Alignment in the movie "Man on Fire"

[DMH]

A man has buried a child in a barrel somewhere. In about an hour that child will have died of suffocation.

Imagine that he doesn't want to talk about the location of that barrel.

Imagine that the child is yours.

So you are saying that we are keeping the police from saving lives because they can't torture people for information?

 

[Altalazar]

So you are saying that we are keeping the police from saving lives because they can't torture people for information?

I wonder how our society would be different in that respect if a major part of our economy was based on the kiddnapping and murder of children (and the police were generally in on it and horribly corrupt).

 

[Klaus]

In one of the Eberron threads over at WotC (or was it a Dragonshard on the Chirch of the Silver Flame) it was examined how a LG paladin and a LE cleric could both serve the Silver Flame. The LE cleric would take a "means to an end" stance and use torture and what-not in the fight against Evil. He'd be performing Evil for the Greater Good (it is debatable if that helps or hinder the Greater Good, though). He'd be willing to take actions that a LG follower of the Flame wouldn't.

So IMHO, yes, torture is Evil, no matter why you're doing it, and on whom.

 

[John Morrow]

So you are saying that we are keeping the police from saving lives because they can't torture people for information?

Actually, yes, we probably are. Especially when time is of the essence. In many ways, the American justice system has become more and more LN. Usually it still works pretty well because it was designed with good intentions, but it can break down and be used to prevent justice and protect the guilty.

Do a Google search on the names "Brenda Schaefer" and "Mel Ignatow" if you want to see how bad it can get. Personally, in cases like that, I think a little old fasioned "lex talionis" from the family is warranted (with a pardon to let them off the hook), since the justice system offers them no justice. Yes, the rule is well intentioned and often works as intended, but applying any rule without consideration for the context and the results is putting the rules above the context or the results. And that's exactly why the UK and Australia seem to be looking into changing their double jeopardy rules, if they haven't already.

Applying the rules without consideration for justice or good is exactly what a LN person would do and that's exactly why I claim that the corner alignments like LG are unstable. Given a choice between applying a rule (e.g., "never torture") or a good outcome (e.g., saving a girl who will die if she isn't found), you have to make a choice about which one is more important -- the rule or the innocent life. And if a character reliably picks the rule over the innocent life, are they really LG or LN?

 

[saethone]

i like the book of exhalted deeds for this

it states that a good character may use evil means to get what they need...but an exhlated character won't

while he is definatly not exhalted, that little 'ends to a means' clause might help

lets take a look at all he does:

1) takes a contract to protect a girl. tries his hardest to oblige to that contract
--lawful

2) allows police a chance to look for girl they fail, he takes over
--Neutral on LC axis

3) kills people *after* he gets the info
--evil

4) sacrifices himself for the girl
--good

5) the fact that he picks up the search after his contract has ended
--good



even without that clause you can see he is true neutral



edit:

in reply to above poster:

the justice system *should* be lawful neutral. thats what its there for.

 

[Rel]

So you are saying that we are keeping the police from saving lives because they can't torture people for information?

Probably a few but I think that the system we have now results in a net savings of lives.

I'm just asking questions here.

 

[Amal Shukup]

Actually, yes, we probably are. Especially when time is of the essence. In many ways, the American justice system has become more and more LN. Usually it still works pretty well because it was designed with good intentions, but it can break down and be used to prevent justice and protect the guilty.

Yes it does break down in places, but (IMNSHO) were it less structured or less, well, 'Lawful' it would break down in even more horrible ways...

We're veering into dangerous territory here, but...

The reason law enforcement agencies are typically forbidden - and SHOULD be forbidden - from using torture 'as a means to an end' is becaus the discretion of even well-meaning (and how do you continue to ensure that?) individuals and institutions are simply NOT to be trusted.

There's a scene in another excellent Movie - LA Confidential - where The Police Captain (James Cromwell) asks Dudley a couple of interesting questions - putatively on the subject of using questionable means in the furtherance of 'good' causes:

1. "Would you be willing to plant corroborative evidence on a suspect you knew to be guilty, in order to ensure an indictment?"

