"An Eye for an Eye" and Politics

[Zovc]

For a campaign setting I'm brewing, I want there to be at least a large city that takes the principle (that is the right form of the word, right?) of "an eye for an eye" to an extreme.

Taking that philosophy to the extreme is kind of awkward, since it's mostly reactionary, but I more so mean for it to be the 'golden rule' of the society.

So, what are some interesting ways to "exaggerate" or "emphasize" the saying? What should law enforcement look like?

I'm also not sure how 'big' this society should be. How big should they consider their "jurisdiction" for enforcing their founding philosophy? I'm considering applying this to the entire Dwarven empire, allowing dwarves to serve their typical Lawful tenancies.

[hamishspence]

Robert Heinlein had this for a culture (in Number of the Beast)

For a typical example- a drunk driver runs into someone and injures them- enough that their leg requires amputation.

They take him down to the site of the "accident"- tie him down, and have a car run over his leg- before having it amputated.

[MickJay]

Of course, the system gets amusing when something bad happens as a result of accident that no-one could have, realistically, prevented.

[Tshern]

Have a bunch of Cleric/Dweomerkeepers around creating the punishments with supernatural Miracles. Shadowcraft Mages would do as well. An easy way to mimic the crime to the letter and return all the agony in gross irony.

[Zovc]

Of course, the system gets amusing when something bad happens as a result of accident that no-one could have, realistically, prevented.

Then they try to take on the gods? Hmm...

[Snake-Aes]

For a campaign setting I'm brewing, I want there to be at least a large city that takes the principle (that is the right form of the word, right?) of "an eye for an eye" to an extreme.

Taking that philosophy to the extreme is kind of awkward, since it's mostly reactionary, but I more so mean for it to be the 'golden rule' of the society.

So, what are some interesting ways to "exaggerate" or "emphasize" the saying? What should law enforcement look like?

I'm also not sure how 'big' this society should be. How big should they consider their "jurisdiction" for enforcing their founding philosophy? I'm considering applying this to the entire Dwarven empire, allowing dwarves to serve their typical Lawful tenancies.

Well, first thing I can think of is that people who don't stand up for their own pride lose ALL of it at once.
Big guy called your mother a rotten berry? If you don't do anything, anyone is entitled to call her that, and if you take it out on the smaller guy, you're lynched. Take it back from the first one or just take it humbly.


Second... Law enforcement on the 1X centuries, especially in the middle east and low medieval europe. Thief? <saws hand off>. Defector? <best friend breaks your arms>. jaywalker? <stuff your house with rabid weasels>

[Zovc]

Well, first thing I can think of is that people who don't stand up for their own pride lose ALL of it at once.
Big guy called your mother a rotten berry? If you don't do anything, anyone is entitled to call her that, and if you take it out on the smaller guy, you're lynched. Take it back from the first one or just take it humbly.

This would justify Dwarves (or whatever race is the most dominant in this area, or simply this area's inhabitants) taking things seriously, and generally making a conflict out of anything.

Second... Law enforcement on the 1X centuries, especially in the middle east and low medieval europe. Thief? <saws hand off>. Defector? <best friend breaks your arms>. jaywalker? <stuff your house with rabid weasels>

I'm not so sure this helps, though--Maybe the first example for thiefs.

Would we be pushing things too hard of 'thieves' were punished by having to give back 150% of what they took? For example, you stole 20 gold from someone, so you have to return 30 gold to them legally. How this would work for one stolen cow is up for interpretation.

[Snake-Aes]

Would we be pushing things too hard of 'thieves' were punished by having to give back 150% of what they took? For example, you stole 20 gold from someone, so you have to return 30 gold to them legally. How this would work for one stolen cow is up for interpretation.

Two cows. Or equivalent services. If you just want to pay back without screwing people around permanently, that's what the goods and services charts are for. Debt-induced slavery happened in ancient times.

It's also a good idea to pull the good side of that too. If you go and help someone out of selflessness, the helped person has a plethora of reasons to be truly grateful, maybe even offering owing the guy that one. It basically scales up both gratefulness and revenge.

[SITB]

If I remember correctly from my Game Theory book, An "Eye for an Eye" startegy is pretty poor when executed in a non perfect system.

To elaborate, if someone by mistake interperts something someone else did as bad, then you start a cycle of punishment that will continue until another mistake occurs. Roughly you would get the same amount of proper punishment from tossing a coin and beating someone up every time you got tails.

[hamishspence]

A slightly more generous style (in the case of death) might be for the person to be obliged to save lives as payment. With an assumption that a lifetime's work as a medic or fireman or some other lifesaving job (adventurer?) with no pay but bed and board, might only just be enough.

They might not have to follow eye-for-eye exactly- a "let the punishment fit the crime" approach might approximate it without needing to be exact.

"The billiard sharp whom anyone catches,
His doom's extremely hard.
He's made to dwell in a dungeon cell,
On a spot that's always barred.
And there he plays extravagant matches,
In fitless finger stalls.
On a cloth untrue with a twisted cue,
And elliptical billiard balls."

[Psyx]

.
"Big guy called your mother a rotten berry? If you don't do anything, anyone is entitled to call her that, and if you take it out on the smaller guy, you're lynched. Take it back from the first one or just take it humbly."

Ah; the Viking tradition!
The problem is to enforce the law without being evil. Crippling someone for an accident is 'bad', which is why historically (and even today in some countries) blood money is fixed in terms of the law in advance. You cost a working man his left arm: 1000gp. You cost a widow her sight: 300gp. I can imagine that given the typical dwarvish love for records and procedure that this could have become enormously complex: Ah, you cost a blacksmith of 47 years his left index finger on a Tuesday... 1356.5gp.

