| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Beowulf |
Posted - 22 Oct 2004 : 23:50:26
Well met!
I am of the opinion that the holy servants of a god like Grimjaws cannot run around acting like judge, jury, and executioner.
Sure, they can perhaps see into the heart of a evil man and see its evil, but as lawful good beings that can't just take that personal, private insight, shared only between them and their god (presumably) and kill. That would be more the way of a neutral or chaotic good dirty Harry type, who doesn't need to prove it to the world that his action is justified.
Of course lawful good believes that laws exist to serve and maintain the common good of a community. That the common good is best served through creation and application of just laws. As such, community figures prominently in their thinking. And in that context, a dead body without a killer and a reason to go along with it, would be consider, in most cultures, perhaps the most heinous and despicable of crimes. Undermining community trust as it does. No matter that some wandering paladin might have killed it and known it was necessary.
Thus, while a paladin for instance might know a man is evil, he would have to call forth the community and demonstrate this mans wickedness before a jury. Tough to do with a corpse.
I would allow this via a ritualization of the detect evil into a trial by ordeal. A fire is lit and blessed in the name of justice and a poking iron heated red hot. Or perhaps the iron is blessed. Either way, the accused must grasp it before a jury. If he/she is not guilty, divine power protects them from being burnt. If they are evil, they suffer a big ouchie, but more poignantly, they are demonstrated to the world at large to be be evil in nature and thus open to punishment from the righteous.
I imagine a similar ritualization for the detect lie spell, if, say, a paladin were to prosecute a case. I also imagine some sort of blessing ritual for a trial by combat, when presided over, as it must be one might imagine, by a holyperson of Grimjaws. This would grant a number of combat bonuses to which ever side the DM knew to be righteous.
None of these are infallible. But that, I think, is part of their charm and enable the evolution of situations in which holyfolk know so-and-so is a "bad seed" but are powerless, for the moment, to do anything about it.
|
| 23 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| hammer of Moradin |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 20:25:00
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
I thinks sometime people look too deeply into the paladin's detect evil. In general it is a warning sign for the paladin from his god, "look out for this guy". Its not the go sign to kill someone, just a little tap on the shoulder saying "this guy isn't on the up and up."
That depends on the person, though. A real fanatic could use this ability to go on a (Justified? ) killing spree. Of course any Paladin without a death sentence will look to what the local laws say, however if there is no local law...
One good portrayal of a Paladin gone awry was in one of the Greyhawk novels of a few years ago, or maybe a short story based on this. Probably from Dragon magazine, where that crazy Ranger with the Pixie companion came across a devastated town where the Paladin trying to help was a bit out of control. If anyone remembers this please remind me. A lawful good character in a tyrannical nation might be quite diferrent from one in a democratic nation. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 14:14:26
I thinks sometime people look too deeply into the paladin's detect evil. In general it is a warning sign for the paladin from his god, "look out for this guy". Its not the go sign to kill someone, just a little tap on the shoulder saying "this guy isn't on the up and up." |
| Ty |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 22:34:15
Hrm... I'll have you know I have a very large desk Wooly... made of solid granite... (Gotta love a client that owns a granite quarry  ).
I think perhaps you are trying to throw the "Detect Naughty Hamster" spell off... 
Nonetheless, you are entirely correct. I do fear the Fire-Breathing Phase Doppelganger Giant Space Hamster without my trusty henchmen... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Mar 2005 : 23:57:08
quote:
Originally posted by Ty
That and of course, obtain a restraining order for Wooly to stop leaving those cedar shavings all over our desks.
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen. If I left cedar shavings on your desk, your desk would be splinters under the shavings. So it's not me.
And do you really want to take legal action against someone who can summon a Fire-Breathing Phase Doppelganger Giant Space Hamster in response? |
| Ty |
Posted - 15 Mar 2005 : 20:21:58
As an aside, we seem to have a number of Sharks running around Candlekeep...
Hrm... Between Krash, Lysander, A Gavel, and myself, we could start a pretty hefty firm in a tucked away corner of the grounds here at the library and start slapping the Sage and Alaundo with subpoenas to produce documents we want... Mind you, we'd only take a small corner, say next to the inn... 
