Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jimmyjames 01-10-05, 03:22 PM	I'm looking for some feedback on something I read in the BoED. In the "crime and punishment" section, it stated that handing a prisoner over to an individual, organization or government that will torture the prisoner is an evil act, even if the individual, organization or government is legitimate and lawful. While I can see how handing over someone to a Witch Hunt/Inquisition type situation can constitute an evil act, what about less torturous/murderous forms of puishment??? What about your regular "run of the mill" medieval corporal punishment??? If the punishment for thievery is a lashing or caning.. is it evil to hand that prisoner over? What about a public shaming type punishment? The kind where they tied the offender to a stake in the center of town for all to see and heckle? Or that wooden contraption that holds the person's head and arms?? At what point would you say corporal punishment becomes torture and therefore evil??
Ut-Napishtim 01-10-05, 03:40 PM	Hmmm... looks to me like they forgot the line: even if they don't know the prisoner will be tortured. Personally I disagree with that entire statement. So since you honor national sovereignty and international treaty law as it pertains to extradition you're evil? Looks like just another case of applying 21st century politically correct, fast food, mass morality to 12th century civilization. If the person has done nothing wrong, like say during the Holocaust - yeah, that'd probably be bad to turn them over. If they're a suspect or a proven criminal then you're supposed to fight the King to save the cutpurse and remain Lawful Good? Yeah right. :rolleyes:
Xyplex 01-10-05, 04:30 PM	First off, this might be a threat for the BoED message board, as it is under a mature label. But that aside, I think the definition of Good in the BoED is that of Exalted Good, not just run of the mill Good. That is, the kind of good where if you accidentally do something that somewhere down the line causes a terrible thing, that not only do you feel guilty, but lose all of your powers because of it ... imagine a situation like crossing the street ... you cross, which causes a driver to not turn immediately, which causes another driver to be late for a court case, that puts an innocent man in jail ... and you find out about this chain of causality ... an Exalted person would say that they were part of this chain of responsibility and do whatever they could to help that person, because, in a way, it is their fault for crossing when they chose to, in addition to the fact that the person is innocently imprisoned. I personally don't believe that Paladins have to follow the Exalted Good level ... they are supposed to be Good, but not angels. Leave that for the real deal. Those beings that have eternity to make up for their mistakes, those beings that are directly filled with the power of Good, those that are quoted in some manuals as going into 'fits of rage' ... sheesh ... even they can't avoid one of the standard Christian sins. I can't remember the story, but there was a story in which a guy robbed or killed a postal official, and since they're federal employees, he went to federal prison rather than local ... and so his sentance was far harsher because of who he acted on, rather on what he did. That kind of circumstance would be something that a Good person should try to mitigate. An exalted person would feel, like many 19th century philosphers, that imprisonment, or punishment of any sort, is an evil act in and of itself, and that it's not right to respond to evil with evil ... that is use evil's tools. It comes down to ... have you defined what you're describing in your campaign as evil? That's the key I think in everyone's campaign ... to make it known what they feel good and evil are, what good and evil acts are ... in advance ... so everyone knows where the lines are drawn ... and to decide if you're going to include Exalted and Vile as extremes of Good and Evil.
Kyy'Dakh 01-10-05, 04:38 PM	For lesser forms of punishment: A few lashes with a whip probably wouldn't be considered torturous enough for alignment troubles. If rather a lot (being a subjective term), then I'd consider it a risk to your alignment. For punishment by embarrasment, probably not. Only the most extreme on that front would warrant trouble. For concerns of LG chars, I'm largely opposed to Ut-Napishtim's view on the matter (since D&D is non-historical fantasy, not 12th century Earth), but then again, as I've stated in other threads, Lawful and Good strike me as mutually exclusive. For a minor criminal at risk (but not certainty) of torture, I suppose an LG character could work through whatever legal means he can to minimize the punishment or at least help the guy survive it. I suppose one thing that might help if you are or know a trekkie is "What would Captain Picard do?" Though I'm not certain of his alignment, he's about the closest I can imagine to being a good example of LG.
Thoronmir 01-10-05, 04:46 PM	I’m not sure I get this “rule” either. Does it mean that a Paladin can’t turn over a proven murderer if the authorities intend to execute the culprit? Has WoTC written the Eighth Amendment (“Cruel and Unusual Punishment”) into BoED? Is okay to turn in the murderer if he’s going to be quickly beheaded, but not if the law requires he be drawn and quartered? What constitutes “torture”? BTW, the “wooden contraption” you were thinking of is called a pillory (or stocks) and those sentenced to such punishment were said to have been pilloried.
CzarGarrett 01-10-05, 04:48 PM	My take would be that a LG Paladin or other such character probably should not hand over a prisoner if there is known torture, but a LG Monk, Samurai, or other such character would still turn the prisoner over. Its a matter of what is more important, Law or Good?
jimmyjames 01-10-05, 05:54 PM	I thought I'd post this in the DM forum cause it could have a heavy impact on a campaign setting and characters played within that setting. For example, a bounty hunter style character, even one who made it a point to always treat his captives with dignity and compassion, could slide towards an evil alignment if the legitimate authorities make use of "traditional" or historically accurate medieval punishments. Often offenders would be executed for crimes against the King or his vassals and crimes against the Church were often punished with some form of torture (to cleanse the soul). Even "softer" corporal punishments like the pillory could be considered torture if the offender is left to rot in it for weeks on end or isnt provided with adequate food and water. Lashes at the end of a whip are extremely painful (unduly so??) and sometimes the punished died from such treatment. So knowing that a bandit is likely to be hanged for his crimes or a warlock that consorts with demons is likely to be burned at the stake.... what should a good aligned character do if he has captured such an individual? And would the same standard apply for the "softer" punishments?? Is it evil to deliver a thief to the authorities knowing that he'll likely get lashes?
