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

[Steel_Wind]

Torture was not habitually used in the common law systems from the late medieval period onward. That is one of the reasons the english common law system was favored by many and was seen as more just and lenient. The French citizens in Quebec insisted on the common law for criminal matters after 1759 to avoid the practic of interrogation and to secure the beneifts of the jury.

There was a tradtition in England in the 12th centrury where one could be put "under pressure" (essentially a flat pallette was placed on your chest and stones loaded on to it that made it difficult to breathe - but none of the vast array of torture that became de rigeur on continental europe was officially pemitted.

The post about the "lawfulness" of a tortured interrogation is misleading. It is one thing to say that a confession obtained by torture was admissible evidence. It is another to say the torutre that procured that evidence was lawful.

In the common law system it was not; saying it was so does not make it so.

If you want to impose a moral and legal standard of 6th century Denmark or 11th century France in your game - go ahead. But let's not confuse your preferences for the fact that D&D has never assumed this moral and legal atmosphere in its default game world. D&D does not presuppose a simulation of medieval times; instead, it supposes a versimiltude kit-bash of modern ethics, gender equality, medieval weapons and fantasy magic.

Lastly - there has oft been a repeat of the statment that "lawfulness" is adhering to one's personal code, whatever it happens to be. While that is true to a point, the quote has clearly been twisted beyond all sense of its original meaning in this discussion - with the result that many people then wholly mistate the concept.

Put simply: many posters are confusing lawfulness with consistency. And they are not the same things at all.

The concept of lawfulness of an individual in D&D in such matters relates not to one's sense of wholly arbitrary "personal honor"; it is instead a sense of personal honor that has been voluntarily adopted from an external code of conduct.

And so the Cleric, Wizard, Paladin, or Knight, or Ranger or whatever else you might think up may have a set of rules governing its order and the conduct of members that falls short of "law" but has the force of personal honor behind it. That is an adopted personal honor that falls short of law, but which is nevertheless the yardstick used to measure lawful activity vis-a-vis that character.

But Lawfulness is not a buffet of moral beliefs and unrelated ethical practices that you pick and choose over and say your character believes in this, but not that - and then simply acts consistently during gameplay with whatever thuis advantageous buffet selection presupposes is the character's "personal sense of honor". That's not "lawful" alignment in D&D and never has been. That is consistency - and that's all it is.

A Chaotic evil character could act "lawfully" if the salad bar standard of personal honor was the real meaning behind the term of "lawfulness". This does not expose the inherently borken nature of lawfulness (though it is, indeed, broken in many respects); instead, it exposes that your presumption of "salad bar personal honor" in D&D is an incorrect application of the concept of personal choice over what code of honor the character will adopt.

It may be consistent roleplaying - but that's all it is. Lawfulness goes deeper and has an external objective quality that a character's conduct may later be compared to.

 

[phindar]

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.

But being Lawful doesn't mean just following the laws of the land. If only because the laws change with the land, but a character's viewpoint remains more constant.

D&D does not presuppose a simulation of medieval times; instead, it supposes a versimiltude kit-bash of modern ethics, gender equality, medieval weapons and fantasy magic.

This is what I've been referrring to about the modern viewpoint. In D&D, the laws of the land can be Chaotic, following them doesn't make you Lawful. In Diamond Lake, it would be an accepted practice to bribe the town guard to arrest whomever you wanted, and the town guard is the law; but that doesn't make it Lawful.

Edit to fix quotes.

 

[irdeggman]

While the mugging might not be true to the PC's alignment (and personality - you need to keep those conssitent) - it actually falls under one of the viable options in the adventure itself.

Tell your DM to read the bolded paragraph headings on pg 38).

This was the place the last group I attempted to run this adventure with ended. They split the party and one of them (CG ranger) challenged 2 of the thugs in an ally. When he got his but handed to him (and the wizard who went with him got likewise wupped up) the group called "foul" and the game ended.

I'm getting ready to attempt this Adventure Path again with a different group of players - we'll see how they fair. I did warn both groups ahead of time on the high mortality rates reported.