That and of course, obtain a restraining order for Wooly to stop leaving those cedar shavings all over our desks. |
| Lysander |
Posted - 08 Mar 2005 : 15:12:38
quote:
Originally posted by Ty
My oh my Wooly,
Please don't take my post as demeaning to the game designers. My thoughts merely reflect that the description as written in Faiths and Avatars reflects a lawful neutral worshiper of Tyr.
Given that Tyr's clergy can be lawful good, neutral good, or lawful neutral, I don't reject the Faiths and Avatars description of worshippers entirely; I only reject the description to the effect that it also applies to the lawful good and neutral good worshipers.
I think the black and white, strict application of the letter of the law falls squarely within the definition of lawful neutral, which is an acceptable worshiper alignment. No doubt, there are lawful good people with neutral tendencies that fall under this description as well, but I think we're stepping more into an alignment debate at that point in time.
Anyway, yeah Woolpert, I do rely on real life sensibilities, particularly with respect to law. It's what I do! Find precedent, apply it to the facts, analagize or differentiate, draw a conclusion. Sorry, it's the brain-washing that occurs.
As My Learned Colleague has elequently pointed out (and I apologize to the Court for the lateness of my arrival to this discussion  ) The Faiths and Avatars write-up regarding Tyr probably could be shifted to a resurrected (or never killed) Amaunator - who was a LN Deity (and, often tied to Lathander due to the Sun portfolio.) - without overmuch editing and retconning. The "The Law is the Law" aspect of the deity, to my mind and has been pointed out, is not a LG perspective but a LN one. Being overly zealous for the law is a characteristics I see too often being ascribed to the LG alignment and the paladin class, while the outright application of that theory would quickly run afoul of the good tenants of the alignment.
I have always played the Lawful and Good alignments so that Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good were "oppositional" alignments - that is, a LN character would not be overly concerned with whether the Law itself, nor the enforcement of the Law was of Good nature or not, so long as the Letter of the Law was enforced. Neutral Good, however, focused upon whether Good was done, whether or not Law was followed or ignored (being neither Chaotic nor Lawful, so long as "what is 'right'" is done). Lawful Good, being the halfway point, would concern itself with both the Letter of the Law and Spirit of the Law (or, as my Learned Colleague previously pointed out: the equity of the matter) as well as that the result was good. One could possibly argue that the LG alignment may try to ensure that the Law itself as well as it's applications are Good as well as Lawful, but there are situations where the equities involved and the Lawful procedure and enforcement can conflict. (Perhaps this could be the basis of competing Paladin Orders, but to outsiders these differences could be mere shadings rather than fundamental differences.)
I see that the red light is now flashing, so I will surrender the podium. |
| Darkheyr |
Posted - 08 Mar 2005 : 12:57:46
Accused Criminal with a really devilish grin: Ah, but Master Cleric, I am afraid that there is no law against it in these lands.
Cleric of Tyr: They might not be. But even that shall not help you in this case.
Criminal, smile fading: What do you mean?
Cleric: When neither Lord nor Land sanctify or prohibit a given course of action, it is my duty to bring justice to you, offender, under the Eye of the Maimed God, and my duty I shall fulfill.
Just a little piece of a conversation happening somewhere in the silvaeran wilderness :) |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 06 Mar 2005 : 02:54:31
Sometimes I think we try to grasp too much at one time and figure out what would happen in any given situation, when its a lot easier to look at a specific example an disect it.
For example, a paladin is travelling through Zhentil Keep on his way to another less wicked Moonsea city (such as Thentia). He knows the reputation of the place and knows there is little is small band of adventurers can do other than "do no harm" while they are there.
A thief runs down the street who has stolen from a simple street vendor, so the paladin steps in to stop him. He worships Tyr, and he is upholding the law and justice in defending the merchant from theft.
When the Zhentilar troups show up, they say that the man will be executed after he is tortured to find out where his family is, becuase he will not be able to pay the debt he incurred, and thus his children will be sold into slavery.
As far as I see it, this is where the "good" side pops up, as "torture" and "slavery" are definately on the evil side of the law. The paladin and his band turn on the Zhentilar, find out where the man's family are, the take them with them to Thentia, all the while doging Zhent killers.
