D&D 5E 'Justice' in 5E

[Flamestrike]

Ultimately what it comes down to is whether the potential redemption of this one person is worth the risk of the harm they will do to others if they are not redeemed.

Is not something a Good person would say. They would advocate mercy, compassion and atonement, because they're Good. They would be hard to shift away from that position.

The above reasoning (in your quote) sounds a lot more Neutral in nature (you're expressly balancing good vs evil here). You could land on either side (Good or Evil, mercy or killing)

An Evil person would start at a position of 'have him killed' and be hard to shift away from that position.

 

[MarkB]

Is not something a Good person would say.

Well, thank you so much for your moral judgement of me. Since when is it not a good thing to consider the potential harm a criminal may do to others when considering whether to release him?

 

[Flamestrike]

Exile for a powerful NPC is just an inconvenience. Historically it was a death sentence in most cases. The only one of the 3 of the good alignments that supported life imprisonment was the LG guy. The NG and CG let him go unless I misunderstood.

You misunderstood NG.

He opposes the death penalty (Good) and doesnt see the need for a trial but is open to one if thats the prevailing view (Neutral).

The Chaotic Good guy opposes the need for a trial (Chaotic) and also opposes the death penalty (Good)

LG supports a free and fair and humane trial (Lawful) and also opposes the death penalty (Good).

All three desire a level of mercy and compassion. That doesn't meant they oppose punishment entirely; just that (as Good people) they oppose causing the prisoner excessive harm, and seek to treat him humanely and with dignity.

 

[Flamestrike]

Well, thank you so much for your moral judgement of me. Since when is it not a good thing to consider the potential harm a criminal may do to others when considering whether to release him?

It becomes an evil thing to do when you're considering killing him (a prisoner at your mercy) on the grounds of what he might do in the future is what i was saying. If your using possible future acts to justify his killing (or even past acts) when there are other options reasonably open to you to not kill the guy.

In my games very few morally good people support capital punishment. Morally neutral people are split (they can go either way), and morally evil people as a rule support it, with some even supporting it for even trivial offences.

Good = mercy, compassion, altruism, kindness.
Evil = harming others.

 

[MarkB]

It becomes an evil thing to do when you're considering killing him (a prisoner at your mercy) on the grounds of what he might do in the future is what i was saying. If your using possible future acts to justify his killing (or even past acts) when there are other options reasonably open to you to not kill the guy.

And how do you square that with taking responsibility for the safety of those that this person may harm? Within that context, what other reasonable options are there for dealing with extremely powerful individuals?

In my games very few morally good people support capital punishment. Morally neutral people are split (they can go either way), and morally evil people as a rule support it, with some even supporting it for even trivial offences.

Good = mercy, compassion, altruism, kindness.
Evil = harming others.

So, do the PCs in your games always knock their opponents unconscious, bind them, and deliver them for fair trial and incarceration?

Or are they, by your definition, evil?

 

[Oofta]

Is not something a Good person would say. They would advocate mercy, compassion and atonement, because they're Good. They would be hard to shift away from that position.

The above reasoning (in your quote) sounds a lot more Neutral in nature (you're expressly balancing good vs evil here). You could land on either side (Good or Evil, mercy or killing)

An Evil person would start at a position of 'have him killed' and be hard to shift away from that position.

So ... you see a serial killer murder someone. You can kill them or you can let them go, there is no other reasonable option. You know that if you let him go he will kill someone else (because, magic/zone of truth/whatever).

You're saying it's a good thing to let them go?

In this scenario, we aren't talking about letting a mob lynch someone without evidence. We know they're the BBEG. We can even divine their intentions for the future with magic. We have evidence, intent, we know what they will do in the future. Letting them go IMHO is evil.

 

[Flamestrike]

And how do you square that with taking responsibility for the safety of those that this person may harm? Within that context, what other reasonable options are there for dealing with extremely powerful individuals?

Prison. You build a cell. You place them in it.

Works just fine in the world through history.

So, do the PCs in your games always knock their opponents unconscious, bind them, and deliver them for fair trial and incarceration?

No, and they're under no obligations to do so.

They (like in every country in the world, throughout world history) are perfectly entitled to respond to attempted lethal force against them, with applications of lethal force in response in self defence (as long as that force is proportionate to the threat).

