[Age of Worms] Law in Diamond Lake? (Potential spoilers!)

[Jeff Wilder]

First, some background facts.

(1) In real life, I'm a lawyer with a strong understanding of constitutional law.

(2) I'm playing a LN half-ogre mercenary in a four-session old Age of Worms campaign.

(3) In a handout provided by the DM, we've been informed that law enforcement in Diamond Lake -- the initial setting for Age of Worms -- is corrupt and untrustworthy.

(4) Investigating a grave-robbing, our group found a severed arm bearing a tattoo we recognized. (An owlbear had apparently interrupted the grave-robbing and eaten the arm's owner.) Further investigation revealed that one member of a group that bears that tattoo had gone mysteriously missing.

(5) We attempted to speak to the leader of the group -- guy named Cullen -- but he put us off.

Okay, so my character basically suggested that we wait 'til Cullen and his followers were good and liquored up, then storm their resting places, take them prisoner, and question them. After quite a bit of argument, we did so. After quite a bit of questioning, during which my character threatened -- very convincingly -- to dismember Cullen, Cullen confessed to the grave-robbing. We subsequently turned him and his cronies over to the temple of Wee Jas.

I wasn't aware of it at the time, but my DM feels that our behavior was anything but "lawful," in both the legal and D&D senses of the word.

I'm a little bit at a loss, because I've found myself arguing a position that I'm personally very strongly against -- basically, "if they turn out to be guilty, they can't claim violated rights" -- but which is almost certainly the letter of the law in a primitive society, especially in a frontier town like Diamond Lake. The alternative seems to be a modern-day liberal Fourth Amendment-based legal system ... e.g., my DM believes that only actual proof before the fact would justify the actions we did as "lawful."

This hurts my head.

As late as 1950s America, the law of the land was often that someone subject to this kind of action could only claim the protections of the Bill of Rights if, in fact, he or she turned out to be otherwise innocent. (A few justices on the Supreme Court still argue this position.) Am I really supposed to believe that the legal system of Diamond Lake is more sophisticated that that of '50s America?

(For the lawyers out there, BTW, ignore the "state action" element of all this. Since the "lawfulness" is not just technically of legality, but also of D&D alignment, it's more a matter of philosophy than real legal distinctions.)

What should I do here? My DM truly doesn't understand the "what we did was lawful because of how it turned out" argument, which is understandable, because it's pretty foreign to modern concepts of law. But it's a very real legal philosophy, and I'm afraid that having it shot down is going to destroy my suspension of disbelief ... among other things, a legal system that protects the individual over the group -- as the Bill of Rights is, under modern understanding, intended to do -- makes vigilantism -- like, say, almost all adventuring -- pretty much across-the-board illegal and impossible.

Do I just suck it up and shut up?

Do I go true Neutral and not worry about it anymore?

Or do I continue to try to explain that D&D "lawful" is about the group over the individual, and thus most legal systems in D&D will be built on that?

Even if that's the case, is Diamond Lake an odd exception?

 

[mmu1]

Based on everything I know about Age of Worms, the issues of legality are your last worry - in no small part because in all likelihood, your LN will soon be dead anyway.

Seriously, though - unless your DM actually puts a lot of work into fleshing things out, I wouldn't expect a great deal of verisimilitude from an adventure path, especially one that's something of a meatgrinder - even if this sounds like an issue more with the DM than with the module. (I haven't played through Age of Worms, but I did play a game in which the DM used Diamond Lake largely intact in terms of its feel and flavor, and I don't see your actions as being out of place at all)

 

[Al'Kelhar]

I think you and your DM need to discuss his game expectations of the "lawful" alignment.

There is no necessary relationship between the laws of the land and the behavioural tropes represented by the D&D-style alignment system.

If your DM's view of D&D alignment is that a lawful character adheres to the law of the land, as a player playing a lawful character you need to know what the law of the land is. If your DM takes that view, at the very least, he should tell you what the law of the land says about your character's proposed actions. It that law prohibits the behaviour exhibited by your character, then as a matter of logic, your character is not acting according to his alignment.

I personally find this more than a little restrictive and wholly unrealistic, but if that's your DM's take, you can live with it, try to appeal to his reason, or get a new DM.

