OOTS #595 - The Discussion Thread

[Eric]

Azure city ships equal Azure City territory.

Nope. Not in any real world legal system. International or maritime law applies.

You know what. You could be right. It would mean that killing unarmed prisoners with out trial is not murder because:

Its not home territory (even if its aboard ship)

He won't be convicted (even if we don't know that ahead of time)

He's not a non-combatant (even if he's bound)

Killing prisoners without trial isn't murder in core D&D (even if it is in every D&D source that discusses prisoners)

Killing evil beings is never murder (eevn if several sources refute this)

I am tired of arguing. You could be right. It would mean that all these other sources are wrong but, you could be right.

No, it doesn't mean all these other sources are wrong. Those sources are talking about the generic case.

This is a specific one.

You also slant the facts of the case in a way that "proves" your point. Rather like Kabuto would do in his case, if he got it.

His status as non-combatant is not relevant to the definition in the BoED you cited. Point scratched.

Never said killing evil beings is NEVER evil. Point scratched.

He has never been convicted in the past and says he will not be convicted now. He'd hardly say that in court. And this point is not germane to whether this is murder. Point scratched.

It is not home territory because it is international waters. You missed that bit. Point scratched by your lying by omission.


Which only leaves your assertion that several DnD sources assert killing of prisoners is murder. But there ARE cases where killing prisoners isn't murder. All it takes to prove wrong the statement "all swans are white" is the exhibition of ONE black swan.

[hamishspence]

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that American law applies aboard American ships. Maybe thats just the media.

EDIT: And which case asserts that killing of unarmed prisoners is not murder, precisely? I'm curious.

[Eric]

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that American law applies aboard American ships. Maybe thats just the media.

EDIT: And which case asserts that killing of unarmed prisoners is not murder, precisely? I'm curious.

Just the media. It can be convention too. But if you are punished under american law in international waters, you can either accept that result or appeal to either

a) International law
b) The Court of Human Rights that binds ANY signatory to NATO)
c) Maritime law

Aint law (in the real world) odd.

[hamishspence]

and does anything like these exist in OoTS world?

Maybe the closest thing would be Vile Darkness/ Exalted, which asserts that, regardless of the state of law in a country, certain acts are evil, and certain acts are Good.

[Eric]

and does anything like these exist in OoTS world?

Does it NOT exist?

[Starbuck_II]

But the BoED says ANY use of poison is an Evil act. No IF no BUT.

But poison that only hurts Evil alignments, well, that's not poison, so isn't evil.

Consistency: Nil.

Agreed. Look at the CV Ninja, has poison use but not evil.

The extreme alignment books suck. I'd never trust them.

[Eric]

EDIT: And which case asserts that killing of unarmed prisoners is not murder, precisely? I'm curious.

1) When you've taken them to court to stand trial and they lost. (they are still prisoners)

2) When you cannot accept them as prisoners (e.g. in wartime)

3) When you cannot take them to any lawful authority that will give justice

4) When their armed status does not mean they are unable to harm innocents

5) When they "committed suicide in their cell. Honest". (in so far as if it WERE murder, the police would be in court)

6) If they are a Brazillian NOT wearing a big heavy jacket, NOT avoided paying the fare, NOT ignored demands to stop (because no stop order was given) and they are being held down by two (or was it three?) officers, one of whom shoots them in the head six times and misses once. That wasn't murder.

[shakes019]

Wow. Page 31. Pretty soon we'll need a second thread.

Anyway, I thought that V's response was completely consistent with the character. The mission is more important than resolving the dynastic disputes of the former rulers of AC. So let's just fast track that and get back to the matter at hand.

Plus if they fail in their mission, everything else ceases to be relevant anyway.

[hamishspence]

You are failing to make distinction between a crime committed and a crime charged for. Just cos person gets away with it doesn't mean crime was not committed.

and there is a transition from"the prisoner to "the condemned" Even so, a killing before time of execution coould be murder.

[Eric]

You are failing to make distinction between a crime committed and a crime charged for. Just cos person gets away with it doesn't mean crime was not committed.

And you're doing that too.

If the courts find "not guilty" this doesn't mean the accused is not guilty.

And so if they ARE guilty, justice has not been served. So the "unlawful" killing as defined by "not letting a court decide if it should happen" is justified even for a lawful person (if the ethics of that lawful person mean that justice MUST ALWAYS BE SERVED. cf Mercykillers and Judge Dredd).

[hamishspence]

there is a big jump between "person I know was guilty was not convicted" and "Justice has not been served" One of the principles behind the justice system is that people get a fair hearing.

If, as a result, guilty people are not convicted, that doesn't mean the system is not just, and that "justice has not been served"

[Eric]

there is a big jump between "person I know was guilty was not convicted" and "Justice has not been served"

Not if they really ARE guilty.

One of the principles behind the justice system is that people get a fair hearing.

If, as a result, guilty people are not convicted, that doesn't mean the system is not just, and that "justice has not been served"

OUR justice system. Western common law. Not Justice. Justice system. A system that INTENDS to ensure that justice is served and injustice avoided. But the justice system cannot know unless there's a confession in court or if they petition God to turn up and he does. So rather than risk INjustice they will abandon justice.

[hamishspence]

Not convicting someone when there is "not enough evidence" is hardly abandoning justice, in D&D or real world.

However that is only my opinion.

[wowy319]

What I'm finding odd about all this discussion is this: Why are so many people assuming V is good-aligned? He's struck me as neutral from the beginning. and secondly, he's not a freakin' paladin. He can go into moral grey areas. I personally have no issue with what he did, and I think it was the smartest decision to be made.

