D&D 5E 'Justice' in 5E

[Oofta]

That's your reasoning. You're not a LG priest of a god of mercy and compassion.

You cant tell me that a [merciful, kind, compassionate, altruistic] and [honourable, law abiding] priest of [a God of mercy and compassion] agrees to kill the criminal with the above reasoning.

The villagers on the other hand (mainly N with a few E, a few G, a few C and a few L) would certainly use your reasoning (mostly) and many (all the ones that lack a 'G' in their alignment) would want the man put to death.

The Evil villagers (and many neutral ones) would want the man lynched there and then.

The Lawful Neutral villagers would want the full force of the law brought to bear, after a fair trial. The LE ones would want the man executed in a particularly gruesome way, as an example to the others, after a kangaroo court. The LG ones, would be in agreement with the Priest that the mans life should be spared (but he should still suffer the force of the law).


Put him in chains, and get him to build one. In the meantime he can be locked up in a room somwhere.

Illmater isnt exactly opposed to a bit of hard work.

Actually I think I did just tell you that they would execute the person in my campaign because there is no other reasonable option. The execution should be swift and as painless as possible, but I make the assumption in my campaign that long term imprisonment is rarely, if ever, an option

Feel free to run it differently in your campaign.

 

[Flamestrike]

As a general rule (with views blending into related and nearby views):

Lawful Good: He deserves a fair and fair trial, I oppose the death penalty; if convicted he should get life in prison, but a chance at redemption and salvation.
Lawful Neutral. Deserves a fair trial at his own expense, death penalty is the punishment if convicted, and if that's what the law says.
Lawful Evil: Quick trial via kangaroo court (rigged so the SOB cant get off), and then killed in a public and painful way as warning to others.
-----
Neutral Good: Oppose him being killed. Is a trial really necessary?
Neutral: Go with the majority. Could lean one way or another.
Neutral Evil: Kill the bastard and make him suffer. Why should we even need a trial? Do it quick and fast.
-----
Chaotic Good: Screw the trial, and the law. Is there even a leader of this town anymore? The man shouldn't die or suffer an inhumane punishment, but the punishment should otherwise fit the crime. How about exile? Anyone?
Chaotic Neutral: I dont really care either way. Better him than me. Maybe we should just exile him, or execute him?
Chaotic Evil. Kill the bastard. Kill him now. I just want to watch him die. I'd enjoy it to be honest. Someone get me a noose and some hot irons, trials are a waste of time.

 

[Flamestrike]

Also the Evil NPCs would have no problem (broadly) giving him to the Hag (the LE might want to see 'justice' done however).

Neutral people (not also good or evil) would be largely oppose the Hag with some maybe leaning towards handing him over as long as she agrees to leave the town alone.

Good people would (broadly) be firmly opposed to the Hag, with some - the LG Cleric is one example - even possibly prepared to intervene to protect his life from the Hag.

 

[Oofta]

Lawful Good: He deserves a fair and fair trial, I oppose the death penalty; if convicted he should get life in prison, but a chance at redemption and salvation.
-----
Neutral Good: Oppose him being killed. Is a trial really necessary?
-----
Chaotic Good: Screw the trial, and the law. Is there even a leader of this town anymore? The man shouldn't die or suffer an inhumane punishment, but the punishment should otherwise fit the crime. How about exile? Anyone?

So basically, you capture the BBEG and you just what? Let them go? How is that considered good? It would be like the police capturing a serial killer and then just giving them a bus ticket out of town.

Also assumes (for the LG) that life imprisonment is an option. That's going to vary from campaign to campaign and, IMHO, the PC's class and allies.

 

[Scribe]

In my world? LG doesn't mean always forgiving. If there are no prisons, no way to effectively punish the BBEG you only have a few options. Trial and execution is right up there on the list of options.

This is interesting to me, got my mind racing right away and then I see this.

Lawful Good: He deserves a fair and fair trial, I oppose the death penalty; if convicted he should get life in prison, but a chance at redemption and salvation.
Lawful Neutral. Deserves a fair trial at his own expense, death penalty is the punishment if convicted, and if that's what the law says.
Lawful Evil: Quick trial via kangaroo court (rigged so the SOB cant get off), and then killed in a public and painful way as warning to others.