And to my way of thinking, the paladin would be doing almost exactly what Tyr would expect of him.
I do think, getting back into the original question of this thread, a paladin might act as judge, jury, and executioner, but only if he had no option to drag the person back into civilization, their crime was heinous and they are likely to commit it again, and they would obviously escape if not killed immediately. The circumstances under which this would happen seem relatively rare however. While a paladin might often kill villains in self defence, that is not acting as an executioner.
If a situation like the above happened though, I would imagine that the paladin would seek out an esteemed cleric or higher ranking paladin to ask if his decision was the right one and if he might need to rethink his path or do penance.
|
| Ty |
Posted - 20 Jan 2005 : 01:29:41
My oh my Wooly,
Please don't take my post as demeaning to the game designers. My thoughts merely reflect that the description as written in Faiths and Avatars reflects a lawful neutral worshiper of Tyr.
Given that Tyr's clergy can be lawful good, neutral good, or lawful neutral, I don't reject the Faiths and Avatars description of worshippers entirely; I only reject the description to the effect that it also applies to the lawful good and neutral good worshipers.
I think the black and white, strict application of the letter of the law falls squarely within the definition of lawful neutral, which is an acceptable worshiper alignment. No doubt, there are lawful good people with neutral tendencies that fall under this description as well, but I think we're stepping more into an alignment debate at that point in time.
Anyway, yeah Woolpert, I do rely on real life sensibilities, particularly with respect to law. It's what I do! Find precedent, apply it to the facts, analagize or differentiate, draw a conclusion. Sorry, it's the brain-washing that occurs.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Jan 2005 : 22:50:02
quote:
Originally posted by Ty
To be perfectly frank, I'm not so sure that many of the game designers knew the legal system here in America, or elsewhere for that matter, and the fact that equity (fairness) plays a huge role in almost all disputes.
You bring up some good points, but at the same time, you seem to be making the mistake of projecting real-world sensibilities into a fictitious setting. I don't find it at all unreasonable to think that some Tyrrans might be more concerned with the law than its effects... After all, we do see enough of that in the real world, and not just with legal matters. Ditto with people who only see things in black and white. |
| Ty |
Posted - 19 Jan 2005 : 18:48:06
Sgian
You've hit the nail on the head with respect to the differences between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good, as I see them. I've never liked much of what has been written about Tyr or his clergy to be perfectly honest. This is particularly true in the later parts of the second edition. It seems as though the designers went out of their way to make lawful good almost as ruthless as lawful evil with respect to the letter of the law. This evidences itself in descriptions of Torm in the module Tantras and almost all references I have found to Tyr in the Realms.
To be perfectly frank, I'm not so sure that many of the game designers knew the legal system here in America, or elsewhere for that matter, and the fact that equity (fairness) plays a huge role in almost all disputes. As an aside, another term for it you see bantered about on TV shows such as Law & Order is "mitigating circumstances".
As for the Tyrrans focus on the letter of the law and its blind application to the results, without looking at the circumstances behind the actions resulting in a violation of that law; that my friend is Lawful Neutral. How the designers justified that as an interpretation of lawful good, I will never understand.
I honestly can't say I remember who wrote Faiths and Avatars, but I would give them a stern tongue lashing regarding the legal system if I had a few hours. Their interpretation of justice may have more background behind it such as the interaction between Tyr and Hoar or perhaps maybe the ran into the Sharks too many times at TSR and became jaded regarding the law. I certainly don't know the background behind their writings and I won't second guess their efforts. I do vehemently disagree with them however.
Ed went into Tyr and his clergy quite extensively in the Novels forum and I think that provided some practical advice as to how they 'should' be viewed in the Realms. I do not consider myself an expert on the Realms, so take my views with a grain of salt.
Nonetheless, I've been around the courts long enough to know whether Judge Eiffendorf tends toward what D&D would consider a lawful neutral approach, that the Honorable Frank Frank despises all the technicalities, runs a bit loosy goosy with procedure, but always tries to do the right thing (neutral good it seems) and that Justice Freida always follows the letter of the law but applies that same law to the circumstances in the particular case (lawful good by me).
