Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9314075" data-attributes="member: 4937">While not impossible, I think this is more stereotypically a CG act than a LG act.&nbsp;&nbsp; Lawful will attempt to uphold the law and only when doing so is a clear wrong under some recognized higher law will the LG act contrary to law.&nbsp; At the very least, for a LG to act this way would require them first to get consent from the wronged party.&nbsp; If the wronged party doesn't forgive the lawbreaker, then certainly the LG person would see themselves as having no right to do so - even if they think the wronged party is not acting wisely, they would concede they are within their rights.There are a lot of different ways to differentiate LG from LE, and one of them is on their stand on the old &quot;Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth&quot; position regarding justice.&nbsp;&nbsp; To a LG person, this axiom sets a maximum allowable punishment that can be justly inflicted on a person, and to the extent possible mercy ought to mitigate against the maxim prescribable punishment.&nbsp; That is to say, if in doubt, err on the side of mercy.&nbsp; There may be times when the crime is too vile or the possibility of recidivism so great that mercy represents foolishness and an error against both past and future victims who deserve justice, but those cases are rare.&nbsp; In the case of the theft, the LG person tends to believe that the worst possible punishment to inflict here is the value of the stolen bread, and that the persons poverty mitigates against that crime and demands some mercy.&nbsp; There is a really good scene in &quot;Diamond Age&quot; where a lawful type judge forgives a crime of theft because the injured party doesn't want to prosecute and the thief gave part of what he stole to someone he owed a duty to - a younger sibling in his care.&nbsp; That hits all the right LG notes for me.&nbsp; By contrast, LE sees &quot;Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth&quot; is the minimum allowable punishment, and that mercy is a weakness greatly to be avoided.&nbsp; The LE individual tends to believe in pre-Hammurabi notions of justice where a crime is punished much more severely than the fault inflicted.&nbsp; Hang someone for stealing a chicken and cut off their hand if they steal bread sort of thing.&nbsp; For an insult to an eye, take both from the offender, and so forth.&nbsp; Kill a man who speaks out of turn.&nbsp; Punishment for crimes should be as gruesome and as public as possible.&nbsp; Likewise they consider mercy a weakness that allows fault to flourish.&nbsp;&nbsp; They would be outraged that someone's sympathy was with a thief and not the one unjustly robbed.We can imagine CG and CE by taking what the person of the opposite alignment believes or feels and how they act and then reverse it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9314075, member: 4937"] While not impossible, I think this is more stereotypically a CG act than a LG act. Lawful will attempt to uphold the law and only when doing so is a clear wrong under some recognized higher law will the LG act contrary to law. At the very least, for a LG to act this way would require them first to get consent from the wronged party. If the wronged party doesn't forgive the lawbreaker, then certainly the LG person would see themselves as having no right to do so - even if they think the wronged party is not acting wisely, they would concede they are within their rights. There are a lot of different ways to differentiate LG from LE, and one of them is on their stand on the old "Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth" position regarding justice. To a LG person, this axiom sets a maximum allowable punishment that can be justly inflicted on a person, and to the extent possible mercy ought to mitigate against the maxim prescribable punishment. That is to say, if in doubt, err on the side of mercy. There may be times when the crime is too vile or the possibility of recidivism so great that mercy represents foolishness and an error against both past and future victims who deserve justice, but those cases are rare. In the case of the theft, the LG person tends to believe that the worst possible punishment to inflict here is the value of the stolen bread, and that the persons poverty mitigates against that crime and demands some mercy. There is a really good scene in "Diamond Age" where a lawful type judge forgives a crime of theft because the injured party doesn't want to prosecute and the thief gave part of what he stole to someone he owed a duty to - a younger sibling in his care. That hits all the right LG notes for me. By contrast, LE sees "Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth" is the minimum allowable punishment, and that mercy is a weakness greatly to be avoided. The LE individual tends to believe in pre-Hammurabi notions of justice where a crime is punished much more severely than the fault inflicted. Hang someone for stealing a chicken and cut off their hand if they steal bread sort of thing. For an insult to an eye, take both from the offender, and so forth. Kill a man who speaks out of turn. Punishment for crimes should be as gruesome and as public as possible. Likewise they consider mercy a weakness that allows fault to flourish. They would be outraged that someone's sympathy was with a thief and not the one unjustly robbed. We can imagine CG and CE by taking what the person of the opposite alignment believes or feels and how they act and then reverse it. [/QUOTE]

Verification