Paladins choice

[Greenish]

What? Why in the world?

To punish people (for the sake of punishment) is not Good. To show them the error in their ways and to forgive them is.

[hamishspence]

Then you should have said that. Otherwise pay evil unto evil.

The original quote did say "it does no good to visit torments on a creature of that nature"


"Pay evil unto evil" is a common way for good characters to slip into evil alignment- where do you draw the line between "just punishment" and "excessive"?

In D&D, execution for really serious crimes is not evil, even if forgiveness and redemption is an ideal.

However (at least in BoED & FC2) torture is evil.

"Eye for eye" justice can become evil when it crosses the line into torture.

as somebody once said "An eye for an eye ends up with the whole world blind"

[Agrippa]

"Pay evil unto evil" is a common way for good characters to slip into evil alignment- where do you draw the line between "just punishment" and "excessive"?

Watch the TNT show Leverage and the USA show Burn Notice. That's paying evil unto evil. Throw in the Punisher when he's going after human traffickers (especially sex slavers) and particularly horrendous Mafiosi. He may go too far but he never harms honest cops or innocent bystanders. Maybe even Max Keenan from Bones. While he may be a career criminal but like Frank Castle he won't harm good cops or innocents. But may God have mercy on your putified soul if you threaten his either his two children or their friends and loved ones with bodily harm. He might go overboard at times but I wouldn't consider him evil. Chaotic Neutral with Good tendancies would be more like it.

In D&D, execution for really serious crimes is not evil, even if forgiveness and redemption is an ideal.

However (at least in BoED & FC2) torture is evil.

I won't argue with you on this part.

"Eye for eye" justice can become evil when it crosses the line into torture.

as somebody once said "An eye for an eye ends up with the whole world blind"

Ghandi was a great and good man. Paladins are supposed to be great and good men and women. Paladins, are not Ghandi and Ghandi was never a paladin. Why would they have combat and full weapons and armor training if they aren't mentally and physically equiped to use those skills.

[hamishspence]

Throw in the Punisher when he's going after human traffickers (especially sex slavers) and particularly horrendous Mafiosi. He may go too far but he never harms honest cops or innocent bystanders. Maybe even Max Keenan from Bones. While he may be a career criminal but like Frank Castle he won't harm good cops or innocents. But may God have mercy on your putified soul if you threaten his either his two children or their friends and loved ones with bodily harm. He might go overboard at times but I wouldn't consider him evil. Chaotic Neutral with Good tendancies would be more like it.

You might think of the Punisher type of character as Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies, but gamewise, he could just as easily be Lawful Evil. With the Evil confined to "deserving victims" and the Law, being his obsession with meting out "justice".

Why would they have combat and full weapons and armor training if they aren't mentally and physically equiped to use those skills.

Use them. Not Abuse them. When a "good guy" starts torturing villains- he's heading off the path of Good- and needs to realize that this is wrong.

[Riffington]

Okay hamish, what's so bad about seeking retribution against those who harmed or still harm innocent people, especially if they lack remorse for their cirmes? Isn't that part of the job of a paladin, to punish the irredeemably wicked? At least give me some context.

Punishment and retribution are nonidentical.
Retribution is at best Neutral.
Punishment can be Good, but if so it must have as its goal the rehabilitation of the offender. Torture does little to rehabilitate.

That all said, if you are kind to the cruel you will end up being cruel to the kind. Forgiveness is inappropriate for ongoing evil - the evil must first be stopped.

[hamishspence]

That all said, if you are kind to the cruel you will end up being cruel to the kind. Forgiveness is inappropriate for ongoing evil - the evil must first be stopped.

BoED's approach was (if you manage to capture the villain)- show them the error of their ways- try and reform them, and if they reform, then you forgive them.

It's an improvement on the alternative magical method of reforming them, anyway. (Sanctify the Wicked always came across as a little off.)

Being kind to the evil is part of reforming them- but kindness doesn't mean stupidity- such an evil character should still be restrained, until they reform.

And, while reforming the villain is the ideal, it's not always practical- sometimes it is necessary for an unreformed villain to be executed (and execution under these circumstances is specified as not evil).

[Riffington]

Rehabilitation is a much lower bar than reformation. Reformation requires the evildoer to see the error of her ways and become a better person. This is the ideal, of course. Rehabilitation merely requires the evildoer to stop doing such heinous acts; she can remain evil.
While reformation is obviously better, a punishment that merely attempts rehabilitation can still be Good.