Throw the principles of equity into your campaign. For my personal campaign, I found Ed's answers regarding Tyrrans actually caring about justice rather than just the law to be enlightening and more in line with what 'I' would personally define as justice. I plan to combine that line of reasoning with my own thoughts of equity and law and I think I have a fairly fleshed out, playable and more human clergy of Tyr. As an aside, Tyr's portfolio of interest is explicitly stated as Justice. A few quotes for you all.
Black's Law Dictionary provides the following definition of justice:
Proper administration of laws. In jurisprudence, the constant and perpetual disposition of legal matters or disputes to render [all persons their] due.
Black's Law Dictionary 864 (6th ed. 1990)
Due, meaning "due process of law" has developed to mean:
A course of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which have been established in our systems of jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private rights.
Id. at 500.
"Equity," by definition is:
Justice administered according to fairness as contrasted with the strictly formulated rules of common law. It is based on a system of rules and principles which originated in England as an alternative to the harsh rules of common law and which were based on what was fair in a particular situation. . . . The term "equity" denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men.
Black's Law Dictionary 540 (6th ed. 1990).
|
| Dargoth |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 07:32:41
There are actually 2 Orders of Paladin in Tyrs church the Knights of the Holy Judgement and the Knights of the Mercful sword. The Knights of the Holy Sword focus on the Lawful aspect of Tyr and probably act alot Sylvester Stalone's character in Judge Dredd, the Knights of the Merciful Sword would be a bit more open to extenuating circumstances |
| Sgian_Dubh |
Posted - 07 Jan 2005 : 20:35:26
Hi all,
I have just read through all of the ideas here and, since I am in the process of planning a campaign in which a new God will be challenging Tyr's position, I have been re-reading the Faiths and Avatars 2nd Ed.
The one comment I have so far regards fairness or equity (as Ty wrote). In the description on the church of Tyr, it is clearly stated that the faithful are *not* concerned with the fairness of a law, only with the application of justice under the law. In other words, neither the law nor the punishment must needs be fair, but both the law and the punishment must be just.
Now, I confess that I am still struggling with how and on what points Just and fair are the same and different.
Here is how I currently interpret it, and I would love feedback as it will have an impact on political and theological backstory of my next campaign.
Justice is defined as actions this are in accordance with the "Letter of the Law".
Fairness in defined as actions that are in accordance with the "Letter of the Law", tempered by an understanding and complicance with the "Spirit of the Law"
Or to put it another way, Justice is only concerned with the:
Correctness of the Act (under the law).
Who commited the Act.
and
Should they be punnished for the act because the violated the law.
There is no room here for abrogation of responsibility due to external forces. There is no compassion, there is no examination of motive. Indeed, motive is largely irrelevant.
Fairness or Equity is concerned with the same basic questions and Justice, but it then also considers the circumstantial, the motive, the intent, and also might consider the question "Why was the law put into place and does it really apply here?
I would also propose that the Just viewpoint would consider laws to be the final (and best) form of a codified moral system.
A Fairness viewpoint would admit from the beginning that any attempt to compass a social more will be imperfect in some way(s) and that compassion is key to the interpretation and applicaiton of the law.
My 2 cents |
| hammer of Moradin |
Posted - 30 Nov 2004 : 22:04:53
I had a similar idea for a Tyrran modeled more on a Viking, with spatterings of Odin-like power and wisdom, which an Uthgardt would easily fit. They would make for an interesting variation on the faith.
I like the idea of the Cleric or Paladin carrying around a book of justice. Whenever a figure of authority confronts the character for something they have done he whips out the books and shows the recorded account of the villain's actions and the Tyrran's justice. Make the book enchanted or a holy item and it could help bypass a lot of red tape.
Overall, a follower of Grimjaws who takes justice into his hands will be seen by some as a hero, and by others as a vigilante, or worse. Can they be judge, jury, and executioner? Yes, if that is how the player wants to play them, and I don't think it would interfere with their LG alignment as long as they outline their justification for their actions and stick to it. This would make a great story!