I doubt the church of Wee Jas - which is strictly lawful in ethical outlook - would have any problems with using the evidence you gathered to try and convict a grave-robber. So does the church of Wee Jas abide by the laws of the land, or are common law and ecclesiastical law separate in this world?

Lanod Neff might seek to apply local laws, or rather his version of local laws, to your group for messing with his "fixers" in town, but this hasn't got anything to do with your character not behaving in accordance with the lawful alignment - and everything to do with you annoying Lanod Neff.

As an aside, I find that applying legal principles and philosophies developed by Western scholars in the last two centuries to the legal structures which might realistically be in place in an archetypal D&D fantasy setting is pointless. (I'm also a lawyer).

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Steel_Wind]

Speaking as a DM running AoW (and a lawyer...)

Your DM was upset because your best option for a lawful response was to go to Captain Trask, the leader of the troops in town who are under the command of the Lords of Greyhawk - and not the local scum in Diamond Lake. The cleric of Heironius at the garrison would have spoken with dead - or threatened to - and Cullen would have talked without the threat of pain. By appealing to the authority of the Lords of Greyhawk and the Church of Hieronius - not the corrupt locals - your character would certainly have been acting in a lawful manner.

Secondly - threatening torture upon someone in order to obtain information in a very realistic and believable way is, imo, the opposite of truth, justice, order and weal. And that isn't open to finessing Jeff - in 1850 or 1950.

That would be torture in the sense of "we wrapped electrodes around the hooded man's genitals and did not plug them in - but he didn't know they were not plugged in so he sang like a canary" variety of torture. "Lawful" as that term is used in D&D? Not even close.

By which I mean to say you acted out of pure self-interest, without restraint or respect for the law, custom , honor or anything "good".

In fact, that's pretty close to acting "evil" in my books Jeff. Not capital "E" in that "I-give-myself-freely-to-the-Evil-of-the-Sword" Evil, but in the Big-Time long distance call from "good" sense of the word.

If I was your DM - I'd have said the same thing.

 

[MerricB]

It's really tricky because "Law" is really badly defined in D&D. Consider that Lawful behaviour can just mean adhering to a personal code of conduct...

I'd consider your actions Lawful... not Lawful Good, but Lawful. A Good PC believes in personal freedoms, so your PC did not respect the freedoms of the NPCs.

Lawful neutral combines reliability and honor, without moral bias.

Lawful neutral characters are directed by law, logic, tradition, or personal code. Order and organization are paramount to them. They may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government, whether that is a compassionate democracy or an oppressive dictatorship.

This does not mean that Lawful Neutral characters are amoral or immoral, or do not have a moral compass; but simply that their moral considerations come a distant second to what their code, tradition or law dictates.

A functionary, soldier, or employee who follows orders without question regardless of the result; an arms dealer who sells wares to the highest bidder, whatever that bidder may do with them; and an impartial jurist who sticks rigidly to the rule book are all examples of lawful neutral characters.

Consider also:
* A Good character cares about others.
* An Evil character doesn't care about others
* A Neutral (Good/Evil) character cares about his friends.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Just a note:

Although following the law can be the hallmark of a Lawful character, it is not required. Lawful characters are not required to follow the law of the land. Consider a Lawful Good paladin in a Lawful Evil realm where followers of Heironeous are outlawed; in this case the paladin would always be breaking the Law (chaotic behaviour) and thus could never bring justice (Good) to the land.

Cheers!

 

[Agamon]

Yet another thread that helps prove that alignment really needs to be removed from the game.

But to make my reply maybe a bit more helpful: Diamond Lake, at the beginning of AoW, anyway, is a cesspool. My players instantly hated the place. It wasn't just background to the adventure, though, we did a lot of roleplaying to flesh the place out for them. The "law" in the area is crooked. My party, every single one of whom were either LG or LN, didn't want to interact with them at all. They ended up beating the tar out of Kullen to get the info (they ambushed him, but he initiated the violence), but I didn't see it as an alignment violation. There's very little recourse in the adventure for acting "lawful", in the strictest sense of the word, you really won't get anywhere.

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

Your DM has silly issues with law.

In medieval times, Law meant whoever was strong enough and willing enough to enforce some form of behaviour. Now, chaotic in this sense means unwilling to enforce your own set of laws for whatever reason.

