397 replies to this topic

[maidros]

Ahlan Domi,
Nice to see a reply from you.

@Maidros: erm, sorry, but there are things that are inherently evil and not related to property laws. Raping a young girl, then cutting her while she is still alive into small pieces while her mother is forced to watch is evil; torturing a human being is evil, and yes, killing those who steal material goods or purposedly mutilating them is evil;

I agree with you Domi in this - there are certainly things that are horrifyingly evil. As I said, actions can be characterised as 'good' and 'evil', in most cases. But my problem is this - can we make judgements on individuals about 'good' and 'evil' as simplistically.

To illustrate my dilemma, I will give you an example. There are gangs selling drugs to kids, getting them into the accursed habit and then shooting them when they are unable to pay further and are 'security risks to the smugglers'. Similarly, there have been soldiers shooting all the males in the village and burning it down with the women and children to make an example of what happens to supporters of drug smugglers. One was committed by the drug-smugglers and the other by the army - now the drug smugglers are inherently characterised 'evi'' while the army would be 'neutral'. As actions go, both are, I think you will agree, atrocious. Now, therefore, why the difference in characterising the two?

Similarly, most people do not enjoy cruelty for the sake of cruelty - yes, there are individuals that do such things and they can be easily categorised as evil, but they are the exception and not the norm. For me, it is extremely difficult for me to categorise people as 'good' and 'evil' since they act on a variety of motives and who is to judge which is noble and which is not? There is also the problem of things 'acceptable to one's own sensibiities'. Among certain groups, breaking one's word of honour would be a far greater crime than murder. Therefore, while many people would see the individual as 'evil', his own group would probably not. If the individual in question were to break his word of honour, it would be vice versa. All this boils down to an examination of the society values and therefore, I am very hesitant to commit myself on this score - categorising individuals as 'good' and 'evil'.

[Kish]

As actions go, both are, I think you will agree, atrocious. Now, therefore, why the difference in characterising the two?

Good question. Why?

[maidros]

I agree with you Domi in this - there are certainly things that are horrifyingly evil. As I said, actions can be characterised as 'good' and 'evil', in most cases. But my problem is this - can we make judgements on individuals about 'good' and 'evil' as simplistically.

Majority on Dorotea's chart did things which they knew were clearly evil, and did them deliberately and took enjoyement in them.

The cultural argument is valid for drow or demon.

Well, it may also be valid for Fire giant and dragon - they are also apparently 'LE' societies.

I also concede your point in the previous about the victims and justice - you are absolutely right when you talk about the victims, justice and fairness - but my problem is this:
Executing a villain will not bring back a dead man from his grave. There is nothing in vengeance, not even satisfaction when it is finished. The most important point of any punishment is to ensure that such atrocities do not occur again. Therefore, the question remains whether executing a villain is the best means of ensuring that atrocities do not occur. This question has been around since the dawn of civilisation and it will, I am afraid, remain for all time to come, unless we invent a means to accurately foretell the future. Therefore, the approach adopted is dependent on the judge in question and one approach is as likely to be correct as the other.
Regards,
Maidros

[jester]

My view on 'redemption' would be giving them the chance for second thoughts about their approach.

What about their victims? What about justice? What about fairness???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Are the SECOND thoughts and change of approach as valuable that you are willing to forget the pain of the man who was condemned to eternal torture for stepping in the wrong room? You are willing to let a person who killed anyone on his path go unpunished? You are willing to ignore the *victims*'s plight for the sake of *saving* the one who beviled them? I am sorry, but it is simply...makes me want to wretch.

I do not get your point here. Why should Sarevok be allowed to be redeemed or at least have a second shot at it? He killed quite a few in BG1.

Most things in the world are not about justice and fairness. All the creatures I have slaughtered, all the death that I have left in my wake. Why? I am on a quest to deny all others what I want to claim for myself. Being the heir of Bhaal or forsaking this choice, if I feel like it. What about my victims?

You are willing to let a person who killed anyone on his path go unpunished?

*Robert deNiro voice* Are you talkin' to me?

Edited by jester, 19 March 2004 - 10:43 AM.

[dorotea]

What about their victims? What about justice? What about fairness???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Here I think you have touched the most fundamental question of them all - of the validity of the 'eye for eye' retribution.