Beowulf, if the body has no killer, then just come up with some mark or other way for locals to identify that the deceased was been judged and found wanting! Most Tyrrans seeking justice would probably know to avoid public trials if justice is their aim since too many variables would come into play. If the Tyrran is not sure himself of the guilt or innocence of the offender, then a trial would be necessary to avoid committing an unlawful act. Any trial they would hold for someone they are dealing justice to would basically be a mock trial to prove a point, or further an agenda, and not to seek justice per se.
Another question would be whether the servant of Tyr felt that death was a justifiable punishment for anyone. Would they require compensation from the offender to the family of the victim if this were the case (Wergeld)? Or, as I see the vast majority of Tyrrans, is it an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. He's not called Grimjaws for nothing. |
| Ty |
Posted - 30 Nov 2004 : 18:10:41
Hammer, you are of course correct with respect to intellectuals and the educated often instigating revolutions historically. I was merely generalizing.
Certainly "back woods" justice in frontier and wilderness areas such as the North will look more like the Wild West of late 19th century America. Cormyr strikes me initially as being a common law society wherein the appointed lords render decisions and govern under the King's writ if you will.
Other Faerunian nations such as Mulhorand, Calimshan, etc., could conceivably have evolved from a common law system to one where almost all laws are codified, as in modern day France or Germany.
As for the specific questions of whether a Tyrran cleric or paladin can act as a judge, jury, and executioner, I think the real answer is that, as usual, it depends. In areas lacking the governmental resources or wherewithal to establish and maintain not only a diligent and professional police force, let alone a court system, the clergy of Tyr may be authorized and empowered to act as the judiciary for that area.
I seem to recall in Faith and Avatar's that a cleric of Tyr was encouraged to travel with a book, detailing the crimes discovered, punishments meted out, and wrongdoers. The details contained in this book would be added to the libraries and records of churches visited by these priests during their travels. This seems to indicate that where law and justice are lacking, the clergy takes it upon themselves to impose their laws and justice on the populace. Hence, this may be one reason why the "Tyrants" are disliked in certain areas where societal norms do not fit in the Tyrran legal "peg."
I also agree that any priest of Tyr worth his salt that has justice or law as a focus of his worship should take ranks in Knowledge (law) and perhaps even Profession (Barrister). However, one interesting concept I have been itching to play is a Uthgardt priest of Tyr.
I have this nagging idea in the back of my head that Tyr could be worshipped by a number of individuals with a focus on the concept of the "just war." I don't recall the specific real-life equivalencies as detailed by the Catholic Church over the past millenia but the idea of a worshipper of Tyr driven not by law or justice but rather, by the making of war in a just and honorable way seems interesting.
An Uthgardt barbarian faithfully following those "good" tenets of the Tyrran faith while acknowledging but not focusing on the lawful aspects strikes me as a humorous and interesting character that would break the stereotype so often found in almost every cleric of Tyr. I'd imagine this type of character would needle and prick the sensibilities of many "citified" cleric endlessly. Hmmm.... |
| hammer of Moradin |
Posted - 30 Nov 2004 : 17:26:31
quote:
Originally posted by Ty
My thoughts on questions raised:
As for the Hammer of Moradin:
Your illustrations fit precisely into the concept of equity. If he killed someone, he'd face a punishment of some kind, but not nearly one that is as broad or harsh in scope as a cold-blooded ruthless murder for personal profit.
As for the broader question of what defines law versus good and evil, that's something I can't answer for you. I think the "laws of nature" would best be qualified by strict neutrality, but I don't really believe that they are laws at all. They are facts of life and the world at large. Laws are imposed by a civilization or society upon its members, generally, for the "good of society." To define what is a "good" law and what is an "evil" law depends entirely upon the society you are born in, but I think that in a general sense, we recognize the good, the bad, and the indifferent when we see them. Tax laws for instance, are neither inherently good nor evil. The best answer is, it depends.
As for peasants and commoners having rights, you are correct. However, abuses of what the lower classes view as their rights, whether enumerated or merely perceived, will cause a revolt against the "system." If the vast majority of your population, no matter how repressed or controlled they may be, reaches a point where it no longer believes that the system works, you'll have a revolution. You need only look at history to see the examples everywhere.