Mef 01-10-05, 07:26 PM	If the punishment the thief is gonna get is more evil than the actions he could reasonably do while free, a good character should set him free. This might not be the most lawful thing to do, however, so LB chars should usually try to lessen the sentence before making such a choice; anyway I wouldn't, as a DM, impose penalties for having to choose one component of your alignment over the other (a paladin might deem his vision too limited and trust the temple authorities, or a monk might believe in some principle like karma which is definitely lawful but above mortal law) Anyway, I cannot separate completely the concept of "good" from that of "justice", and justice can mean anything from "those who misbehave must pay to cleanse themselves" to "no one should suffer" (not only, but the issue of justice is debated today as it was in medieval and ancient times; "turn the other cheek" and "let him who is without sins cast the first stone" date back to 2K years ago) so I can't really give a standard that will work for all DMs and players. The best thing would be to talk a bit about moral philosophy, even real-world one, with your players before the tough calls arise in game.
Lina_Inverse 01-10-05, 08:21 PM	LG charecters need to believe in fair punishment.torture is NEVER fair,it causes unneeded suffering.the death penalty works much better.
11d7 01-10-05, 08:29 PM	Ut-Napishtim sumed it up with the putting 21st century morals into a 12th century style game. I know WotC cant say in their books "Stocks and Lashes are acceptable forms of punishment" for PR reasons but they could atleast say that they arn't evil or even mention it at all.
ShadowDragon8685 01-10-05, 08:41 PM	Morals are not relativistic. They are absoloute. Treating women as property because they lack a meat and two vege is Evil, no matter which century you come from. It's occurance on a widespread daily basis does not make it acceptable, it just means that it's an Evil-aligned society. So don't go on that 12tf vs 21st century crap. If you can look down at that crazy court judgement in Iran that hung the man for killing the man his wife had an affair with and that man's sister - but not over his two boys he killed, since a man can kill his own sons legally under Islamic law - and then proceeded to stone the wife to death, then you have no right to say that. By your argument, they're still on 12th century morals, and it's okay for them to do that. Anyway, it's up to the character to decide which is more importent. The L or the G in his alignment, as Lawful and Good are frequently mutually exclusive.
11d7 01-10-05, 08:49 PM	Ok ShadowDragon8685, Then every Paladin to capture a theif or any other criminal living in most midevil socities and campaign settings I have played in will always lose their powers you know why: If we hand him over we know evil things will happen penalty for theif is 10 lashes and cut off one hand = Evil and that would be knowingly aiding an evil group being the police = loose powers If we let him go before we could change his ways (which could take a very very long time) he could do evil again and if we let him go before he does change them its knowingly aiding a evil person = loose powers If we just kill him and hes a prisoner, he is helpless that evil = loose powers I dont see a way arounf it most PCs would be willing to do ever in any camapign becuase most DMs would make it next to impossable. You find a lagit way around it smartass.
primemover003 01-10-05, 09:15 PM	Firstly we don't roleplay a medieval mindset when we're playing D&D... we're 20th century people romanticizing a fantasy medival world. So yes, it's to be expected that we bring in our modern day western ideals. For example, if you capture the leader of a peaceful, but disruptive, rebellion against the crown and the High inquisitor of the dominant church in the kingdom steps in to take the prisoner. You know the Inquisitor is overzealous and has been rumored/known to be harsh to idealists that couter his accepted version of the truth. You as a good character should have a problem handing the leader over. As an exalted character you absolutely cannot allow that to happen. Execution, done swiftly is not overly cruel. Torture in any form is. Lashing could be deadly in our world... but with the existance of clerical magic is not likely to be deadly in D&D (cure minor wounds is a wonderful thing). If you're worried that the thief will be left in the Stocks too long... see to it that he has food and water and is taken in if inclement weather is expected. You can even pay a good natured commoner to do it.
evangelion1010 01-10-05, 10:58 PM	Hmmm, well, it is a magic setting... Can't you just make the prisons all have magic cable tv, AC, and recreational activities? All joking aside, I find it best not to use all these definations of good and evil, lawful and chaotic. Turning over a criminal to any good society, or a LN or even TN society shouldn't be something to debate. As to the methods of torture/punishment, do realize that society as a whole is likely much more used to death and blood. Most people would have been involved in wars(conscripts), in which they killed using hand to hand combat - death was not pretty, nor was it easy, as with a gun. If not wars, then almost certainly dealings with orcs, goblins and the like. Regardless, the general populus would have been fairly used to violence - think about it... the richest people in the world are the ones that kill other creatures, take there things, and do it all again the next adventure...