As in - does seeing/imagining etc the perpetraitor of the crime burn for eternity really make the victim, or their loved ones feel 'better'?

Is *justice* really best served by condemning the criminal to eternal damnation, without making them morally 'aware' of their crimes?

What is more fitting punishment (and is it even achievable) - burning the rapist. murderer, violent abuser alive for their crimes (preferably for eternity) or making them acutely aware of the pain that they caused to their victims? Making them feel 'real' compassion, and thus making them admit that they should be punished out of their own mouth? Is not the feeling of somebody else's pain worse punishment than actual physical suffering?

I know your view - it is very traditional, very easy to defend, and very 'tribal'. It feels satisfactory to many. Not to me. It does not make your PoV any less respectable - I simply reject it as something that makes me feel deeply unsatisfied inside.

As in - this kind of 'fairness' brings a violent rejection in me, and more hurt than the original crime.

But it is a matter of a personal belief. I believe that everybody can be eventually saved, by their own actions. You don't. This basically covers it all.

[Hendryk]

My view on 'redemption' would be giving them the chance for second thoughts about their approach.

What about their victims? What about justice? What about fairness???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Are the SECOND thoughts and change of approach as valuable that you are willing to forget the pain of the man who was condemned to eternal torture for stepping in the wrong room? You are willing to let a person who killed anyone on his path go unpunished? You are willing to ignore the *victims*'s plight for the sake of *saving* the one who beviled them? I am sorry, but it is simply...makes me want to wretch.

I think that it is very easy to confuse alignment in Faerun with morality in the real world. In an D&D fantasy world, the cosmos is certifiably structured according to modes of outlook and behavior; by alignment. There is no such definitive orientation in the real world so statements about a fantasy place, based upon real-world experience, are invalid from the start. It's apples and oranges.

That said, prime material planes in fantasy worlds are mixtures of elements from all the outer planes. To say that a society or even one mortal person *is* a particular alignment is to note a tendency. It does not place that society or person in a straightjacket. To be sure, to qualify for particular classes, an individual must have stronger alignment tendencies than the norm. Paladins must be LG, rangers must be Good, clerics must observe an alignment acceptable to the diety worshipped and so on. These are still just tendencies; natural bents reinforced by environment. Paladins can fall, after all. Or, if the player so chooses, a child of Bhaal can be redeemed. So alignment, for a mortal, is to some extent a given but also to some extent a free choice of the individual. That segment of mortal choice is where redemption or corruption can occur.

Finally, although not specifically an alignment matter, it does significantly alignment behavior to note that there is a very definite hierarchy of being assumed in fantasy worlds. Gods sit at the top of these hierarchies with their greater and lesser immortal servants below them. All are considered 'greater' than any mortal. Among mortals, there is a similar assumption of hierarchy. A monarch is assumed to be a higher being than a peasant, a renowned hero or detested villain has far more importance than a mere sheppard. In a fantasy world there definitely is not the assumption - which we routinely make here - that there is a one-to-one correspondence in significance between the life of, say, Sarevok and the life of each of the hundreds of merchants and caravan guards whose deaths he deliberately arranged for in BG1. Sarevok is simply more important, too much the greater being than those ordinary folk he murdered, for their deaths to count against his redemption in any arithmetical way. In short, only the big shots "really count" in a fantasy setting. And please note that I am not defending this assumption, merely noting that it exists in hopes of clarifying the discussion a little.

[maidros]

What is more fitting punishment (and is it even achievable) - burning the rapist. murderer, violent abuser alive for their crimes (preferably for eternity) or making them acutely aware of the pain that they caused to their victims?  Making them feel 'real' compassion, and thus making them admit that they should be punished out of their own mouth? Is not the feeling of somebody else's pain worse punishment than actual physical suffering?

I know your view - it is very traditional, very easy to defend, and very 'tribal'. It feels satisfactory to many. Not to me. It does not make your PoV any less respectable - I simply reject it as something that makes me feel deeply unsatisfied inside.

As in - this kind of 'fairness' brings a violent rejection in me, and more hurt than the original crime. [

I could not have put it better myself, Dorotea. I agree with you in all that you say. But I really wonder sometimes about one particular point - the consequences of failure.

