Given that we've been discussing "western morality" for the bulk of this conversation, I don't see how the legality in non-western cultures is relevant to your point. If anything, it supports my claim that there is not a direct correlation between morality and legality. Note that I've never claimed that there isn't an indirect correlation; in fact I believe there is one.
It seemed like some goalposts might have been shifting a little, so I thought it best that we both have a reminder of what we're talking about.
As you can see, from the beginning I've never denied that some laws are in compliance with morality. Just that it isn't as simple as a direct relationship. Morality doesn't dictate or determine legality. While morality certainly is sometimes a factor, other times it isn't. It's never as simple as moral therefore legal (at least, thankfully, not in our society). As I stated in my first post to you, I believe that nothing good can come from legislating morality. Any minimally competent legislator will consider what consequences a law will have on society, not simply its morality. At least if they want a functional society.
So I've been out of the loop for a few days, and admit I haven't read all of the messages that I've missed. But I just came across something I found very interesting on Dragonsfoot.com, in a compilation of answers to questions directly from Gary Gygax. This is in relationship to AD&D (1e), and the views on alignment have changed a bit. But I didn't realize how different his views were from mine until reading these:
In this situation, the dwarf and the paladin are fellow PCs:
Q. The paladin in the group, oncefinding out that no more harm will come from this tribe. That this is the last ogre, decides to execute theOgre. Their mission is to get to the highfolk, and thus they dont have time to drag a ogre to authorities. Itsclear the ogre will only slow them down. The Dwarf who was doing the questioning, gets pissed at thePaladin for jumping in and finishing off his prisoner. Walks over to the Paladins horse and ...
Phoebewedh walks over to Ivric's horse and slits its throat.
"Don't tarry when you run to catch up with us. If you ever so much as interfere with my prisoners again I will gut you like a pig and feed you to my boar. "he says to the paladin.
I explain to the character that this is not a good act(the dwarf.), I am thinking that he needs an alignmentchange to CN from this act. Furthermore killing a Paladin of Heironeous's warhorse isn't going to sit lightlywith the paladin, and likely a duel to the death will take place here. What would you do in htis situation(thedwarf is CG).
EGG. The paladin'shonor was besmirched by the dwarf, and as the DM I would call that to the attention of the player of thepaladin if there was less than great umbrage taken. To allow the incident to pass without punishing theoffending dwarf would be a dark stain on the honor of the paladin.
Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The oldaddage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisonersof Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They arethen sent on to their reward before thay can backslide.
So he's saying several things here - the paladin is at risk of losing their paladin-hood for NOT challenging somebody (even a companion) who challenges the paladin's honor. To the death, even.
Then he goes so far to say that a lawful good paladin can kill a POW who has renounced their ways and accepted good,
just to keep them from being tempted by evil again!
It gets better:
EGG.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guiltyof murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment.Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc.A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct. The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp,cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminalbeside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not beforedoing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fearof molestation then...
Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to makesuch an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior ofthe Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw forthe reason in question.
Then:
Q. Gary, seeing how you define Lawful Good, to what alignment would you ascribe the qualities of mercy,benevolence, and -- dare I say -- pacifism? Would you consider such traits Chaotic? Evil?
To my mind, the example you just described of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" represents LawfulNeutral. That is, for society to be viable, order must be upheld at any cost. Those who do not conform tothe will of society forfeit their right to exist within it, and are subject to whatever punishment (deathincluded) best serves the society.
EGG. I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally thatin the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, asmisconduct is to be punished under just laws.
Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not.
Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless.Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determininggeneral alignment, albeit justice tempered by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-consideredbenevolence is generally a mark of Good.
With regard to pacifism, that is aprpos, also with regards to athesim in the FRPG where there are activedeities. Only idocy or mental derangement could explain such absurd beliefs in such a milieu.
A paladin is qualified to be judge and jury--assuming he is acting according to the oath he took to gain hisstatus.
As a matter of fact, to me this whole discussion is rather pointless. however, I'll answer more of yourquestins and somments:
Pray tell how do humanoid foes know the alignment of their opponents?
Why is it that in actuality troops would surrender even knowing that the victors were prone to slaughteringcaptives. The Japanese did that as did the Nazis.
When I am DMing, humanoids do usually fight to the very last,
How you wish to run your game is your business, and debating my take on the matter is not going tovalidate how you choose to manage matters. that needs no validation.
If the foes of these humanoids are so foolish as to accept surrender and allow their prisoners toeventually go free and perform further depredations, your "Good" forces are really "Stupid."
Neutral and Evil PCs in my campaign would indeed accept surrender of humanoids, enlist them to fighton their behlaf, and thus they would die for the profit of their human or demi-human masters.
The non-combatants in a humanoid group might be judged as worthy of death by a LG opponent forceand executed or taken as prisoners to be converted to the correct way of thinking and behaving. A NGopponent would likely admonish them to change their ways before freeing them. A CG force mightenslave them so as to correct their ways or else do as the NG party did. CN and LN opponents wouldlikely slaughter the lot. Evil opponents would enlist, enslave, or execute them according to the nature ofthe Evil victors and that of the survivors. Enlistment would be for those of like alignment, slaughter forthose opposite the victors' predisposition to order or disorder. Enslavement is an option for any sort of Evildesiring workers."
There's more, but that covers a lot of ground already. All I can say, is if this is how EGG defined Lawful Good, and that's the world the characters are living in, then there's a legitimate question as to whether the scenario in the original post
is evil. But essentially what Gary is saying is that the definition of good and evil is based on the laws of the "good" society.
When determining things like the death penalty this makes sense, on the other hand somebody up thread mentioned that is more likely lawful neutral, which I would agree with at this point.
I guess the real question is, "Does it matter?" to which the answer is really dependent upon the function of alignment in your campaign. Gary indicated that alignment was primarily a tool for the DM, to define within the world what is evil (and therefore subject to any act deemed necessary - imprisonment, torture, or death) by the good. It was also a world where changing your alignment sometimes had very specific and significant ramifications for your character, particularly clerics, paladins, and rangers.
In a 5e game, there is far less impact. In fact, the majority of the impact is likely to be of the societal/legal aspect. The rest of the party abandoning you for an evil act, all the way to legal ramifications, up to the death penalty.
I guess for me, what I'm currently "settling on" is that killing somebody in self-defense, defense of another, or a combatant enemy in a time of war (which generally includes attacks against monstrous humanoids in my campaign) are not evil. They may or may not be considered good, but they won't cause any shift in alignment.
In a society where the law is relatively just, then the death penalty wouldn't be much different. Not good, per se, but not something that would cause a shift in alignment, or to put it a different way, to shift from good to neutral (or back) is more a question of the general pattern of a person, where shifting to an evil alignment is easier than shifting back, and possibly easier to go from good to evil than good to neutral.
I'm also considering adding some fictional elements that make good and evil more important in that aspect since that's where I think the struggle works best. It might have some mechanical aspects (such as for clerics), but I think that's more tied in meeting the oaths to a particular deity, and evil acts may strain that relationship. But essentially I'm thinking of the sort of slide into evil like Star Wars, where evil acts encourage more evil acts, and that it is often difficult to avoid that once you start down the road. For example, if the bouncer was killed without the rest of the PCs (or anybody else) witnessing it, and the PC lied about it being in self-defense. So not only is the killing evil, but they are lying about it, and might get caught. Which potentially leads to more evil acts. I think it would be an extremely interesting character scenario to play out, and might have some in-game or mechanical ramifications as well.
