Pay Evil unto Evil: deterrence vs retribution

[Conradine]

In my opinion,

there's a deep qualitative difference between inflicting suffering for retribution and doing it to prevent further crimes. I think it's akin the difference between self defence and revenge: self defence is violence done to prevent or stop violence, revenge is violence done to appease a desire - lecit or not - of retribution.

Pratical example: let's say a queen is waging war against slave-holding nations that routinely torture and execute slaves for intimidation and sadistical fun. One of those cities cruelly crucify hundreds of slave children in order to mock and demoralize the queen. When the city is succesfully sieged, the queen orders the guilty slavemasters to be crucified as they did with the children.

That's an Evil action? Yes, indeed. It's painful, excruciating torture. Although I think many people would concede that the slave masters reaped what they sow, that does not change the inherent evilness of the action.

---

But if that action is done for deterrence, rather than retribution?

For example: knowing that the slave-holding cities have a precedent for public execution of slaves, the queen make known far and wide that those slave masters who execute innocent slaves will suffer the very same fate at her hands ( while those who refrain from war crimes will be spared ).

If that action deters even a single execution, that makes it lecit?
Because it's basically the life of children against those of child-murdering slave owners.

Thoughts?

[Eldonauran]

My thought on the matter of capital punishment (lets keep it to this example), is that it is almost NEVER a good action, though that does not make it inherently an Evil action. Arguments can be made where such actions fall on the Law/Chaos spectrum (I tend to favor the Lawful side myself), but as far as the Good/Evil axis is concerned, I place it solidly in the realm of Neutrality.

Alignment in D&D is tricky (and real life even more so). There is no blanket statement of "Yes, it is appropriate for blank to be done for blank, as long as it benefits others in the long run." Every situation is unique and nuanced. There is a thin line between retribution and punishment. Sometimes, they are the same thing and lead to the same result. If there is such a thing as ultimate justice in the universe, evil will be returned to those that do evil, and those that do evil deserve that evil, regardless of where it comes from.

[hamishspence]

That's an Evil action? Yes, indeed. It's painful, excruciating torture. Although I think many people would concede that the slave masters reaped what they sow, that does not change the inherent evilness of the action.

---

But if that action is done for deterrence, rather than retribution?

For example: knowing that the slave-holding cities have a precedent for public execution of slaves, the queen make known far and wide that those slave masters who execute innocent slaves will suffer the very same fate at her hands ( while those who refrain from war crimes will be spared ).

If that action deters even a single execution, that makes it lecit?

In the context of D&D 3.5, torture is a Corrupt act (FC2) or an Evil act (BoED). Motives don't really factor into it - be they retribution, personal gratification, deterrence, or "to obtain information".

Death by torture is what this is, thus tripping the whole "Paladin falling" or "Character in danger of beginning to move down the alignment chart" thing.

It's not just 3e either. Right back in 0e, "torturing a prisoner" was portrayed as something that is out of character for Good-aligned characters.


A non-torturous execution can be Non-Evil in D&D, but never a torturous one.

[Eldonauran]

A non-torturous execution can be Non-Evil in D&D, but never a torturous one.

I am in complete agreement. Even should the person being executed deserve to be repaid for every ounce of suffering and evil they had inflicted onto an innocent, it is better to put them down mercifully rather than resort to evil in order to satisfy that desire for vengeance.

[Zanos]

I'd say that using brutal capital punishment to promote fear to maintain order, even an otherwise Good order, is super Evil. Redemption is a pretty critical aspect of Good, so capital punishment is usually going to be Evil. Torturing people to death in order to scare others into compliance? Where are your horns?

[Eldonauran]

I'd say that using brutal capital punishment to promote fear to maintain order, even an otherwise Good order, is super Evil. Redemption is a pretty critical aspect of Good, so capital punishment is usually going to be Evil. Torturing people to death in order to scare others into compliance? Where are your horns?

Capital punishment is merely ending the life of someone who has committed crimes. It does not inherently mean it must be brutal or require 'torture'. Capital punishment, absent any other qualifiers, would be a Neutral, if arguably Lawful, act. I do agree that brutal capital punishment is Evil, and even more so when used to instill fear in the population to control their behavior. The 'greater good' is often never Good.

[hamishspence]

Capital punishment is merely ending the life of someone who has committed crimes.

Serious crimes, anyway. A case could be made that capital punishment for petty crimes, even if quick and merciful, qualifies as Evil.



However, this requires a concept of crimes that overrules "mortal law" - that, if a particular system treats all crimes as serious, then that system is "cosmically wrong".

[Zanos]

Capital punishment is merely ending the life of someone who has committed crimes. It does not inherently mean it must be brutal or require 'torture'. Capital punishment, absent any other qualifiers, would be a Neutral, if arguably Lawful, act. I do agree that brutal capital punishment is Evil, and even more so when used to instill fear in the population to control their behavior. The 'greater good' is often never Good.

Good believes in redemption. That is a core quality of Good. Capital punishment removes that from the equation. You could make an argument that capital punishment is non-Evil when no other viable means exist to neutralize a threat; that's why I said it's usually Evil. An execution in even a Lawful Good society should be a rarity.

[Eldonauran]

Good believes in redemption. That is a core quality of Good. Capital punishment removes that from the equation. You could make an argument that capital punishment is non-Evil when no other viable means exist to neutralize a threat; that's why I said it's usually Evil. An execution in even a Lawful Good society should be a rarity.

""Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." Redemption is a factor of the good alignment, but I wouldn't call it Core to anything except Exalted characters (every alignment has gradients within itself). But one has to be completely naive to believe that redemption is possible with every person or entity. While everything CAN be redeemed, not all desire it and once we have to deal with personal autonomy, we begin to step into some very murky waters.