"Second... Law enforcement on the 1X centuries, especially in the middle east and low medieval europe. Thief? <saws hand off>."

That's still the law in Saudi Arabia, although it has nothing to do with 'an eye for an eye'. In a culture historically short on toilet roll, and big on communal eating, only the right hand is used to eat with. Taking someone's right hand isn't stopping them from stealing; it's a social stigma that prevents them from participating in communal dining. the fact that it means they haven't got a right hand is just a side-effect of being marked and excluded as a criminal. I digress.

"jaywalker? <stuff your house with rabid weasels>"

I like your laws.


In a magic-heavy world, loosing a limb isn't that much of an inconvenience given a handy cleric, so accidents causing the loss of an eye/whatever can be sorted out. So causing the loss of a limb might result in the guilty party having their limb similarly removed (as suggested earlier) and then fixed without it being to the permanent detriment of anyone: A genuine lesson learned. Thus even if the original event was a genuine accident 'an eye for an eye' can still be justly used as a penalty. You'd get your eye back, but you wouldn't be keen to run around with scissors again!


"Debt-induced slavery happened in ancient times."

And not-so-ancient, too. Always seemed fair to me...


"To elaborate, if someone by mistake interperts something someone else did as bad, then you start a cycle of punishment that will continue until another mistake occurs."

Which is why many societies where such laws were common had enormous numbers of blood feuds.

[hamishspence]

Works slightly better if there's an authority to inflict the punishments on you behalf- instead of the civilian "paying them back"- they go to the local law authority, their case is heard, and if successful, the local authority inflicts the "eye for eye" punishment.

The society might have all sentences and punishments inflicted by juries as well- on a "if you weren't prepared to carry out the sentence, you shouldn't have found the guy guilty in the first place" principle.

So, if a jury finds someone guilty of murder- they must sentence them, and if the sentence is death, they must carry it out.

If only impartial (or at least, as impartial as possible) authorities carry out punishments, blood feuding will be less of a problem.

[Psyx]

If only impartial (or at least, as impartial as possible) authorities carry out punishments, blood feuding will be less of a problem.

A central authority helps, along with viable right to appeal. However, where things historically fell down, was that it fell to a local headman to make the call, who had his own biases. And in the event of an incident between people from two separate communities, each community's headman might well lend (very biased) legal weight to a feud by declaring it just/unjust, starting the cycle.

Again; magic helps, as zones of truth and whatnot help things a bit. Animal messenger and the like can be used in outlying lands to appeal to higher authorities where needed.

[hamishspence]

The Heralds, in Mercedes Lackey's Heralds of Valdemar series- helped alleviate the issue of distant central authority, by patrolling circuits, visiting the towns, resolving those disputes that hadn't been settled there, and so on.

The fact that they were virtually incorruptible helped- a bit like paladins without the uptightness.

That might be one way of handling paladins- they have authority- and some ability to resolve disputes, but they still answer to a higher authority, and still have to show some due process.

[CapnVan]

The term, "an eye for an eye," comes from the actual Code of Hammurabi.

You can find an English translation here.

Might want to give it a look to see what the actual laws were for inspiration.

[Yora]

It's more about compensation in cases of harmful neglect.

And while revenge might be great for some people on an individual level, it's just devestating for a community. So you got one guy who loses his ability to work. What's the solution which compensates the community for the loss of work force? Crippling another valuable worker really won't help here.

Skandinavian law was not so much about "Who was right and who was wrong", but about "how do we restore peace in the community without everyone killing each other in a blood feud?" Which was usually done by paying compensation for the economical damage.

[Zovc]

If I remember correctly from my Game Theory book, An "Eye for an Eye" startegy is pretty poor when executed in a non perfect system.

To elaborate, if someone by mistake interperts something someone else did as bad, then you start a cycle of punishment that will continue until another mistake occurs. Roughly you would get the same amount of proper punishment from tossing a coin and beating someone up every time you got tails.

Indeed, the system isn't perfect. There can be some precautions included (see below), but flawed systems can lead to very interesting situations.

Works slightly better if there's an authority to inflict the punishments on you behalf- instead of the civilian "paying them back"- they go to the local law authority, their case is heard, and if successful, the local authority inflicts the "eye for eye" punishment.

The society might have all sentences and punishments inflicted by juries as well- on a "if you weren't prepared to carry out the sentence, you shouldn't have found the guy guilty in the first place" principle.

So, if a jury finds someone guilty of murder- they must sentence them, and if the sentence is death, they must carry it out.

I like this, but I'm not sure if I want this society to have a jury in their courts. It would be 'cool', however, to make juries public so that they are open to ridicule (for being weak, indecisive, etc).

If only impartial (or at least, as impartial as possible) authorities carry out punishments, blood feuding will be less of a problem.

Indeed, this is probably one of the best countermeasures to blood feuds.

Again; magic helps, as zones of truth and whatnot help things a bit. Animal messenger and the like can be used in outlying lands to appeal to higher authorities where needed.

I'm not so sure "that kind" of magic will be available in my game world.

It's more about compensation in cases of harmful neglect.

And while revenge might be great for some people on an individual level, it's just devestating for a community. So you got one guy who loses his ability to work. What's the solution which compensates the community for the loss of work force? Crippling another valuable worker really won't help here.

Skandinavian law was not so much about "Who was right and who was wrong", but about "how do we restore peace in the community without everyone killing each other in a blood feud?" Which was usually done by paying compensation for the economical damage.

Indeed. Perhaps the society's more primitive people decided to stop constant blood feuds by introducing a sort of court? There could be some remaining scars between families, even.