2. "Would you be willing to beat a confession out of a suspect you knew to be guilty?"

3. "Would you be willing to shoot a hardened criminal in the back, in order to offset the chance that some...lawyer..."​

To which Dudley (being Lawful Good IMHO) says No, no and no...

Watching a movie like Man on Fire - We KNOW the baddies are baddies. We KNOW this, and it feels great to see the protagonist mete out punishment and take extreme steps in the furtherance of an obviously 'good cause'. Coerced confessions (using torture), planting evidence and the like are rather common in our fiction (Dirty Harry? Yeesh!), but it's a LOT less fun in reality.

Why?

Because approximately 1/2 of all arrests turn out to be the wrong guy. And NONE of them were arrested because the cops thought they were innocent... This isn't (usually) cops and prosecuters acting in bad faith. This isn't 'they got off on a technicality', either. We're talking honest 'mistakes' where the evidence seems to point one way and they arrest some poor, unlucky idiot who was in the wrong place at the wrong time lookin' all guilty an all. In a way, it's just the system doing it's thing...

Mostly, the system works as it should and these people get released - often with their reputations/lives irreparably damaged (because they wouldn't have gotten arrested if they weren't guilty, right?), but at least alive and in reasonably good health. In some horrible cases, they get convicted and sentenced despite the FACT (proven much, much later) that they WERE NOT the guilty party.

This sucks enough as it is, but imagine if our system(s) ALLOWED law enforcement (or - yikes! - Vigilantes!) to use torture on 'suspects' - because, of course, we all KNOW they're guilty...

What a bloody nightmare that would be. Why bother being a law abiding citizen if being innocent doesn't protect you from having your bits cut off until you confess? Think about what that does to society - given that 1/2 the time the guy getting cut up doesn't even HAVE the answers the cops are looking for (although trying like heck to make 'em up now).

So. It looks/feels good when Clint and Denzel stuff some creep in the hurt locker, and it feels pretty crappy watching some scumbag 'get away' with something (but do we really KNOW what we think we know?), BUT: Imagine if half the people Dirty Harry smacked around, or Creasy de-fingered/shot/immolated were just plain Not Guilty? Ick.

What if some cop somehow gets it in their head that WE'RE a baddy (perhaps because they just tortured some other poor sucker - who named you/me/us because he HAD to name somebody or lose another nut he was fond of...).

"...Yeah, ow, and they're well-known satanists too - because they play that D&D thing... Yeah, those freaks are up to something pretty sinister in there. And I think I saw them recruiting that missing person into their 'coven'... Ow!"

I still maintain that Creasy (in Man on Fire) is a Lawful personality because of the structured way he approaches his mission and his sense of duty. This Does NOT mean that I ascribe to his concept of law or that I think his methods are appropriate in the administration of society's laws...

Tempting though it may get from time to time...

A'Mal

 

[reanjr]

In any case I think we can all agree that the movie is cool.

IMHBNWO* I'd have to go with Neutral or Chaotic Good.


*In my humble but never wrong opinion

That's kind of funny. I went Neutral bending towards Lawful Evil, exact opposite.

 

[reanjr]

the justice system *should* be lawful neutral. thats what its there for.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when I read that. I just can't see an argument for why the legal system should represent any other aligment BUT LN.

 

[John Morrow]

Yes it does break down in places, but (IMNSHO) were it less structured or less, well, 'Lawful' it would break down in even more horrible ways...

Absolutely. But let's not lose sight of the downside.

So. It looks/feels good when Clint and Denzel stuff some creep in the hurt locker, and it feels pretty crappy watching some scumbag 'get away' with something (but do we really KNOW what we think we know?), BUT: Imagine if half the people Dirty Harry smacked around, or Creasy de-fingered/shot/immolated were just plain Not Guilty? Ick.

I also agree. This is exactly why I like to use alignment as a tool to make vigilante justice viable in a role-playing game when it really isn't in the real world.

And I also still think that law enforcment would look very different in a world with reliable lie detection and mind reading spells.