Ut-Napishtim 01-11-05, 01:26 AM	For example, if you capture the leader of a peaceful, but disruptive, rebellion against the crown and the High inquisitor of the dominant church in the kingdom steps in to take the prisoner. You know the Inquisitor is overzealous and has been rumored/known to be harsh to idealists that couter his accepted version of the truth. You as a good character should have a problem handing the leader over. As an exalted character you absolutely cannot allow that to happen. Like I said, if someone has done nothing wrong except being of the wrong race at the wrong time or having contraversial ideas then yes - it would be bad to turn them over. For your run-of-the-mill criminals it's just foolish, and as 11d7 pointed out makes there no way you could avoid losing your powers. ShadowDragon8685's argument is just silly. Of course a LG character would be opposed to Sharia law - not only on the G, but on the L as well because there is not impartial justice there. Obviously, as I've mentioned, in such extreme cases it makes sense. Considering it evil to turn someone over to Good King Wencenslas because his dungeons don't have adequate sanitation is crazy. Most people's houses had no sanitation either, so it's not that big a deal unless you're judging it from a 21st century perspective.
misanthropictodd 01-11-05, 02:10 AM	look complex moral issues are hard to adjudicate as a dm ... so some people are going to avoid it. but my in my opinion {misanthropictodds opinion is not valid in all countries} you must choose what is more important to your character the law even if you do not agree or the good thing to do. a good chance for some roleplaying should not be passed up. the character in question should have a tough time with this decision and probably should make peace with the offender before condemning them and/or file protest to the authorities. but in the end you will probably just have to talk it over with the players. just try and stay consistent from issue to issue. personally i love forcing moral debate in my games :plotting: :plotting: :plotting: :plotting: :plotting:
penchant 01-11-05, 03:03 AM	I have always said that you need to reach a consensus in your group and then run that. Ethics is a whole degree and philosophy is another, and too heady for a friendly game of D&D for most. However if you want my opinon, there are universal evils and relative evils. Some evils are constant like murder, theft, adultery, and are outlawed in most eras and in most cultures. Then there are the ones like public drunkeness. While a common sight in some places and punishable by a night to sober up, in others it is a jail sentance or worse. Thievery, in our society can be punished with probation and a stern talking to, while in others you can have your hand cut off. I don't think that arabs are evil for their extreme methods of punishment. If an american turned a person who was caught stealing over to a syrian authority and their hands were subsequently cut off, then they may feel bad and even believe that they should not have respected the law that they percevied as evil. A native Syrian, however should have no compunctions as to doing such. He believes that the thief knew what the punishment would be if he was caught stealing and that constitutes a certain measure of consent. However, if a paladin believes that the law and punishment of a government is evil, then wouldn't he become dedicated to overthrowing that government and instating a just and good authority?
Ut-Napishtim 01-11-05, 03:31 AM	He believes that the thief knew what the punishment would be if he was caught stealing and that constitutes a certain measure of consent. That's another seldom considered point. People will usually line up to decry torture and say: Oh boo hoo hoo, the poor guy. What isn't mentioned though is that these olde tyme punishments were usually carried out publicly to act as a deterrent to would be criminals. Anyone living in the society will be familiar with the consequences, and bears their own share of the responsibility if they choose to ignore that. It actually works too. I allow players to be evil if they want in my game (which many DM's don't). One of my players decided to be CE and went out and killed a prostitute and burned down a stable. Result? Vigilante mobs began roaming the streets at night looking for the "Ripper" (groups of commoners and experts armed with crowbars and sacks of doorknobs), all the prostitutes in the city were rounded up and jailed for their own proection (prostitution laws were on the books, but not usually enforced), and the price of horses shot up by 100%. The city officials also decided to take the convicted criminals they had locked up and have a public demonstration to... wait for it... discourage the criminal(s) they felt had gotten out of control. The display included a man getting dunked in ice water for getting drunk and taking a swing at a local town guard, a woman caught trying to steal some jewelry was stripped and flogged with a normal whip, and rapist sentenced to "The Hot Seat" (strapped in a large wooden chair and publicly tortured and branded with hot pokers), and a man beheaded for mugging and beating a tax collector and stealing city funds from him. The evil players' head shot up at the beheading, and he asked: What did that guy do again? So I repeated it, and he seemed visibly worried as he remarked: Oh crap. After that he cleaned up his act and was more careful to carry out his evil fantasies far from civilized lands. :schemes:
Cold Napalm 01-11-05, 04:15 AM	I HATE the there are unversal moral ****. Umm Nope, never was, never gonna be. You think growing up in our culture that men and women should be equal (or are far more deluded then I think and actually believe that they are). You know what? In other cultures, they have a system that works for them and for you to go boo...your evil for treating a women like that shows how cultural ignorant and narrow minded you are. Take 18th centuary Japan. The era of manly men who owned and controled everything. Well there is a famous quote where a warlord told his wife to do something. She refused. He said this is MY village. To which she replied this is MY house. The warlod could argue no more to that. That was how that society worked. In public, the wife did what her husband asked. In her home, it was HER home. This is how most middle ages.ancient world cultures worked. To say they are evil because they treated women as lower citizens is unfair. In fact in many cases women were FAR better off in these cultures then our current one. As mistreatment of women in modern cultures...that's because this one is being messed with modern ideals of equalism. The same thing happened in our history you know to come up with the current state where we say women and men are equal yet we women are paid less, still treated as kind of a second rate citizen and now has no cultural protection to boot. Yeah, we're so enlightened. One the plus side, in another 100 years, we might get it right. And in another 100 years, I'm sure our grandkids will see our culture today and go...eww that's so EVIL.