Did you act contrary to your characters ideas of lawful-ness? Is it in your characters viewpoint (or his cultures) that people should be tortured, threatened, until they acceed to your demands? Did your character act in a manner his people would find not good but just?

Because that's lawful also. You were upholding both the law and the methods of doing so.

If you went in, beat up a bunch of known gangsters and graverobbers who violated your codes tenets and offered them an opportunity to confess and convert before killing them - thats LG. You did it not just to uphold the tenets because you think they are right and the right thing to do, but to inspire others.

Now, if you went in, beat up a bunch of people, did whatever you wanted and it had nothing whatsoever to do with anything but your own advantage, and you didn't care what example it set to others about the society -

thats chaotic. And depending on how ruthless, mean, cold, and whether you killed them painfully just because they might be a threat and you want to set an example to others - thats CE.

 

[rhm001]

Okay, so my character basically suggested that we wait 'til Cullen and his followers were good and liquored up, then storm their resting places, take them prisoner, and question them. After quite a bit of argument, we did so. After quite a bit of questioning, during which my character threatened -- very convincingly -- to dismember Cullen, Cullen confessed to the grave-robbing. We subsequently turned him and his cronies over to the temple of Wee Jas.

I wasn't aware of it at the time, but my DM feels that our behavior was anything but "lawful," in both the legal and D&D senses of the word.

I'm a little bit at a loss, because I've found myself arguing a position that I'm personally very strongly against -- basically, "if they turn out to be guilty, they can't claim violated rights" -- but which is almost certainly the letter of the law in a primitive society, especially in a frontier town like Diamond Lake. The alternative seems to be a modern-day liberal Fourth Amendment-based legal system ... e.g., my DM believes that only actual proof before the fact would justify the actions we did as "lawful."

Well, the way that you and some of the other people responding frame the argument suggests that the debate was literally of the "violating his Constiutional rights" variety, but I feel the need to ask directly: was this the case?

Assuming for the moment that it was, did you immediately fall back to the "guilty, so no rights" argument? The reason I ask is because doing so would suggest that you accepted the framing of the argument. But what I want to know is, what codes did you initially view the mercenary as adhering to? Did the DM understand what those codes were? If, for example, the Mercanary Guild he belongs to allows for certain means to be employed under certain circumstances (such as what was done during the adventure,) and your character, with a good knowledge of the code, can safely say he will attempt to adhere to it under any circumstances, so that the next suspect is likely to be questioned in a similar way, then the behavior seems to have been LN.

But, if your DM didn't know about your code (and it didn't come up afterwards,) then it's easy to see how his perception could have been something like: "Holy crap, they're violating his rights, with no authority to do it! That's ignoring the few laws that even this town has. Totally un-lawful!"

The appropriate formula for resolving Conflicts of Laws always seems to be almost as much of a controversy in RPGs as it is in the courts, (Member of the "Gamer w/ a JD" club as well...) but for everyone (including the DM) to understand how your character resolves a given conflict between his code and the law of the land, they have to know exactly what your character knows, including what his code says about the issue.

Just my .02...

 

[phindar]

(they ambushed him, but he initiated the violence)

I'm pretty sure that isn't possible.

From an Alignment perspective, D&D has always presumed a modern viewpoint. So I can see how your GM would think that the group attacking, capturing and threatening someone with grievious bodily harm was unlawful (or more precisely, Chaotic), even though that's what Gene Hackman did in Mississippi Burning and it worked pretty well for him. But then, as has been pointed out, a Lawful Alignment in D&D can mean almost anything.

The way my group did it was my character, a bit of a loose cannon, found where Kullen and his crew were drinking after the owlbear debacle, threw the arm on the table and said, "Looks like you guys are short a good swordarm." I thought since they were mercenary scum it would help ingratiate me to them, I didn't know he was their blood-brother or something, so we killed a couple, captured a couple, bribed the local guards, interrogated the survivors, and went about our merry way.

And yeah, Diamond Lake was a cesspool, but I loved it. The game fizzled as soon as we left. Who wouldn't want to adventure in Deadwood? I'd still be willing to go back to that town and play those characters again, but I'm not really interested in seeing the rest of the path.