I don't think we are in disagreement in this matter, though we may differ on how often capital punishment is used to in a Lawful Good society. Some crimes are heinous enough to outright demand the sentence, and those usually involve the taking of another life with malicious intent.

[Darg]

Some crimes are heinous enough to outright demand the sentence, and those usually involve the taking of another life with malicious intent.

Evil begets evil. Alignment is a spectrum. Laws are created to bring order. Demanding death is the evil act. Making sure that the perpetrator won't commit the crime again is the intent of the law. A more neutral form of execution would be locking them in a cell and forgetting they exist. You prevent them from committing evil in the future and don't care if they live or die; it's their responsibility to deal with the consequences of their actions.

[hamishspence]

A more neutral form of execution would be locking them in a cell and forgetting they exist.

Starving somebody to death sounds pretty torturous to me.

[Conradine]

So, Daenerys acted Evil toward the slave masters?

[Eldonauran]

Evil begets evil. Alignment is a spectrum. Laws are created to bring order. Demanding death is the evil act. Making sure that the perpetrator won't commit the crime again is the intent of the law. A more neutral form of execution would be locking them in a cell and forgetting they exist. You prevent them from committing evil in the future and don't care if they live or die; it's their responsibility to deal with the consequences of their actions.

I don't buy into the moral argument that killing someone as punishment for a heinous crime is evil. Therefor, I do not accept your statement that 'Evil begets Evil' is applicable here. I don't want to get into the gritty details of it because it will devolve into more real world matters than I care to bring to the board. Let's just leave it at this: Show me where justified execution is an evil act in the 3.5e system, and we can debate it there.

So, Daenerys acted Evil toward the slave masters?

Yes. They certainly deserved death for what they had done, and perhaps deserved the method in which they were executed. But that act lead to her slow corruption of character.

[hamishspence]

In the show in particular, a point was made that Dany only asked for X number of people to be handed over for execution. She made no effort whatsoever to ensure that the executed people were genuinely cruel slavemasters involved with the previous crucifixions.

[nedz]

Motive is irrelevant in 3.5

For example: suppose the party is going to take out a Lich, and I cast Summon Undead a few times - just so that the party can test the effectiveness of various spells or attacks in dealing with the Lich's various minions. Since Summon Undead is an Evil spell I have committed an Evil act, even if the Undead I summon just stand there and take whatever, and the greater good is served by attacking a Lich.

[Zanos]

So, Daenerys acted Evil toward the slave masters?

Pretty soundly. Torturing people to death to intimidate others is extremely Evil, even if the people you're torturing and intimidating are themselves Evil.

[Darg]

Let's just leave it at this: Show me where justified execution is an evil act in the 3.5e system, and we can debate it there.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

Execution is killing. Society justifies the evil deed by using it as a deterrent and it prevents gambling with the possibility of future evils that the criminal could have committed. In the US alone, more than 1 in 10 death row inmates have been exonerated. Those are only the ones that were able to be proven not guilty. That's with all of our high tech capabilities. Yes, D&D provides ways to get to the truth. The unfortunate part is that their availability is in most cases quite absent.

Starving somebody to death sounds pretty torturous to me.

The word torturous doesn't imply an action of torture. Taking care of others is what a good person would do. An evil person would sit there and torment the criminal. A neutral person simply doesn't give a damn.

[hamishspence]

Taking care of others is what a good person would do. An evil person would sit there and torment the criminal. A neutral person simply doesn't give a damn.

Putting someone in a situation where if nothing changes, they will die agonisingly, is morally no different from inflicting agony on them personally.


"I dropped them in the volcano, but I'm not going to burn them to death, the volcano will do that, so I'm Neutral not Evil" just doesn't work.




If starvation is used in torture, then it would be reasonable to say that death by starvation, is a form of death by torture.

Execution is killing.

So are every other killing an adventurer carries out. Paladins Fall for committing Evil acts. They don't normally (as played by most DMs) fall for every killing they carry out. Conclusion - that PHB statement is a generalisation - that cannot be extrapolated to "Any killing qualifies as Evil".

Can a paladin ruler (there are plenty of those in various campaign settings) have somebody executed and not lose their powers? Based on BOED's "Execution for serious crimes is widely practiced and does not qualify as Evil" I would say the answer is yes.

The question is whether the form of execution inflicts unnecessary, excessive suffering on the victim, especially to the point when it qualifies as "torturing the victim to death"

Having someone crucified, impaled, starved to death, etc, all qualify as "too slow and cruel, so Evil" IMO.

The act is evil, so if done routinely, the character becomes evil.

[Conradine]

It could be argued that if a ruler says "whatever the slave masters do to the slaves, I do to them", then they're inflicting their fate upon themselves with their own hands.

A bit like Belkar and the Mark of Justice. It was quite painful.

[hamishspence]

The Mark of Justice is a bit different than what Dany did - it was a spell cast on Belkar, that later automatically triggered upon Belkar's action - no ability in the spell to choose not to trigger.

Whereas Dany had plenty of ability to choose what to do.

[Eldonauran]

So are every other killing an adventurer carries out. Paladins Fall for committing Evil acts. They don't normally (as played by most DMs) fall for every killing they carry out. Conclusion - that PHB statement is a generalisation - that cannot be extrapolated to "Any killing qualifies as Evil".

Yeah, hamishspence summarized my reply well enough that I'll leave it at that. It does sadden me that some people are apparently incapable of telling the difference between killing and murder (I use murder hear not as a legal term but a specific kind of killing). Nuance is very important because true evil hides behind it like a shield while innocents suffer from it.