Ut-Napishtim 01-11-05, 06:55 AM	Meh. I don't buy into the statistics on men vs. women wages because they exclude key factors. Most jobs for any sort of public service from federal to munincipal, and any publicly traded company have federally enforced wage standards. The reason that women come in at only 81% of men's wages is because they are more likely to show up late or clock out early to drop off/pick up children from school/daycare, and because many organizations don't pay women while they are on maternity leave from their employment. Of course there are also fewer women in high-level positions, but that is directly related to the previous fact. Let's take a male and a female firefighter for example over a ten year period. Each is alloted 15 days a year of sick leave/vacation time, the man gets another 15 days for paternity leave if he has a kid, while the woman gets 90 days maternity leave. Each has the average 2.5 children during their 10 year period, and takes regular vacations. Over the course of 10 years the man will have taken 187.5 days off from work, the woman will have taken 375. These are city salary positions, so they both make the same amount even though the woman takes twice as many days off, many places don't do that though which would reduce the woman's wages. When the fire chief has to make a selection for a new leuitenant, both the man and woman are highly qualified with their many years of experience. In more cases than not though the chief will select the man, simply because he can be relied upon to be there more. Appointing someone to a supervisory position who is not going to be around as often creates windows of time where the boss will have to fill in for the supervisor, or find someone less qualified to do so. This is counerproductive to efficient business practice, and defeats the purpose of delegating responsibilities to a supervisor in the first place. That's why you find a disprportionate number of men in higher-level positions, which tips the statistical 'wage scale' even further. It bears out as well if you look at those women that are in high-level and management positions. Only 15% of women in jobs making more than $100,000/year have any children at all, because they're focused career women that never found the time to stop and have kids.
11d7 01-11-05, 07:18 AM	I'm glad that no one has been able to find their way around my paladin situation but I'm kinda upset ShadowDragon8685 didnt even try so they would look like a fool. This is the very reason I dont like playing with alignment and charisma scores, both are to relitive to stat out like they have been. I dont want to tern this into a "charisma is stupid" debate though.
Naeron 01-11-05, 08:00 AM	Ok ShadowDragon8685, Then every Paladin to capture a theif or any other criminal living in most midevil socities and campaign settings I have played in will always lose their powers you know why: If we hand him over we know evil things will happen penalty for theif is 10 lashes and cut off one hand = Evil and that would be knowingly aiding an evil group being the police = loose powers It should not be true in either case, handing a criminal over to the authorities for punishment is not the same as handing them over for torture (which covers "to deliberately hurt someone in order to force them to give you information, to punish them, or to be cruel"). If the punishment for someone lawfully convicted of stealing is 10 lashes then a Paladin would have no problem handing a prisoner over to the courts as the punishment, while painful, does not qualify as torture (and Good protects inncoent life not all life anyway) and is, in term of the moral views of fantasy societies neither debasing or destroying innocent life. Where a Good character should have qualms is when the punishment is too severe for the crime. If the punishment was being hung drawn and quartered for petty theft then no a Paladin would not support such a legal system. If we let him go before we could change his ways (which could take a very very long time) he could do evil again and if we let him go before he does change them its knowingly aiding a evil person = loose powers If we just kill him and hes a prisoner, he is helpless that evil = loose powers I dont see a way arounf it most PCs would be willing to do ever in any camapign becuase most DMs would make it next to impossable. You find a lagit way around it smartass. Killing helpless non-innocents is not strictly an evil act as far as D&D defines it, the D&D alignment definitions allow the use of capital punishment against wrongdoers that merit such punishment and the act remains Good.
11d7 01-11-05, 11:36 AM	Naeron that may be the case in games you have played but out of the 6 dms I have had up until this one they would have had a paladin loose their powers, I'm sure that 6 DMs acorss 3 cities are doing right rather than you one person doing it right, the odd are in favor of them being correct.
D+1 01-11-05, 11:52 AM	I'm looking for some feedback on something I read in the BoED. In the "crime and punishment" section, it stated that handing a prisoner over to an individual, organization or government that will torture the prisoner is an evil act, even if the individual, organization or government is legitimate and lawful.This is just one reason why BoED and BoVD are not core rules - they are full of optional rules, supplementary rules to be used at the discretion of the DM. D&D is a world of largely black and white morality - if a creature IS evil then... its EVIL and anyone who is good can react accordingly. But a statement like this draws an arbitrary line and ignores anything like mitigating circumstances. I can think of two such examples. First, there's the ticking bomb scenario. Evil Prisoner #1 has set in motion a magical machine that will kill thousands of innocent people but refuses to reveal where it is and has protections that prevent the Good Guys from magically obtaining the information. While no Good Guy worthy of the title would WANT to torture him when it becomes the only VIABLE alternative to simply waiting for thousands to die you can no longer claim that turning him over to be tortured is EVIL. It's certainly not GOOD but it DEFINITELY isn't evil and that statement refuses to acknowledge that. It assumes that there is only going to be a choice between an ultra-good action and ultra-evil and no possibility for circumstances to create something in between. Secondly, we have the notion that there are varying degrees of torture and more to doing the right thing than following a righteous but decidedly arbitrary moral code as the BoED seems to suggest. Just because the Good Guys might disagree with ANY form of torture it's possible that they have NO RIGHT to retain the prisoner, or that it's VITAL that they turn the prisoner over to achieve a HIGHER objective. That happens with military troops in war all the time - troops are KNOWINGLY sent to their deaths in order to achieve a higher purpose. It doesn't make ordering those troops away an Evil act, and turning over an evil prisoner to knowingly be tortured is not ALWAYS an evil act. It CAN be, but isn't ALWAYS evil. At what point would you say corporal punishment becomes torture and therefore evil??At the point where it achieves neither justice (which includes equality of punishment to the level of the crime) nor a higher purpose that REQUIRES that otherwise detestable acts be performed.