Once the enemy have surrendered, and force is no longer necessary, killing them is then evil.

Again; just like in the real world. If someone draws a gun on you, or your family you can defend them with lethal force of your own. If they toss the gun and surrender, you cant just shoot them dead.

Paladins carry swords for a reason.

 

[Flamestrike]

So ... you see a serial killer murder someone. You can kill them or you can let them go, there is no other reasonable option. You know that if you let him go he will kill someone else (because, magic/zone of truth/whatever).

Are you asking me personally? Im not Good aligned in the real world. Im probably more CN than anything else.

I cheat on girlfriends, am generally selfish, but also work in human rights law helping others less fortunate than me (but get paid for it). I dont steal, I dont rape or murder. Im a hedonist at heart, and a liberal. I tend not to follow laws unless I have to or it just pans out that way. Drugs and booze are perfectly fine, and I'll happily sleep with someone (legal) but half my age, and not blink, Probably CN with some goodish traits, and some evil ones.

My personal view is not to kill the bastard. I subdue him (at gun point) and take him to the authorities, He makes a move for my gun and I shoot him dead.

If he were to kill someone I love (or a child or something) I might be tempted to shoot him if no-one is around, and then put a knife in his hands. Emotion might get the better of me. I'd lose a lot of sleep over it though.

But I'm CN, and that's what a CN person would do.

You're saying it's a good thing to let them go?

Im saying mercy is a good thing.

Killing a defenceless person is an evil thing. Thats what made our serial killer evil in the first place remember?

Again, if youre asking for my pesonal view, I sit in the middle. I oppose the death penalty personally (because it doesnt work, and as a lawyer, I see State tyranny an injustice all the time, which I oppose). I support longer prison sentences for murder (20 years minimum) with a stronger possibility of life means life for serious cases of multiple murders etc/

Im CN though, so that sounds about right for that alignment.

 

[MarkB]

Prison. You build a cell. You place them in it.

Works just fine in the world through history.

Which is what I meant by taking responsibility. Is there a prison in the world which can reliably hold an extremely powerful D&D end-boss? If not, you need to find a way to make one happen, while simultaneously keeping him in custody yourself, and if you're not up to that, you need to consider whether he's too dangerous to keep alive.

No, and they're under no obligations to do so.

They (like in every country in the world, throughout world history) are perfectly entitled to respond to attempted lethal force against them, with applications of lethal force in response in self defence (as long as that force is proportionate to the threat).

You said that mercy is good and killing is evil - and by the RAW it's relatively easy to take someone down non-lethally. If you have that option and don't exercise it, isn't that evil by your own definition?

 

[NotAYakk]

In D&D, there is a difference between evil and Evil.

In the "1st world" 20th century, we have the infrastructure to capture and contain people indefinitely, and the wealth to make that cheap.

But in most D&D worlds, you don't have that infrastructure and wealth. And many of the capital-E evil foes you defeat are more akin to serial killers and beings individually powerful enough to overthrow entire governments than most of the criminals in the first world. And in other cases, they are akin to an invading irregular army.

Societies will generally permit the killing of partisans, leaders of dangerous and active rebellions, and serial killers far before they'll just let them go.

I mean, as an example, a Night Hag is a being who literally sucks life out of people for fun and food. Imagine someone with the military power of a Sherman tank but as stealthy as a thief who goes around drinking people's brain juice, in a world where there is functional immortality from backups, but she also corrupts those backups.

Now imagine a world where there are 100s of different types of monsters who do that kind of thing all over the place. "Good" being "kill the evil beings" starts making a lot of sense. "Good" meaning "if someone makes a pact with soul-eaters and delivers on it, they should be offered a chance to repent and be killed". "Good" meaning "I will sacrifice myself to keep the forces of darkness at bay" works.

Law-chaos axis can be equally as brutal. On one side, you have civilization builders, the rule and road and wall and castle. On the others, people who prefer to live in the wilderness, without walls, or who tear down civilization for their own profit.

The walls and rules oppress and soften those within it, but also protect the weak (for their own sake, or for their efforts to be harvested by the worthy in civilization). To some, that trade isn't worth it; to others, it is of paramount importance.

Now this doesn't have to be your good-evil lawful-chaos line. And it only makes sense in certain worlds.