I am not sure that I would consider LG as in favour of Prison at all, especially not life in prison.

I think of LG as wanting to follow rules, but have rules which are focused on rehab in this case, more so than Prison. LN, would be 'Blind Justice' to me. You do what the Law says, and thats it, the Law is the Law.

LE, to me would never bother with such extremes. 'What's in it for me.' is the main driver of LE behavior, but I dont put an emphasis on EVIL(tm) for my LE approach.

LG would seek some kind of rehab.
LN would simply hold to the law, regardless of the consequence.
LE would hold to the law, have no issues with any punishment no matter the severity, and would look to come out as cleanly as possible from the encounter.

Interesting thing to think about, what with is 'Prison' even possible to be a 'Good' thing.

 

[Flamestrike]

So basically, you capture the BBEG and you just what? Let them go?

Only if you consider exile, or life imprisonment 'letting him go'.

How is that considered good?

Mercy is Good. Its always been a word associated with Good in DnD.

Killing (particularly defenceless people) is evil. People who do so regularly (not in self defence) have consistently evil alignments in DnN.

 

[Flamestrike]

I am not sure that I would consider LG as in favour of Prison at all, especially not life in prison.

With a probability of parole and redemption.

They would absolutely support lawful and fair trials, the prerogative of mercy, with all proceedings conducted in a compassionate and humane manner (and prisoners treated in a humane manner), and presenting the opportunity to redeem even the vilest of evildoers.

They would have no problem with (humane) imprisonment for those convicted of vile crimes.

LE, to me would never bother with such extremes. 'What's in it for me.' is the main driver of LE behavior, but I dont put an emphasis on EVIL(tm) for my LE approach.

Lawful Evil people hide behind laws or twist them for their own immoral ends, or hold out to a code of honour (never lie or never cheat, or always accept surrender etc) that somehow they feel exempt them from immoral behaviour (harming and oppressing others).

They would support a (preferably rigged) trial, so the offender could suffer the full force of the law (getting brutally killed) as a deterrent for others (the LE person gets something out of it).

 

[MarkB]

Only if you consider exile, or life imprisonment 'letting him go'.

Exile is certainly letting him go. Life imprisonment assumes that there is a reliable means of incarcerating such a powerful foe.

Mercy is Good. Its always been a word associated with Good in DnD.

Killing (particularly defenceless people) is evil. People who do so regularly (not in self defence) have consistently evil alignments in DnN.

Ultimately what it comes down to is whether the potential redemption of this one person is worth the risk of the harm they will do to others if they are not redeemed. Any option which involves simply releasing them into the world without guidance or restriction is an abrogation of responsibility.

Letting them live and giving them a chance at redemption is only a Good option if, in doing so, you also take responsibility for seeing to it that they cannot hurt others along the way to finding that redemption.

 

[Flamestrike]

OP.

Set up a scene where the debate on what to do with the prisoner is interrupted by the Hag arriving.

Have the Goodly Cleric the intervene (heroically sacrificing himself) to save the prisoners life from the Hag killing her in the process.

Its an appropriate act for a Cleric of Ilmater to perform.

Have the act cause the prisoner to genuinely repent (in his heart of hearts) at this act, changing his alignment to Good, and some of the villagers back down at the display of the Priests sacrifice.

Then leave it up to the party to decide what to do with the prisoner. They have the deciding vote on how to deal with him.

They'll probable just murder him and take his boots, but hey.

 

[Oofta]

Only if you consider exile, or life imprisonment 'letting him go'.



Mercy is Good. Its always been a word associated with Good in DnD.

Killing (particularly defenceless people) is evil. People who do so regularly (not in self defence) have consistently evil alignments in DnN.

Exile for a powerful NPC is just an inconvenience. Historically it was a death sentence in most cases. The only one of the 3 of the good alignments that supported life imprisonment was the LG guy. The NG and CG let him go unless I misunderstood.

As far as the rest, you're applying 21st century 1st world morality. That's fine, a lot of people do. But life in prison? I'm not sure that's mercy if it's even an option which is going to vary. Mercy if it only leads to more suffering and death of innocents is not necessarily good in my campaign.