ManinDarkness 01-11-05, 02:57 PM	Giving prisioners to torture knowingly and willingly is an evil act. Killing helpless non-innocents is not strictly an evil act as far as D&D defines it, the D&D alignment definitions allow the use of capital punishment against wrongdoers that merit such punishment and the act remains Good. It remains neutral. In D&D good and evil are mutually exclusive but do not cover all the possibilities.
jimmyjames 01-11-05, 03:26 PM	I have no problem declaring torture an evil act - causing pain, suffering and/or harm to another creature to extract information or for "the fun of it" is depraved to say the least. However, I am looking at the more global and daily use of more-or-less historically accurate means of punishment within the D&D setting. Prison was not a form of punishment in and of itself until several centuries after the "typical" time peroid of most D&D games. (usually it was just a place to hold the accused/convicted until punishment was handed out) So would the use of whippings and lashings, the pillory/stock (which is listed in the BoVD as a torture device), canings, cutting off a hand, dunkings, etc ... be considered evil acts in the context of the black and white D&D universe? If so, aren't authorities who make use of these tactics (legitimately, equally and without corruption) to enforce law and order, punish offenders, and to discourage others from offending committing evil acts (or at least sanctioning these acts) and therefore risk become evil themselves? Wouldn't the lawful agents of said authorities be evil as well - since they enforce said laws and bring offenders to justice?
ManinDarkness 01-11-05, 03:41 PM	I would say harming for its own sake and maiming is evil. Harming in a non-permanent way because of punishment is neutral.
DInDenver 01-11-05, 06:36 PM	Hi! I try to look at that stuff from an RP'ing perspective. Are the PC's turning over a criminal to the authorities to protect the greater part of society, or are they handing them over because the local authorities will treat the criminal far worse then anything the PCs can do... Any action can be evil if the motivations behind it are malign enough.
seagreenwitch 01-11-05, 08:00 PM	I have read over these replies I find some of to really really irk me so allow me to rant a little for a moment. As a woman I have decided to stay at home and do a job with (in my mind) is the most important and is the corner stone of our "current civilization" I may not get paid for raising my children in wages but what I do get paid in far outstrips any form of pay that I could possibly recieve. By seeing my children grow and face small moral delemias of thier own. Then they not only solve them but then turn around and strive to help others by passing on what I have taught them. So yes we may miss more days that does not mean that men do not have thier place in supporting us but in some cases it is the man who stays home and takes care of the children now a days. BRAVO ! there is my little rant on that subject :twocents: As to your asking about the Paladin and the thief..... I think that there simply is no easy answer. I think though some of these debates are in a way caused by the useage of Alingments. We must remember that the way to hell is paved with good intentions. A paladin's First and Foremost calling is not that to the local law but to his GOD. If the rules his god has set down says that torture is wrong he will not allow it. If removing them from the gene pool is then he will support it. He may even go beyond the local law and see that the thief is punished in accordence to the laws of his god. He may even seek RETRIBUTION against those of whom have transgressed against his GOD'S LAWS. I think though that is in an exteme case when all attempts to show them the wrongs of their ways have failed. OOPS did I just say that? <manaicallaughter> :evillaugh remember the way to hell is paved with good intentions. I think that if you are going to set out moral delemias you should first define them to yourself before you ask them of others. I think that for the good of all that there needs to be a form of punishment for those who go beyond the law but what is evil and what is not I guess you must find that out for yourself. :chicken:
The_Dark_One 01-11-05, 08:54 PM	So knowing that a bandit is likely to be hanged for his crimes or a warlock that consorts with demons is likely to be burned at the stake.... what should a good aligned character do if he has captured such an individual? Not sure about the bandit, but the warlock consorting with demons should never be turned over to the authorities. He should be killed on the spot. I'm not sure where the weird urge many people seem to have to capture the bad guys came from. What's wrong with killing them? A paladin's First and Foremost calling is not that to the local law but to his GOD. If the rules his god has set down says that torture is wrong he will not allow it. If removing them from the gene pool is then he will support it. He may even go beyond the local law and see that the thief is punished in accordence to the laws of his god. He may even seek RETRIBUTION against those of whom have transgressed against his GOD'S LAWS. Actually, this is wrong. A paladin does not get his powers from a God and need not worship one. Even then, the paladin is a champion of GOOD not Gods. If the paladin's god demands that he perform an evil act ( Gods do not determine whats Good and what's Evil; they are Good and Evil. If Gods could set those definitions there would be no Evil Gods), then his God is clearly wrong and should be ignored. A paladin does not lose powers for disobeying a God (even his own) but they do lose power for committing an evil act (even if by divine command).