Another thing to consider is common law where there are no written laws, or little jurisdiction for those who pass written laws. This would be more common in the Realms with the many frontiers and wild areas.
I would have to disagree with you, overall, about revolutions. For the most part the commoners would not revolt/rebel on their own. Any of histories revolutions and most rebellions are the result of disenfranchised groups other than peasants and commoners who use the lower classes to their advantage. Not that the commoners thought it was a bad idea, mind you. There's a reason dictators take out the professors and intellectuals when they come to power.
For the most part I think Tyrrans should have some kind of Knowledge skill taken so they can identify the local laws, customs, or traditions so they don't step on anyone's toes, but if they break these when they think their right they would not be in too much trouble if the locals agree with their decision. A trial might be stretching it unless a point is being made, and I doubt most of Tyr's followers would bother with this ritual. Local law enforcement would likely turn a blind eye to these indescretions since there is often times little they can do themselves.
Tough question, tough answers, and we have barely scratched the surface. |
| Ty |
Posted - 30 Nov 2004 : 16:13:35
My thoughts on questions raised:
First for the Goblin King:
With respect to evil actions that don't break the law, my thoughts are that a Tyrran would be unable to "prosecute" any such person under any type of legal code. In other words, just as a prosecutor in today's legal system is sometimes unable to pursue a perceived societal wrongdoer, a cleric of Tyr also would be bound by that same idea. However, that does not mean that the Tyrran couldn't attempt to get the laws changed, use the evil acts as a rallying point for a "moral revival" of the society he was in, or otherwise, use it to point the populace to boycott someone's business, etc.
However, the assumption underlying these types of activities isn't one that is criminal in nature necessarily. We also have to realize that there are differences between civil and criminal wrongs. Civil wrongs can be punished by the imposition of fines, obligations, etc. In the case of evil gossip, for example, you could have someone seek redress for the damages caused by the gossip if was knowingly malicious. No, this isn't something someone is going to get their head lopped off for or put in prison, but it is something that under the common law, would smack you with a hefty fine in the way of compensatory damages, exemplary damages, and in some cases, punitive damages.
If there is no law that deals with such a situation, Tyrrans in a position of legal authority, could create laws, just as our courts do today. The "advantage" of a common law system is that a court can modify, extend, or create laws based upon a variety of circumstances and the mores of society. For instance, the Right of Privacy we take for granted in the United States is not enumerated anywhere in any law. Rather, it "flows" from other rights we are granted. I'm boiling this down in a very simple manner but, it's not a specifically granted right.
As for the Hammer of Moradin:
Your illustrations fit precisely into the concept of equity. If he killed someone, he'd face a punishment of some kind, but not nearly one that is as broad or harsh in scope as a cold-blooded ruthless murder for personal profit.
As for the broader question of what defines law versus good and evil, that's something I can't answer for you. I think the "laws of nature" would best be qualified by strict neutrality, but I don't really believe that they are laws at all. They are facts of life and the world at large. Laws are imposed by a civilization or society upon its members, generally, for the "good of society." To define what is a "good" law and what is an "evil" law depends entirely upon the society you are born in, but I think that in a general sense, we recognize the good, the bad, and the indifferent when we see them. Tax laws for instance, are neither inherently good nor evil. The best answer is, it depends.
As for peasants and commoners having rights, you are correct. However, abuses of what the lower classes view as their rights, whether enumerated or merely perceived, will cause a revolt against the "system." If the vast majority of your population, no matter how repressed or controlled they may be, reaches a point where it no longer believes that the system works, you'll have a revolution. You need only look at history to see the examples everywhere.
|
| hammer of Moradin |
Posted - 29 Nov 2004 : 21:24:17
Good points Ty. However, one of the first things a DM must decide is whether the peasants/commoners even have rights, and to what extent. You don't have to be from Thay to have few rights under the law. IRL, most peasants could say or do little, even though they may have had the right to do so. If the local lord is even of LN bent he may not appreciate his 'commoners' going above his head to get justice. This could be very true in a region such as Cormyr if the lord of the area is an opponent of the king.
Then again, this local lord may not appreciate a rogue element stirring trouble and meteing out justice on his lands. In the North I can see a follower of Tyr fitting right in and having few problems outside of the few major cities.