[hamishspence]

I am happy to accept that V is Neutral rather than Evil, and even that, in Machiavellian terms, it was "necessary" However I draw the line at saying the act itself was non-evil. Lots of justification, but still murder.

[Eric]

I am happy to accept that V is Neutral rather than Evil, and even that, in Machiavellian terms, it was "necessary" However I draw the line at saying the act itself was non-evil. Lots of justification, but still murder.

You can.

I don't.

I can see this as Good. I can see this as the best option. I can see this as justice. I can see this as necessary. I can see this as frustration. I can see this as showing off.

(NG).(CG).(LN).(TN).(CN).(CE).Due to the lack of emotion, I can't really see it as LE or NE, but maybe someone can find it.


I can't see it as murder since we have no ruling on what that means. Like "piracy" it is a loaded word as when someone took me to task because I used "murderer" in the same sentence as "cop" even though I mentioned there WAS a difference.

Such an emotionally loaded word therefore doesn't add anything other than emotion that doesn't need and definitely doesn't WANT proof for it.

[hamishspence]

Main reason to use it? Its only form of killing in D&D thats specifically called out as Evil, and in Fiendish Codex 2 has a corruption rating. In D&D, whether a killing is murder or not, has a bearing on how DM must handle alignment, and so, the term is needed.

[Eric]

Main reason to use it? Its only form of killing in D&D thats specifically called out as Evil, and in Fiendish Codex 2 has a corruption rating. In D&D, whether a killing is murder or not, has a bearing on how DM must handle alignment, and so, the term is needed.

Use what? A ticking stick?

If you mean the only reason for using the word "murder" then we are again in the realm of tautology ("read a book" as One Ton Tony was told by his puppet hand):

It's evil because it's murder and it's murder because that is what is evil.

[hamishspence]

Yes, using this "emotionally loaded word"

what constitutes murder is something D&D does not define very well, so it leaves it to the real world. "DMG: Assume commonsense laws like Murder, assault, theft, and treason are illegal."

If they had to define them fully, the book would be much thicker.
Why have D&D book loaded with text to define something that takes a long time to define in the real world? Simpler to go "Would this be deemed murder?"

And arguments about maritime law miss a point: would you say: yes, killing someone without provocation is evil here but not there" Inconsistant.

[Yukitsu]

Main reason to use it? Its only form of killing in D&D thats specifically called out as Evil, and in Fiendish Codex 2 has a corruption rating. In D&D, whether a killing is murder or not, has a bearing on how DM must handle alignment, and so, the term is needed.

Unless you're a slayer of Domiel.

[hamishspence]

which do not have a specified exception to what constitutes murder or not in their entry, so are stuck with normal exalted rules, which means, effectively, that they can only kill in self defense or against armed opponents during wartime. That is, if you take the view that Slayers are still bound by the exalted code.

[Eric]

what constitutes murder is something D&D does not define very well

Yup. And this comic is based on what...?

And in real world, murder is defined but depending on where or when you pick your societal mores, V's actions are not murder.

In Real Life.

And arguments about maritime law miss a point: would you say: yes, killing someone without provocation is evil here but not there" Inconsistant.

And V's case was not "without provocation" so how does it apply to V's case?

[hamishspence]

Exalted Deeds: no matter what your societies values, good and evil remain the same.

What would be real-world justification that would make killing an unarmed prisoner, being dleieved to the magistrates, not murder? And which one: Exalted tends toward modern, western principles: Racism is evil, sexism is evil, etc.

EDIT: My views have been stated, I leave it to fellow posters to make up their own minds.

[Eric]

Exalted Deeds: no matter what your societies values, good and evil remain the same.

Exalted Deeds: not core.

What would be real-world justification that would make killing an unarmed prisoner, being dleieved to the magistrates, not murder? And which one: Exalted tends toward modern, western principles: Racism is evil, sexism is evil, etc.

If you're a copper and your story believed?

If you were killing a spy.

If you were in wartime and could not look after the prisoner.

NOTE: The above are just the ones that exist in the real world, where calling in a 200ft demon is not just close your eyes and hum. In a world where that happens, you have many more.

In an AD&D game, you have:

Where you are deep in Evil Overlord country.

Where there is no judge with jurisdiction (possibly BECAUSE you're in EO country).

Where you are CG and the best good that can be done is to kill them.

Where you are LN and the law you live by allows you to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.

Where you are CN and you're a nutter.

Where you're in a lich's undead lair and the goblins are currently asleep. (EDIT: NOTE: don't wake them up and then ask if they want to surrender unless your alignment is Stupid Good)

[shakes019]

Well this is quite the discussion.

[Kaihaku]

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that American law applies aboard American ships. Maybe thats just the media.

As an American, it's my impression that Americans generally believe that American law applies everywhere.

[Starbuck_II]

As an American, it's my impression that Americans generally believe that American law applies everywhere.

Manifest Destiny or something like that, correct?

[SoC175]

Well, didn't see that coming and I have to say I don't think this event was entertaining. Personally I consider this one of the more boring turns the comic took in the last time

[foil_fedora]

"Meddle not in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger."
- J. R. R. Tolkein

"Disintegrate. Gust of Wind"

- Rich Burlew

OK, so maybe not so subtle all the time...

[SoC175]

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that American law applies aboard American ships. Maybe thats just the media.

As an American, it's my impression that Americans generally believe that American law applies everywhere.

A nation's law usually applies on all of the nation's territories which includes military vessels (but not civilian vessels).

US law should apply on board of US navy ships, no matter whether they're on harbor at an US port, a foreign port or out on sea. On the other hand the US seems to make exceptions for certain US holdings outside of US mainland.

Usually the scope of a law is described somewhere in it's first few §