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

[GreatLemur]

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.

Hm. That philosophy put your character in sort of an ethical paradox, though, since his actions only became "legal" after Cullen confessed. The break-in, kidnapping, and interrogation were presumably still against the law while your lawful character was committing them, which makes your actions look pretty questionable, since you could have found out later on that the owl bear's dinner had been acting on his own.

On the other hand, as MerricB points out, there's more to the definition of "Lawful Neutral" than the letter of the law according to the local authorities. It's one of the most frequently-debated elements of the alignment system, but the way I read it, a Lawful Neutral character be guided instead by some personal or religious code. Thing is (as rhm001 points out), you've got to make sure you and your DM understand exactly what "law" your character follows, and agree that it's a legitimate basis for the alignment.

 

[Agamon]

I'm pretty sure that isn't possible.

By ambush, I meant they lured him to to a secluded area to talk to him, but he, being a violent person, thought he was being robbed or attacked and just started swinging.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Hm. That philosophy put your character in sort of an ethical paradox, though, since his actions only became "legal" after Cullen confessed.

No, because my character knew that Cullen was guilty before he confessed. The confession was only the legal proof, not the certainty.

Think about a character like David Caruso's, on the first season of N.Y.P.D. Blue. That character was willing to willing to beat a confession out of someone ... but only if he knew the perp was guilty. IMO, that's lawful behavior, in D&D terms. (And until relatively recently in the history of legal systems, it was lawful behavior in legal terms.) It's certainly not good behavior, but nor is it evil. It is, however, lawful.

 

[Nightfall]

*sighs* I just tell your DM to worry about the legal ramifications later. You got way bigger problems down the road, especially once you head of Diamond Road.

 

[phindar]

By ambush, I meant they lured him to to a secluded area to talk to him, but he, being a violent person, thought he was being robbed or attacked and just started swinging.

I figured it was something like that, it was just a funny way of phrasing it. (Kinda like, "I stabbed him in the back in self-defense.")

That character was willing to willing to beat a confession out of someone ... but only if he knew the perp was guilty. IMO, that's lawful behavior, in D&D terms.

The ultimate futility of any alignment argument is that almost anything can be argued from the perspective of certain alignment. Beating a confession out of someone is something a Lawful Evil person could very easily do, and its something a Chaotic Good person could easily do. Its a little disingenuous to say that you are beating a confession out of someone you know to be guilty, because if you really knew it (that is, had strong evidence), you wouldn't have to beat them because you wouldn't need a confession.

This exact point comes up in LA Confidential, when his captain asks Exley that same question. "Would you beat a confession out of a suspect you knew to be guilty?" Exley says no, and its hard to classify that character as anything but Lawful.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Its a little disingenuous to say that you are beating a confession out of someone you know to be guilty, because if you really knew it (that is, had strong evidence), you wouldn't have to beat them because you wouldn't need a confession.

QFT

also a quote from a movie that I don't even like all that much but the quote is appropriate:

Nice Guy Eddie: If you f**king beat this p***k long enough, he'll tell you he started the g*dd*mn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it f**king so!

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Its a little disingenuous to say that you are beating a confession out of someone you know to be guilty, because if you really knew it (that is, had strong evidence), you wouldn't have to beat them because you wouldn't need a confession.

No. You often seek a confession from someone you know to be guilty because a confession is usually far more than just "if" ... it's also "why," "for whom" and "what now." Among possibly many other things.

And Exley wouldn't do it because Exley was Lawful Good.

As far as the unreliability of coerced confessions, all of that is of course absolutely true. It's also going down the road of sophisticated legal arguments that held very little sway throughout the vast majority of human history. (It's an argument that holds no sway, even now, with the leaders of the United States.)

 

[ShinHakkaider]

And Exley wouldn't do it because Exley was Lawful Good.

Yes and one of the rare cases of Lawful Good not being depicted as Lawful STUPID. Exley was relatively green, but incredibly cunning.

 

[phindar]

No. You often seek a confession from someone you know to be guilty because a confession is usually far more than just "if" ... it's also "why," "for whom" and "what now." Among possibly many other things.

And Exley wouldn't do it because Exley was Lawful Good.

So you weren't threatening torture for a confession of guilt, but for more information on the crime.

The problem I have with beating a confession out of a suspect being a lawful act is, well, its criminal. As I noted above, I'd consider it something a Lawful Evil person would do and something a Chaotic Good person would do. I'd consider LN one of the least likely alignments to do it, behind only LG. (But then, my personal way marker on whether a paladin can do something is if the cops on Law and Order can do it.) D&D alignments have always supposed the modern viewpoint of both morality and the law. (Just because something is a law, doesn't make it Lawful.)

This is also one of the reasons I prefer to play without alignment, because ultimately, whether or not coercing someone into confessing to a crime is a Lawful or Chaotic or Neutral act isn't that important. You think it is, your GM thinks it isn't, but beyond that what importance is it to the characters or the story? Either the GM can dock you for not playing your character "right" (the character you made, and presumably know the outlook of better than the GM, who has glanced over the sheet), or you can switch your alignment to something your GM thinks is more appropriate (but won't change how you play the character, unless you get into some weird meta-headscrew where the GM makes you change to Neutral, so you start playing what you think is Neutral, which your GM calls Chaotic Good, and we're right back where we were). If that makes sense.

The actions your character takes are very important in the context of the story, but outside of that, whether your GM thinks it is a Chaotic act or not is largely pointless. Its a discussion about how we feel about things, and thats great and wonderful and helps us grow as people, but it shouldn't have XP riding on it.

 

[iwatt]

The problem I have with beating a confession out of a suspect being a lawful act is, well, its criminal.

Actually it's criminal only if the law of the land says it's so. Go ahead and try to tell a 16th century Inquisitor that what he is doing is criminal.

which of course is were a lot of the problems with alignment come from. We like saying it's medieval fantasy, but with everybody literate, gender equality, and the rights of individuals, it is fantasy with swords and feudal titles (but not feudal rights).