When speaking of lawful creatures, what defines law? A LG ranger could determine law to mean the laws of nature, and the natural order of things. If he comes upon a blightlord, who just happens to be the son of a prominent lord, this evil is against the natural order, and so the blightlord could be killed. A LG follower of Tyr could define law as the tenents Tyr sets down, and could give a flying fig as to what the local authorities have to say. If he sees one of the local lord's cronies kill a man who steals a horse to take his sick wife to the local druid or cleric to help her, he may kill the cronies (in uniform or under presumed authority, either way)and feel justified in doing so. Does this make either of these LG characters evil in action or intent? They would say no, and the family members of those they kill would presumably say yes. Who is right, and who is wrong? |
| Maglubiyet |
Posted - 29 Nov 2004 : 17:46:44
quote:
Originally posted by Ty
Just keep in mind that there are really four factors when dealing with a Tyrran and crime and punishment.
1) Was there an evil or unlawful act?
2) Was there evil or unlawful intent?
3) If 1 and 2 are present, a crime has occurred.
4) Is equity lacking so as to mitigate the crime?
Evil does not necessarily mean unlawful. For example, a landlord may be perfectly within the law to evict a starving family with young children in the middle of a cold winter. But this could be considered an evil act, especially if the landlord did it just for kicks.
Or a ruthless social climber might spread gossip about a rival which ends up ruining the rival's career and family. If the gossip were true (a dirty little secret maybe), no crime has been committed.
How then does Tyrran justice deal with situations in which no law has been broken but clearly evil intent has been shown? |
| Lashan |
Posted - 23 Nov 2004 : 17:09:54
Beyond the discussion of what constitutes Lawful Good and the interpretation by servants of Tyr is another question. Is the cleric an Agent of Law? In other words, is the cleric included in the judicial system at any extent? Are they a judge, lawyer/barrister, or even policeman? Does the cleric have any legal standing in the community?
A cleric of Tyr worships a god and is a servant of the church. This does not mean that they are allowed to interfere in the legal structures of a society. The Church of Tyr might be respected by the population and even the local govt., but this does not mean they want clerics of Tyr to act as agents of the state and become law enforcement or judges? Sure, a cleric of Tyr might be a judge of a city, but that doesn't mean that ALL clerics of Tyr are judges in the city?
The Church of Tyr does meditate, debate, and research the law of many lands, but it is not actually the law in any land. The concept of law and justice and attempts to create them in the world is of interest to the church, but from a perspective that is outside of society. The Church is involved in matters of the spirit and religion. The Church of Tyr is not an extention of any govt, unless the local rulers want it so. |
| Ty |
Posted - 23 Oct 2004 : 16:24:03
A Tyrran as judge, jury, and executioner. I've always taken a very dim view of most players and GM's views of Tyr and the methodology that his clerics and paladins may use in the pursuit of justice.
The basic problem I see is twofold. One is contemporary views of law and criminal punishment. The second is simply a misperception of the nature of lawful good. Please understand however, that even contemporaneously, the theories and views related to and behind crime and punishment aren't easily reconciled. My background is in law, as an attorney. My wife however, is from the law enforcement background. We have strong disagreements over the amount of force used in the pursuit of justice and the enforcement of laws. This morning's discussion of the recent death of a student in Boston during the riots is a prime example. I digress however.
The simple fact is you have to: 1) break down the time period you are looking at, 2) what is the geopolitical area you are in, 3) examine the 'authority' with which cleric/paladin is imbued, and 4) take a huge leap of faith with respect to the interaction between the variance in the alignments of Tyr's worshippers.
Tyr is a god of justice, not law. There is a difference. Justice is not only the pursuit of the precepts of the law but also the precepts of fairness. Fairness often is referred to in the American court system as "equity." An overriding precept of equity since ancient England and the church sanctioned Courts of Chancery has been to "let fairness be done." Another example is that equity will not let those with guilty hands prosper. This leads to the first issue any player choosing Tyr must deal with. There is a distinct contrast between the canons of equity and the laws passed by the political authority. Also, the law makes provisions for violations of its statutes and codes due to the fact that circumstances do not always allow one to reconcile the facts to the theories of the law. (Note here the insanity defense).