[hamishspence]

Depends on if it avoids slipping into cruelty or not. Severing both a thief's hands might "rehabilitate" them (since it becomes vastly harder for them to continue stealing)- nontheless- it can be deemed cruelty.

[Agrippa]

Use them. Not Abuse them. When a "good guy" starts torturing villains- he's heading off the path of Good- and needs to realize that this is wrong.

What makes you think I'm talking about torture?

[hamishspence]

The Punisher doesn't torture particularly horrendous villains?

He was one of the examples you gave.

I think Jack Bauer is another notable example of a character who fits "pay evil unto evil" including torture- though his is more for info than punishment.

Terry Goodkind had one or two scenes where villains are tortured horribly to death by "heroes" as punishment for their crimes.

In general, Pay Evil Unto Evil seems to end up this way a lot.

[snoopy13a]

"Eye for eye" justice can become evil when it crosses the line into torture.

Eye for an eye justice stems from cultures where imprisoning people was problematic. For example, take a nomadic society that catches a member stealing. There's no prison to put him (or her) in, so what do you?

One option is to demand restitution. This can work if the thief can afford it.
Another option is death. However, this may seem like a harsh penalty for some offenses.
A third option is exile.
A fourth option is forcing the offender into some form of slavery.
A fifth option is the "eye for an eye" method which would be chopping off a hand.

Not all societies will like our modern societies where you give the felon 5-10 years. Especially when it comes to nomadic societies (where you can't have prisons) and societies where food is scarce. If honest peasants are starving, it wouldn't be very popular to give convicted felons three square meals a day.

[hamishspence]

"hard labour" as opposed to actual slavery (where the person and any future offspring of them are legally property- seems about right.

How common was hard labour as a punishment?

Remember that the D&D world is a bit more modern in its sensibilities, than medieval times (In gender roles, especially).

[Apollo1776]

Eye for an eye is a lawful neutral point of view.

[hamishspence]

I can certainly imagine plenty of Lawful Neutral characters propounding it.

The question is- when it comes to carrying it out, and when doing so would involve torturing an offender horribly (one who has, themselves, tortured people, and got caught) - would they stay Lawful Neutral?

I'm dubious about that one.

Torture, even as a punishment, I see as somewhat corrupting.

[taltamir]

To OP:

1. you assume that the husband is "beating his wife" and its not a case of a brawl. "On average 10% weaker" doesn't mean all women are... heck, men DO get beaten by their wives...

2. one or both are breaking the law, if you are an officer of the law arrest him or both depending on local law, and sort it out in the station.

3. if you are not a member of the law, report it to the police.

[taltamir]

"Eye for eye" justice can become evil when it crosses the line into torture.

That is your opinion...

I view myself as the most morally just person to ever walk the planet and I believe that child rapists should be TORTURED yet kept a alive as long as possible in a perpetual "hell on earth" state and that this belief is GOOD and morally just because the fear of such a punishment (compared to just death) will protect children (the real victims) from such a horrid violation by an inhumane scum that does not deserve a single shred of mercy or rights.

[hamishspence]

1. you assume that the husband is "beating his wife" and its not a case of a brawl. "On average 10% weaker" doesn't mean all women are... heck, men DO get beaten by their wives...

...even in medieval times.

In D&D, it seems even more plausible.

[taltamir]

...even in medieval times.

In D&D, it seems even more plausible.

true, by RAW women do NOT have a strength penalty! that means DnD women are equally as strong as their male counterparts (actually it flat out says that in the fluff as well!)

[Apollo1776]

I can certainly imagine plenty of Lawful Neutral characters propounding it.

The question is- when it comes to carrying it out, and when doing so would involve torturing an offender horribly (one who has, themselves, tortured people, and got caught) - would they stay Lawful Neutral?

It is iffy. It depends on what type of neutral they are. Do they believe in balancing out good and evil, or are they just not swayed either way? The latter would just give out a sentence or make sure the offender gets justice as according to the law.

I guess it is one of those things that walks the line between neutral and evil.

[hamishspence]

I view myself as the most morally just person to ever walk the planet

Hmm.

I believe that child rapists should be TORTURED yet kept a alive as long as possible in a perpetual "hell on earth" state and that this belief is GOOD and morally just

I think Mercedes's Lackey's take on it was better.

"It does no good to visit torments on a creature of that nature. It teaches him nothing, and it makes your nature more like his"

Or David Gemmell: "Hatred is the true enemy"

David Gemmell villains sometimes managed to redeem themselves in some way, despite being exceptionally vile.

Or the AIs of Shub, in Simon R. Green's Deathstalker- whose record of atrocities was pretty awful- yet they ended up becoming nonevil- and spending the next few centuries trying to redeem themselves.