Lokiyn 01-12-05, 12:35 AM	It sounds like an implementation of the two step view of good and exalted good might help out here. Normal view of good take a "one step" view of their actions for the most part. In the case of the prisoner the question is, is it good to turn in a criminal to the authority of the region. Now this is a simple yes or no in most cases since the authority is usually working for the public "good". If the criminal acts in a manner against the public "good" then the individual(s) has committed an act that is "evil" to the public. The purpose of most "Laws" in the dnd world is to lay out what acts are considered detrimental to the public wellbeing and their punishments. Situations may differ but if the punishment for the crime is well known and the punishment is met out to those who Deliberately break these laws, then regardless of the degree of punishment it is justified. As long as the player himself does not do evil then he may consider himself good, anything else is a moral failing of the people directly involved in the act. Now Exalted good operates on a "two step" method of determining evil for himself. The Exalted good person would view them self as the fundamental cause of the prisoners punishment. The logic being that I am the one to capture him thus I am responsible for this person throughout the judicial procedure. If at any point the procedure commits a wrong towards the prisoner then I am responsible for the wrong and can no longer be considered "Good" if I do not do my utmost to ensure that this injustice is corrected. Personally (as a character) I find the whole thing silly, actions have reactions, if you know what the result of an action will be then don't act hurt or shocked that the reaction isn't to your liking. In addition as a good character or even exalted good you’re missing the point. What you strive for is an increase in the general good. If turning this person in will have a positive effect on society and if the punishment has a positive effect then you have done your part. You can't place the same value on one isolated incident as you can on the whole. If you had a governmental system that kept people in a better than average lifestyle and a near 0% crime rate, that the people agreed with, but had strict penalties. Ranging from a minimum of 1yr state mandated hard labor to the death penalty, would it be worth it to disrupt that system for one person merely because you felt that the punishment was too harsh? of course that’s not to say the means justify the ends, however as long as the society acknowledges the harshness of its methods and is sure to retain the discipline and the fortitude to see that it doesn't slip to evil (perhaps mandatory phylacteries of faithful ness for all judicial system members, dedicated to the ideal of good) then the character is merely doing his/her part to ensure that the greater good is served. Meh, but what do i know, i play NE characters and manage to fake out the LG paladin in the party ;)
Al2902 01-12-05, 05:05 PM	There are three key problems here: one can be dealt with relatively easily, one is much more difficult and the third is the ever-intractable L/G paladin question. The dilemma of moral relativism vs absolutism raised by ShadowDragon is an old chestnut, but hopefully can been resolved. The truth is, as Cold Napalm rightly points out, that all morals are relativistic to an extent. There is no a priori reason why one moral code is necessarily "superior" to another moral code, though there are certain themes which predominate in all moral codes and give the nearest approximation to absolute morality. For example, all moral codes (or certainly all mainstream ones) condemn murder, therefore it is probably fair to say that it is a roughly absolute rule. But the treatment of murderers is far from absolute. To argue, for example, that those in favour of capital punishment in 2005 are more or less "moral" than those opposed to it is a moot point. Personal moral judgement by the paladin comes into play, and there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. The second problem is "what constitutes torture"? To an extent, all punishment involves a detraction from the well-being of the punished. There is no strict reason why ten lashes is more brutal than ten years' imprisonment. Indeed, when Victorian penitentiaries (the first "modern" prisons) were introduced, it was often considered more cruel than the old pillories/stocks/lashes since the punishment was longer and more psychologically traumatising than a simple corporal punishment. The inevitable reductio ad absurdum runs as follows: since all punishment causes suffering, and all societies punish criminals, then to minimise suffering, exalted characters should neither punish criminals nor hand them to society for them to be punished. This is clearly a ridiculous proposition. Rather than a hard-and-fast answer, therefore, it is up to the individual paladin to decide what is an appropriate level of punishment, which will derive from all manner of factors. Different paladins will necessarily condone different levels of punishment as appropriate, weighing the competing concerns of justice, retribution, deterrence and mercy. Again, there is no "right" and "wrong" answer. You may have guessed my conclusion to the third of the triad of problems, that of the L/G divide. The point is that the two are not antithetical to each other, but rather complementary, and different paladins will have different opinions as to how the two interact. One LG paladin may unify lawfulness and good by encouraging sovereign states to reform themselves, and witholding criminals from their punishment in order to do so; another may accept that such reforms are gradual and that witholding criminals is more likely to antagonise than persuade the government; a third may find reform unnecessary and think the balance reasonable at the present; a fourth may even believe that in order for the greater good to be pursued a more punitive criminal justice system need be enacted. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer to this dilemma. The most important factor is that the paladin remains true to his beliefs. For a DM to punish such a character by removing his status would be as unwise as it is unfair. By extension, therefore, it's fair to say that if the character acted in good faith, under no circumstances can this action be regarded as evil.
ManinDarkness 01-12-05, 05:34 PM	There is no "right" or "wrong" answer I disagree. There is no one right answer, and there are a lot wrong answers. What a paladin beleives could well be wrong. Torture, understanded as an unnecessarly cruel punishment, is too deep in the road of an evil act. If a person can still live and right their wrong way after the punishment, then IMO that is not torture. If you maim a person for punishment, in a way that person can not go on without the help from others, then that's torture. to a paladin, the line between good and neutral can remain fuzzy, but the line between neutral and can not. He is encouraged to make good actions, but actually punished for making evil actions, not neutral ones. Killing, in the context of DnD, is not evil. Killing for the sake of it is. So is causing harm.
Xexyz 01-12-05, 06:03 PM	Meh. I don't buy into the statistics on men vs. women wages because they exclude key factors. Most jobs for any sort of public service from federal to munincipal, and any publicly traded company have federally enforced wage standards. The reason that women come in at only 81% of men's wages is because they are more likely to show up late or clock out early to drop off/pick up children from school/daycare, and because many organizations don't pay women while they are on maternity leave from their employment. Of course there are also fewer women in high-level positions, but that is directly related to the previous fact. Let's take a male and a female firefighter for example over a ten year period. Each is alloted 15 days a year of sick leave/vacation time, the man gets another 15 days for paternity leave if he has a kid, while the woman gets 90 days maternity leave. Each has the average 2.5 children during their 10 year period, and takes regular vacations. Over the course of 10 years the man will have taken 187.5 days off from work, the woman will have taken 375. These are city salary positions, so they both make the same amount even though the woman takes twice as many days off, many places don't do that though which would reduce the woman's wages. When the fire chief has to make a selection for a new leuitenant, both the man and woman are highly qualified with their many years of experience. In more cases than not though the chief will select the man, simply because he can be relied upon to be there more. Appointing someone to a supervisory position who is not going to be around as often creates windows of time where the boss will have to fill in for the supervisor, or find someone less qualified to do so. This is counerproductive to efficient business practice, and defeats the purpose of delegating responsibilities to a supervisor in the first place. That's why you find a disprportionate number of men in higher-level positions, which tips the statistical 'wage scale' even further. It bears out as well if you look at those women that are in high-level and management positions. Only 15% of women in jobs making more than $100,000/year have any children at all, because they're focused career women that never found the time to stop and have kids. Is this really appropriate for this thread? It's potential flame-bait if you ask me.