Should the PC resurrect Jon (or Sarevok, or any of the Five) and find that he has failed to redeem them, could the PC live with that guilt of his? In truth, he is then responsible for any crimes they may commit in future - for it is the PC that has unleashed monster/s on the hapless populace. Should they (the resurrected ex-foes) return to their old ways and begin massacring, looting and torturing the people again, what should the PC do? Should he chase them down and execute them - if so what was the point of giving them a second chance? Or should he keep away from them and let them do what they will? It recollects to me the famous line of Rider Haggard -

'Man doeth this and doeth that from the good or evil of his heart; but he knoweth not to what end his moral sense doth prompt him; for when he striketh he is blind to where the blow shall fall, nor can he count the airy threads that weave the web of circumstance'

That I think sums up my view. I only thank God that I do not have to make such a choice in reality (at least not unless I return to the army) - to allow a murderer go free and try to live with his crimes or execute him and agonise whether he really deserved a second chance.

[maidros]

Executing a villain will not bring back a dead man from his grave. There is nothing in vengeance, not even satisfaction when it is finished. The most important point of any punishment is to ensure that such atrocities do not occur again.

Exactly. I disagree on vengeance btw. It brings satisfaction. A feeling of justice done and fairness restored, when a rapist or a murderer is punished is important. I do not give a damn about *his* soul - I want him to suffer for his crimes, not being tip-toed around.

I do not know about the vengeance and satisfaction - it brings me only a sense of sadness now and find that this kind ot thing only allows me to feel the horror and the waste - of both the victim and the perpetrator. But there are plenty of people that subscribe to your view, Domi, and you could be right, for all I know.

t also prevents to a degree someone who is preparing to go on the murderous spree tomorrow from doing so. He is more likely to do it if he sees that the worst possible outcome for him is to be made into a "white" sheep by the caring society.

I am not so sure about that - a murderer's life may become a greater hell on earth if the society were to refuse to countenance him - it depends on the society's reaction really. I am not so sure that hell is a certainty hereafter, while it can certainly exist in this life. There is probably no heaven or hell save on earth - in the hearts and minds of men. It may be far less agonising to die of a merciful draught or a blade than to live in a place where you are universally loathed.
Regards,
Maidros

[jester]

...or a namless farmer's family Viconia murdered is as valuable as Viconia herself.

This is why (as I take it) you always let her be burned at the stake. She is one evil by nature and two a murderer and deserves to be punished. As a good example for the other drow ???

A fundamental difference in the fantasy setting is twofold. There is on the one hand -as Hendryk stated above- a hierarchy which implies some are more important beings naturally than others (a thought rejected by any sane person in te real world), on the other that unlike in the real world, where only concepts of society vary, dragons and dwarves, elves and humankind are entirely different beings. There seems to be natural mental block to kill anyone of your kind in the real world. That is why you have to define this 'other' as entirely different from you (race, religion, etc.). A fire giant does not have too many qualms about killing a rat or a dwarf. They are another race and rules don't apply. Even an evil fire giant would think different about others of his race, I think.

[jester]

It also prevents to a degree someone who is preparing to go on the murderous spree tomorrow from doing so.

If that was true there wouldn't be any murders in Texas.

[Hendryk]

The farmer and his sons did bury Viccy alive, after torture, by way of provocation. Your preference is perfectly valid however. If RPing isn't enjoyable, then it isn't anything. However, I would note that the Odyssey, for instance, is about the gods and a handful of heroes. Not a line that I can recall about the thousands of ordinary hoplites who fought and died there. So, while by no means wrong, your preferences are confronting a long and highly respectable trend.

[Hendryk]

  Nope, not the BG2 re-write of Viconia's story, the separate BG1 murder she is chased after for. Where she killed the whole household.

And she denies having done any such thing. Given the number of bandits and humanoids roaming the area, this at least raises a reasonable doubt.

But this is such a detail as to be almost off-topic...

[jester]

I bow before you domi (this is not one of my usual jokes), if you stick to that line completely. I am always (or most of the time) CN and 'redemption' means not judging others prematurely for me. Murder? Self-defense?

@ Hendryk: The Odyssey is a great example. One of my favs in the same concept would be the Mahabarata epos. And RP is all about fun and immersion.