[taltamir]

i am sure there are people who disagree with me. I think those people are wrong.

My point is, torture is not universally seen as evil in every and all situations and "an eye for an eye" isn't either. I was not exaggerating either, I meant every single word of that post.

technically rapists get sent to jail so we do have eye-for-eye in that case... although that is the only case in which we have that... the penalty for any crime, from car jacking to murder through corporate theft is to be raped in prison.

[hamishspence]

While some people might rationalize torture for "life-saving information" or as "punishment for the deserving" it has, over time, reached the point where the torturer is seen as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_mankind

As for "eye for eye" - the case you are describing isn't justice- but revenge. People get angry at evildoers- and respond by doing evil to them.

Very natural, but also an example of the dark side of humanity.

Sadism directed at the "evil" or the "deserving" is still sadism.

[Solarn]

i am sure there are people who disagree with me. I think those people are wrong.

My point is, torture is not universally seen as evil in every and all situations and "an eye for an eye" isn't either. I was not exaggerating either, I meant every single word of that post.

Yes it is.

technically rapists get sent to jail so we do have eye-for-eye in that case... although that is the only case in which we have that... the penalty for any crime, from car jacking to murder through corporate theft is to be raped in prison.

That's not the punishment, that's just proof that the prison system's broken.

[hamishspence]

Aside from Terry Goodkind (of "evil pacifists" fame) I'm not sure if there are any mainstream fantasy authors which show the torture of evil guys by good guys, as OK.

Plenty have their heroes do it once or twice, but this is nearly always portrayed as a moral failure by the hero.

[taltamir]

fantasy authors do not represent humanity as a whole.

That's not the punishment, that's just proof that the prison system's broken.

Semantics... ask anyone why they don't commit crime and they will tell you because they fear prison rape...
ask anyone what the real penalty is, imprisonment or the rape, and they will save the rape.

Heck, if I get thrown in prison I am ****ed, because there are the mexican gang, the black gang, the asian gang, and the KKK/Neo Nazi white supremecist gang... and I am a pasty white jew. So I can't join the nazi gang (and any white person who doesn't get a swastika tatt in prison is gonna get his ass shivved).

[Anterean]

. A paladin who dismisses things like this as "not important" is likely walking on Miko's edge.

Even Miko didn´t consider the common people's problems beneath her.
She even halted a quest from her lawful liege, to help a pair of dirt farmers.

[taltamir]

Even Miko didn´t consider the common people's problems beneath her.
She even halted a quest from her lawful liege, to help a pair of dirt farmers.

Who asked for her help... they did NOT tell her to buzz off...
If I recall, the sorceress and her dad who used to be bandit kinds? (wasn't he chaotic good and she chaotic neutral?)... they got murdered when they told her to buzz off.

roy on the other hand left them tied together in the forest with their army gone where they have to resolve their family issues etc.

[Solarn]

fantasy authors do not represent humanity as a whole.


Semantics... ask anyone why they don't commit crime and they will tell you because they fear prison rape...

No. I don't commit crimes because crimes are wrong. Pls not to be judging the whole of humanity after yourself.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

The Paladin as a holy warrior can certainly be seen as a 'religious' character. She fights for right and good in the name of her deity. Therefore we can assume that the paladin’s code is quite like an embodiment of her deity’s creed. To break the code of conduct means, therefore, to act against faith, thus committing heresy.

According to William Ockham, a heretic is a person who consciously and willingly errs against the faith and insists upon his error, despite being proven wrong (I Dialogus V, c. 1).

Wow. You just won this thread on the first page.

I have never seen you post before, but would love to see more of you (and Ockham)

[Ormur]

There's a reason D&D claims humans don't tend to any alignment, being good probably isn't the default. Being good is very hard and means staying true to your beliefs in a society or circumstances that don't reward good behaviour.

I'd say torture falls pretty squarely under that. It doesn't even matter if the circumstances make it seem a sensible choice at the moment, it's still evil. You might justify it as necessary evil but it still takes you a long step from the good alignment, not to mention that torture isn't really effective, whether it's at extracting information or as a deterrent against horrible crimes. A good person or a society debases itself by engaging in evil acts like torture. As a DM I'd place a person that condones such things in general for good purposes as morally neutral. Someone that actually engages in torture would have to have an exceptional excuse or come around quickly in order not to become evil. If you can inflict calculated pain on people you're really loosing your grip on morality and normalizing such cruelty, I think that applies to both individuals and societies.