's "more gold then [sic] most low class folk could have").


From what was presented by the OP, seems like the "freedom fighter" is in the wrong and committed murder. Justification doesn't seem relevant.
Very much seems to me that the correct response--if we're assuming a society that values the rule of law, which this one at least appears to, what with references to "trials" and such--is to have a trial and let a judge and/or jury make that determination. Given that even the King who wrote the law seems to personally think it was a mistake, I don't

This is not to say that the "freedom fighters" are innocent. They may not be. But as others have noted above, dealing with such a situation in a way that is both just and prudent is a difficult thing, and it may in fact be wise to look for reconciliation rather than restitution in order to stop the cycle of bloodshed and restore good order.

[Segev]

{scrubbed}

[Aussiehams]

Did everyone on the second death star deserve to die just for doing their jobs?

[Brookshw]

I don't think the OP supports these conclusions. Specifically (emphasis added):

It's not a "minor" fee. This is a fee that essentially says: only rich people can be spellcasters. Maybe, maybe not. {scrubbed} It's unclear how onerous the fee actually is and the statement you quote doesn't clarify matters.

[GlenSmash!]

In a world where people can spontaneously develop the ability to shoot bolts of energy out of their eyes, it would be perfectly moral and legal to develop a legal system to register and regulate such powers. That would result in some of the super-powered being kept away from society, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, whenever this comes up in comic books, the system of regulation always ends up with Sentinels hunting down kids whose only superpower is the ability to breath underwater or whatever. Because comic book writers aren't really good at nuance.

{scrubbed}

[HappyDaze]

Maybe, maybe not. {scrub the post, scrub the quote} It's unclear how onerous the fee actually is and the statement you quote doesn't clarify matters.

I would like to point out that inscribing the contents of the starting spellbook of a Wizard 1 is well beyond what the average commoner in most D&D settings could ever afford too.

[Segev]

I would like to point out that inscribing the contents of the starting spellbook of a Wizard 1 is well beyond what the average commoner in most D&D settings could ever afford too.

It's worth noting that the ones being brought up in these questions are not wizards, but sorcerers. Thus, no financial investment required, and no choice in "being magical."

[Sception]

{scrubbed}


Did everyone on the second death star deserve to die just for doing their jobs?

Given what their jobs were? If they were there voluntarily, then yes. If they were not there voluntarily, then no, but the culpability for their deaths goes to the imperials who forced them to be there, not to the rebels destroying the death star.
Further, even in the case of coerced participation, if your job was building, maintaining, defending, & operating something like the death star then you probably have a moral imperative to either refuse to do the job even at the cost of being killed by the imperials for that refusal, or else to use the access your job provides to sabotage the death star to any extent possible, even if that means dying when the imperials find out or when the rebels destroy the death star while you're still on it.


As for the original scenario, it would make an interesting opening premise for a political campaign given the likely fallout:

The king will need to re-establish his strength and the health of his heir with public shows of force, possibly even looking to reignite petty boarder disputes with his son "leading" the soldiers.

He probably won't need to go out of his way to spark foreign conflicts because neighboring powers, sensing weakness, will likely start testing the bounds themselves with both boarder skirmishes and agents sent to sway the noble houses not too closely aligned to the king. And maybe it would be for the best if that other nation took over, maybe their system is more stable and more just... or maybe it's only more just for the people who live there and any territory and people they take over would only be exploited.

Anti-monarchist groups growing among the lower classes based on the king's demonstrated incompetence and capriciousness and the resulting violence and unrest.

Pro-monarchists, especially among the noble houses most closely aligned with the king, will look to show their support even while possibly attempting to replace the king with the prince - with themselves as regents. They may do this even while opposing the royal family in secret, trying to play both sides.

Rivals within the nation's noble houses, sensing weakness in the king, will look to spread the idea that it isn't the monarchy that's the problem, but rather that the nation just has the wrong monarch, and maybe they should be in charge instead, some attempting to peel anti-monarchists into their camp, others looking to shore up support from other nobles, others still will look to foreign backers.

Pro-mage groups - both arcanists and arcane sympathizers - now extremely distrustful of the current monarchy, will be looking for allies among the monarchs enemies. Arcanists, with their powerful magic, would in turn be courted by multiple groups opposed to the current king, many with interests that conflict with each other, including anti-monarchists, rival nobles, and foreign powers. Some arcanists may even attempt a direct coup to put themselves in power, whether overtly through conjuration and evocation or covertly through enchantment and illusion.

Anti-mage groups - both rival magicians from divine or psionic backgrounds or anti-magic-altogether groups will see the king's rescinding of the registration law as a betrayal and possible evidence that the arcanists have already pulled off a covert coup via enchantment or illusion, and will spread conspiracy theories like wildfire, including that the kings son is actually dead and the 'cured' prince actually a mage in disguise. They'll be seeking their own alternative to the present monarchy, be it a new different royal bloodline, or an alternative political system altogether, one heavily anti-arcane, perhaps something of a theocratic sort. They may find allies with the anti-monarchists in an 'enemy of my enemy' sense, or come to blows with them if the alternative social orders they seek to implement are too obviously incompatible.



The environment is primed for spontaneous violence and active subversion- between pro and anti mages, between pro and anti monarchists, between local and foreign militaries, between rival noble houses. Spies will be everywhere, everyone is playing to multiple sides, nobody knows what's going to happen next. The entire nation will be on the brink of war, whether a civil war or a war with a foreign enemy hungry for territory and smelling blood in the water. Multiple sides will be looking to seize the fugitives who may or may not be in the party's protection - to raise them up as heroes, or kill them as traitors, or torture them into confessing themselves to be villains or monsters, or to let them be killed only to hold their memory up as martyrs.

In a setting so chaotic with so many possible outcomes, the party's actions could easily be the tipping point to decide the future of the nation, or whether the nation even has a future at all.

[AdAstra]

Did everyone on the second death star deserve to die just for doing their jobs?
Whether they deserved to die is beside the point. The Death Star was destroyed because it was a massive threat to basically everyone, not because anyone thought a bunch of imperials had earned a death sentence.


This is entirely unrelated to the actual issue at hand. No one is claiming the guards deserved to die (though some certainly come close), but what actually matters is whether the people who killed them should be treated as murderers/held responsible for those deaths. If this was a law considered legitimate and in good judgement, it would be different, but the OP was explicit. Even the man who declared the law now thinks it was a bad idea from the start. To punish people for defending themselves from such a law would be both disruptive to public order and a failure to acknowledge that the law should never have existed in the first place.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: I do not believe this thread can continue without real-world political references. Thread permanently closed.