jimmyjames 01-13-05, 12:23 AM	I originally posted this "crime and punishment" question more in the context of a campign setting dilemma .. not as a paladin's moral dilemma (though i realize that the paladin's typical role in a typical campaign creates a problem and is a valid question to be discussed). I'm kinda looking at the bigger picture, which is simply: If traditional, reasonably historically accurate medieval style punishments constitute torture (i.e. whippings, the pillory, cutting off a hand, hangings for "non-capital offences, etc), then wouldn't by extention of that, most authorities (legitimate or otherwise) gavitate towards an evil alignment? (not because of any SINGLE event or act, but as a consistent pattern of behavior) Further, if "traditional" punishments are termed to be "evil", then all those who act to enforce said laws then become evilly aligned due to repeatedly delivering criminals for legitmate punishment? This then creates an "inescapable" circle for "good" characters who are expected to show mercy and honor an enemy's surrender - since the next step is typically to deliver the "evil prisoner" to the legitimate authorities to be dealt with ... leading the "good guys" into the same trap that those who enforce the legitimate laws of the land are trapped in.
Lokiyn 01-13-05, 12:37 AM	If traditional, reasonably historically accurate medieval style punishments constitute torture (i.e. whippings, the pillory, cutting off a hand, hangings for "non-capital offences, etc), then wouldn't by extention of that, most authorities (legitimate or otherwise) gavitate towards an evil alignment? (not because of any SINGLE event or act, but as a consistent pattern of behavior) Further, if "traditional" punishments are termed to be "evil", then all those who act to enforce said laws then become evilly aligned due to repeatedly delivering criminals for legitmate punishment? "highlighted for emphasis" its because in the context of the time these are punishments Known consequences to a crime commited. if they are done for any other reason than as punishment to enforce laws designed to defend the greater good then they are now evil. Some actions and items are not evil in and of themselves but the reasons behind them will make them evil or not.
Al2902 01-13-05, 06:04 PM	I disagree. There is no one right answer, and there are a lot wrong answers. What a paladin beleives could well be wrong. Torture, understanded as an unnecessarly cruel punishment, is too deep in the road of an evil act. If a person can still live and right their wrong way after the punishment, then IMO that is not torture. If you maim a person for punishment, in a way that person can not go on without the help from others, then that's torture. to a paladin, the line between good and neutral can remain fuzzy, but the line between neutral and can not. He is encouraged to make good actions, but actually punished for making evil actions, not neutral ones. The problem is that this is almost a self-referential definition of torture. Since no objective judgement of "unnecessarily cruel" can be posited, then no objective judgement of torture can be made either. As I cited in my original post, cruelty cannot be measured objectively: is a five year jail sentence more or less cruel than the stocks? Or the pillory? Or ten lashes? What if the jail sentence uses solitary confinement? How about a bread-and-water diet? What about if the prisons are of the standards of those fifty years ago?We can endlessly calibrate different modes of punishment against each other, and must avoid the trap of equating modern with good. Victorian jails were regarded as "progressive" vis-a-vis corporal punishment, but were almost invariably more traumatising to their inmates. Having said that, I should have made my position a little differently, or at least explained it better. Since every paladin or good character has a personally defined level of punishment which he feels appropriate, there will be an individual threshold beyond which the punishment ought not go if he is to condone it. However, this threshold will be pertain to the individual, and not the alignment. It is certainly the case that should the threshold fall too law that the character will fail to retain a good alignment. The point I was making was not that there are no right or wrong answers at all but that there is no single right or wrong answer; here I disagree with your argument that there is "one right answer". There are a host of right answers, and a similarly large number of wrong answers, but there are no simple right/wrong divides.
seagreenwitch 01-13-05, 11:55 PM	Just anthor question here. Are not Paladins Divine Casters? If so where do they get thier powers "A DIVINE SOURCE". That would indicate a GOD is involved. So I would like some clarifaction on that point. If the Paladin is considered a divine caster but has no god then where do the powers come from?
Xyplex 01-14-05, 12:24 AM	Are not Paladins Divine Casters? If so where do they get thier powers "A DIVINE SOURCE". That would indicate a GOD is involved. So I would like some clarifaction on that point. If the Paladin is considered a divine caster but has no god then where do the powers come from? If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies. ... A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). ... A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description). Three sections from the SRD. The first two suggest that a cleric doesn't NEED a diety to cast Divine spells ... they just use the moniker Divine to differentiate between Arcane and Divine spells ... while the third suggests that a cleric does have that restriction. They could have used Black spells and White spells as just as useful descriptors. The game is designed for us atheists too. ****** Victorian prisons were often testamount to death sentances. Hard labour might have meant walking the 'wheel' which consisted of a gigantic wheel where you would spend 16 hours a day in, each step about 2 feet above the previous one. Prisons designed by the Facist government in 1930's Spain were designed to drive men mad ... abstract paintings on the walls ... deceptive chairs that wouldn't allow you to sit down, beds that you'd roll off of, no right angles. I'd welcome lashes to that.
ManinDarkness 01-14-05, 01:14 PM	Just anthor question here. Are not Paladins Divine Casters? If so where do they get thier powers "A DIVINE SOURCE". That would indicate a GOD is involved. So I would like some clarifaction on that point. If the Paladin is considered a divine caster but has no god then where do the powers come from? No all divine entities are personal, and thus deities. One can always follow the divine essence of goodness and still receive spells. In 2E it was clearer, you could follow a power, a philosophy or a force.