For example, a cleric of Tyr, faced with a street urchin who has pilfered a loaf of bread, could be fully authorized under the laws of the land to lop off the offender's hand. Equity however, takes into account the fact that the child is starving and would otherwise die of starvation. A middle ground must be found between these two concepts. We are starting to see now where the difference lies between lawful neutral and lawful good, respectively. Sorting out this law vs. equity issue is the basis for in-game conflicts between neutral actions and good actions. It's not an easy distinction to make in many cases however, and if the giants of the legal profession have difficulty in many cases, don't be surprised if your players do as well.
The authority to make the decision to lop off a hand, put someone to death, take chickens from Goodman Bill to pay for the damage his hogs did to Goodwife Sara's crops, etc. often was invested by a noble, the royalty, or the church into certain persons, who we now know as Sheriffs and Marshals. Appeals of these decisions could be made to the higher ranking noble in some cases or to the church's Court of Chancery (equity here again, are we seeing a pattern?). However, in border areas where lawlessness was common, on-the-spot judgment was the rule of the day. Generally, only in cities and only if one knew the system was the process of the appeal really possible.
Now, punishments back then were fairly harsh. An eye for an eye was not unheard of and "debtor's prisons" weren't just Charles Dickens imagination. We all know how Australia was 'colonized' initially. Punishments were not easy, jail was typically not an option except for the most rare circumstances, and death was common. I do not know offhand the penalties assigned to various types of crimes at the moment though.
Now, after all the mumbo jumbo above, we move to the crux of the question. Do Tyrrans have the right and/or authority to enact judgment upon a person they view as an offender? I would say yes. They are church sanctioned 'knights' in the case of paladins and they are the clergy who otherwise would sit in a Court of Chancery in ye ole County of Kent. Where does a GM draw the line in their actions however? Well, common sense and deduction are your best friends.
Evil in of itself is not a crime. Evil ACTS are the crime. Here is where the law uses the exception called 'mens rea' for many crimes. If you lacked the 'intent' (the mens rea or the evil thought) to commit the crime, you did not commit a crime. If you performed a crime with the intent to do X, which is unlawful, you committed an evil act that is punishable. Now, today, we have changed much of this, but it is the best boiled down, abrogated version I can provide without boring you even more than I have.
So, here's the jist of it. Your Paladin of Tyr player detects evil. That's dandy, he knows the guy has done something wrong in the past to get to such a state, but he has no idea what. He can't draw a sword and execute him on the spot. Likewise, returning to our previous example with the street urchin, I highly doubt there would be any evil intent in such a child, despite the unlawful act. Just keep in mind that there are really four factors when dealing with a Tyrran and crime and punishment.
1) Was there an evil or unlawful act?
2) Was there evil or unlawful intent?
3) If 1 and 2 are present, a crime has occurred.
4) Is equity lacking so as to mitigate the crime?
As for punishment, you can only reach that if all of the above are present, only then do you move to punishment, which generally, should suit the crime. Execution was not unheard of for assault with intent to cause great harm, burglary, arson, or other 'felony' crimes. However, stealing chickens, theft of personal effects outside of the home, and other 'misdemeanor' crimes often required a day in the stocks and the repayment of funds to the aggrieved.
My two, abridged, and highly condensed cents on the Grimjaws servants.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 23 Oct 2004 : 04:52:02
For a paladin, he would be instantly stripped of his status. Killing an evil man simply because he is evil is not a lawful act -- it is a chaotic act. It might even be an evil act in and of itself, since the person, though evil, might not actually deserve to be killed. It is possible to have evil in one's heart and not act on it, since that isn't necessarily a good act (if acting as evil as one is were to cost the person rather than profit him, he wouldn't be likely to do it; this includes "for the sake of Evil" actions, since that would be a profit in this one's mind). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Oct 2004 : 00:51:09
It's real simple: if you enforce the law, you must act within the confines of the law. A paladin slaying someone simply because that person is evil would be a violation of the law, and the paladin would get in all sorts of trouble for it -- with his god and with the civic leaders of the area where his crime was committed. |
|
|