Also have him read the Diamond Lake Backdrop pg 51. It is a very rough place where about every other week someone gets killed. Also pg 54 talks about the knifings in the pub. So law as commonly interpreted means little in this town.

 

[iwatt]

But being Lawful doesn't mean just following the laws of the land. If only because the laws change with the land, but a character's viewpoint remains more constant.

I didn't mean to imply that. Just trying to make the point that what we consider lawful now, isn't necesarily what was considered lawful in medieval times.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Torture was not habitually used in the common law systems from the late medieval period onward.

First, you're discussing "torture" -- by which I assume you mean something more than a straightforward physical beating -- as opposed to "coercion" -- by which I mean duress up to and including a straightforward physical beating. (Strictly speaking, I'd argue that a beating is torture, but it's not the image usually evoked by the word.)

"Torture" did not occur in the situation I originally described. "Coercion," however, did. (Not, however, to the point of a beating.)

The post about the "lawfulness" of a tortured interrogation is misleading. It is one thing to say that a confession obtained by torture was admissible evidence. It is another to say the torutre that procured that evidence was lawful.

Again, you are conflating torture and coercion. Torture is certainly coercion, but the reverse is not necessarily the case. In the original post, coercion was described.

In the common law system it was not; saying it was so does not make it so.

Coercion was not only "legal," but practiced so heavily that the United States of America wrote specific protections against it as some of only a couple of dozen enumerated rights in its constitution.

 

[Kestrel]

My version of the law in Diamond Lake was according to Ballabar Smenk, who pretty much ran the town. (My version of Diamond Lake was HBO's Deadwood, with Smenk being Al Swearengen. I believe Phindar was in that game). If Smenk would profit from it or it didnt hurt him, then it was legal (Prostituition, Drugs, Gambling). If it hurts Smenk's interests, then it was probably illegal, at least in the sense that he would send his thugs to make sure you stopped doing it.

Smenk had no control over the Soldier's Garrison, but the soldiers could care less about what happened in town as long as it didn't threaten the ore shipments coming from the mines, which were of strategic importance to Breland (I ran this in Eberron). So Smenk did anything he wanted, as long as it didn't interfere with the ore production.

In a long view, putting Cullen out of commission would have served the greater good and the sense of order in the town. The guy was a mercenary thug who was graverobbing. How you accomplished taking him out is based on your morals. Outright killing him on a hunch would be evil in my opinion. Coercion would be less so. Peacefully convincing him of the error of his ways would be Good.

Just my opinion of course. But then again, this is why I dropped alignment in my games anyway, trading it for character traits and motives.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

And so the Cleric, Wizard, Paladin, or Knight, or Ranger or whatever else you might think up may have a set of rules governing its order and the conduct of members that falls short of "law" but has the force of personal honor behind it. That is an adopted personal honor that falls short of law, but which is nevertheless the yardstick used to measure lawful activity vis-a-vis that character.

Good and evil are usually easier to pick out on the moral compass than law and chaos. However, the way I generally figure out whether behaviour is lawful or chaotic is to ask the question, "are you doing this because you want to or because it's your duty?" If the former, it's probably chaotic. If the latter, it's probably lawful. A person may want to do their duty, but that's just more evidence of a lawful outlook. A person who routinely acts in ways that are unconditioned by the societal framework that makes demands upon them is chaotic. A person who acts in accordance with the framework is lawful.

A chaotic person flies by the seat of his pants, makes decisions based on circumstance, whim, and on the basis of the demands of the good/evil component of his alignment. He values individuality over group order.

A lawful person relies on established methods and plans, makes decisions based on what is held to be the proper course of action, and does not worry much about the good/evil axis because he trusts law to take care of that axis. He generally believes that lawful action will uphold whichever or evil or good that he supports. A Lawful Good character will view lawful action as supporting mercy, justice, and charity, while a Lawful Evil character will view law as supporting the security of his personal power.

The short version is this: lawful characters rely on external authority, while chaotic characters do not.