Lokiyn 01-14-05, 02:25 PM	Paladins are different than clerics. Paladins are the chosen of deity <x> to champian thier particular creed. they must have a deity Personally i dislike the whole pick ideals for a cleric it pretty much defeats the purpose of having Domains, and is prone to abuse by players selecting the two most advantageous domains regardless of logic. Anyway it gets to be to much effort with the dm having to remember the two ideals and making sure the cleric is using thier powers in accordance with them.
jimmyjames 01-15-05, 03:01 PM	Several people have posted that a punishment, possibly even a very severe one, can be justified by the fact that people are aware of the punishment for the crime and if they so choose to commit the crime .. then they have chosen to accept the punishment. My question is not really on the rule of law or the criminological presumption of logical, rational choice. It is more on the actual alignment of law makers and law enforcers in a society that use means that are borderline torturous to punish wrongdoers. In a circumstance like the Witch Trials of medieval Europe where blatant torture was used to force confessions of guilt and/or to implicate others in wrongdoing, I have no problem labelling those deeds as "evil". It is the more "mundane", day to day punishments for acts like theft and banditry that could arguably be labelled as torture that I am struggling to integrate in a campaign setting. Any thoughts on that line?
Lokiyn 01-15-05, 03:18 PM	I think first you need to set down a definition of torture first. punishment as a response to a >known< crime is one thing. Punishment to prove a crime is a whole nother bag o worms. Basically i would decide how much crime the government is going to put up with. if its zero the punishments are going to seem very harsh as they are to serve as deterents as well as penalties. if its a little leniant then they would probably make the punishment fit the crime. Just to be safe you could say that any punishment that permenantly damages the victim is torture while punishment that produced only pain (no mental trauma) would be harsh but not quite torture. hmm hard to separate my 20th century notions and slip into a medieval mindset.
seagreenwitch 01-16-05, 03:43 AM	I think that most civilizations have some things which are definet no-no's. So the question what are they then is slavery an acceppted way of life? If so then what are the rules about slaves? Do women have rights or not? Do women run the show? If they do then where do men stand in the society then? these are some basic questions I ask myself as a progressive GM I tend to have them balenced. But who is to say I might not? I was thinking it would be fun to run a group of all women(hard to find) and run an amazon campain with no men! I think it might be fun then to have the nieghboring kingdom be the oppisite(having a group of men playing it) and in the climatic ending have them meet up. I thought it would be a gas to see how different it would play out. So I guess it is all how you want it to be. As to torture that was considered perferrable to going to prison even a hunderd years ago most were designed to break your mind as well as your body. So you need to think about what kind of society it is are they evil and creul or are they kind and wanting them to work towards redeeming themselves. Have fun I Love to make my own worlds and let the PC's go wild in them they NEVER know what they are going to run into :schemes: :dragon:
Al2902 01-16-05, 06:34 AM	In a circumstance like the Witch Trials of medieval Europe where blatant torture was used to force confessions of guilt and/or to implicate others in wrongdoing, I have no problem labelling those deeds as "evil". Agreed, but tangential as far as this thread is concerned. The OP specified that the criminal had already been found guilty of a crime by the paladin in question: the dilemma is whether he should be handed over to authorities who will torture him as punishment. Just to be safe you could say that any punishment that permenantly damages the victim is torture while punishment that produced only pain (no mental trauma) would be harsh but not quite torture. hmm hard to separate my 20th century notions and slip into a medieval mindset. Again, though, there are complications. Victorian jails were more mentally traumatising than traditional corporal punishments; some prison reformers argue that modern jails cause lasting damage. Conversely, what can be lasting damage for one could be merely transient for another, depending on their mental fortitude and their ability to cope with stressful situations. Is it okay if the authority in question ensures that the criminals are mentally sound after punishment? Should a carefully administered Heal spell remove mental anguish from those exposed to, say, twenty five years' solitary confinement? As to torture that was considered perferrable to going to prison even a hunderd years ago most were designed to break your mind as well as your body Absolutely. The point we've made repeatedly is that crime and punishment is too nuanced to make a clear and bold statement as to whether handing over "convicted" criminals (insofar as the paladin has found them guilty) to a "torturing" authority is an evil act. I think it seems that most posters hold this position.
The_Dark_One 01-16-05, 06:40 AM	There was an episode of Deep Space Nine where Miles O'Brian was convicted of espionage and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. The race that convicted him simply implanted memories of serving the sentence (the meories were impossible to remove, because he was forced to make decisions in the simulation and interact with the enviornment(the memories were real, in a few hours, he spent years in jail). Is this torture?
Gilean 01-16-05, 08:13 AM	Those that tell to use contemporary values: How is killing and looting other sentient creatures not evil? A good call on justice is this: if man kills another, he no longer has the right to remain unkiiled. Thus, anyone can kill him with no punishment. If you steal, give it back and pay equal amount to him. Raping results in being killed. These could be working laws to LN country, which are the norm. Good "justice" system would probably concentrate on healing the criminals, instead of punishing. Finland, possibly Canada (not sure) are modern samples of this. I don't think there is any historical precedent to this.
seagreenwitch 01-16-05, 08:36 PM	Are you so sure that it gives you the right to then adminster justice once a man has killed is it ok for you to then kill? by those standards you then are a killer. I think that justise should always be metted out by a neutral judge/jury. Of coarse saying that I must always point out when it is possilble. Sometimes some people have absolutly no wish to be captures and is undoubtably going to commit more hienous crimes and there fore forces someone to remove that said person outside of the law. I hope I never have to make such a judgment myself. :eek: