Lawful Good Tyranny - How would this look?

[Vigilance]

I see a LG tyranny as the ultimate nanny state.

You MUST exercise 45 minutes a day. Because it's good for you!

You MUST attend church every Sunday. At the church of your choice of course, but you MUST attend, because spiritual instruction is good for you!

You MUST limit your meat intake to the appropriate amount.

You MUST limit your alcohol to no more than one beverage per day.

And so forth.

All things that really ARE good for you, enforced by the state, all while also allowing you full freedoms of expression, religion, assembly and so forth.

 

[Andor]

Wow. Some of the replies on this thread are really ... weird. This was about a LG theocracy, not the 9 hells guys.

Now, as an aside for the people who think the kingdom would, for some reason, be chock full of all sorts of arcane, specific, pointless laws "parking a wagon with wheels higher than the king's waist within 12' of the city wall" I ask, why? In what way does such a law achieve good, or contribute to the public order? LG is not about making lots of laws because laws are fun, it's about achieveing good, backed by a strong belief that law is the way to achieve that good. It favors conformity over individuality, and the good of the community over that of the individual.

Now, there are basically two ways to set up a legal system. One is "That which is not forbidden is permitted." That is to say if no law prohibits experimenting with transmutation spells then you can do so as much as you wish until your actions bump into some existing law (turning your neighbors into velociraptors probably constitutes "Creating a public nuisance.") The other way is "That which is not permitted is forbidden." That system starts with the assumption that permission is required to do anything out of the ordinary. So our experimental transmuter nees to go to whatever organization or officer oversees magic and get permission to conduct his experiments.

While it is open to discussion I think our TG theocracy would use the latter system. There are some advantages to operating under such a system btw, even for our experimenter. If he was experimenting under liscence then he is not solely at fault when something goes wrong and will have a much easier time finding help to wrangle up his neighborhood velociraptors as well.

WRT the economic system, I've often thought that a socialist/communist sort of setup is more likely than the bareknuckle capitalism that seems to be the D&D default. It's also a lot closer to how a lot of the world worked historically BTW. For example in a LG theocracy personal ownership of magical items is probably illegal. All magical items are owned by the state and distributed as needed. Foreign visitors would probably need to get travel papers that list their items so as to avoid any unfortunate confusions.

 

[Orius]

Lots of good replies, some really good ideas coming out of this thread.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yeah, IMHO if a government truly is Lawful Good, it's no tyranny. It's far more likely to be a utopia. (This, IMHO there are very few governments which could be called Lawful Good.)

A lot of the suggestions here are how to take something nasty and dress it up as Lawful and/or Good, but in an objective morality system like D&D has, those things are not, in fact, Good.

That's it. Exactly. In D&D, if Good != good, then it ain't Good. Correspondingly, so it goes for Evil of course.

'Splains why most people (and, well, most peoples) are Neutral, on that axis at the least.

 

[catastrophic]

In this case, I just don't think they plumb as good. There is too much evidence that they've comprimised enough with the need to survive ('dishonor before death') that they are LN at best.

Again, it's not about survival. they aren't just surviving, they're protecting other comunities, heading off world-shattering disasters, preventing demonic invasions, and doing other things that help a great many people outside of their kingdom.

The idea is their end result is good, a lot of good, as in whole towns saved, adventurers funded and given intel, mass invasions by orcs or gnolls or demins pre-empted.

I don't think it's useful to keep arguing about their survival motive, it might be useful for rebutting the idea, but it's not useful for considering it.

I think it's much more intersting to ask, if their methods actually work, if their tyranical military machine really is a net good for the world, is that LG?

The same goes for any of the ideas presented here. Is keeping people ignorant really benevolent, if the rest of the world is in ruins? Is 'teaching' people to accept their place LG, if all that's required is education for most, and banishement for a few?

 

[FireLance]

I think it's much more intersting to ask, if their methods actually work, if their tyranical military machine really is a net good for the world, is that LG?

Self-sacrifice is good. Whether the unwilling should be forced to sacrifice for "the greater good" is the basis for many moral dilemmas (Would you kill a relatively innocent man to save two other relatively innocent men? What about five? Ten? Fifty? One hundred? See also: The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas)

The same goes for any of the ideas presented here. Is keeping people ignorant really benevolent, if the rest of the world is in ruins? Is 'teaching' people to accept their place LG, if all that's required is education for most, and banishement for a few?

It really depends on the situation. What would be gained if the people were informed? If the information could help them, then withholding the information is not good. If the information would not help them, then perhaps withholding it may indeed be the good thing to do.

As for the other issue, it is not so much teaching people to accept their place as it is showing them what is the best place for them in society as a whole. Ideally, of course, this will also be where they are happiest. If not, we go back to the question of whether, and if so, how much, the unwilling should be made to sacrifice for the greater good.

My own personal view is that a Lawful Good society would not accept something simply because it is Lawful (or for that matter, simply because it is Good). Sacrificing the minority for the good of the majority may well be a Lawful concept, but in order for it to be Good as well, the sacrifice ought to be made willingly.

 

[Celebrim]

Now, as an aside for the people who think the kingdom would, for some reason, be chock full of all sorts of arcane, specific, pointless laws "parking a wagon with wheels higher than the king's waist within 12' of the city wall" I ask, why? In what way does such a law achieve good, or contribute to the public order?

I'm glad you asked citizen. The ordinance against the parking of tall wagons near to the city wall is quite obviously intended to promote public security by preventing spies and villains from gaining egress or ingress to our fair city by way of scaling the wall. Moreover, the King's Own Cavalry requires a clear path about the perimeter of the wall in the event of an emergency, and such wains as yours accelerate only with great difficulty and thereby thwart their progress in a chase. Are you not gladdened in your heart citizen that magistrates wiser and more learned than we have put such great and effectual effort toward crafting the laws of our fair land? Now, this form shows you have been served with a fine. You may pay it at the office of the bursar of the 5th burrough on this coming Wednesday between the 3rd hour and the 6th hour after sunrise.

Errr... citizen, I said, "Are you not gladdened in your heart? Where is the cheerfulness? A merry heart is a light heart. Is it not said in the Book of Lado, "Do not let your countenance fall"? Who is your wellness councilor, citizen, you seem distracted in your mind and heart and I am concerned for you.

 

[Celebrim]

they aren't just surviving, they're protecting other comunities, heading off world-shattering disasters, preventing demonic invasions...

So is Baator. Dispater says to you, "Do you think that we have the luxury of compassion and benevolence? We are fighting the Blood War? Do you know what would happen to all your weak willed innocent worlds if we relaxed our gaurd and used your methods? We mobelize every power possible in our society if we are to protect not only ourselves, but all of pan-creation. Who are you to judge what we must do?" Is he justified? Is he right? Is he 'Good'?

The thing about villains, is even the ones that think that they are 'bad' by the commonly accepted definitions of the term, don't usually seem themselves as the villains. They think that they are the ones that have it figured out, and are doing what is really right. They think that ultimately, they are the real heroes.

The end result, the noble result, will be the good of everyone. If along the way a few lives must be sacrified, well, who doesn't believe that, right? You can't make a world spanning empire that ensures the peace, stability, and security of everyone without breaking a few things. It's for their own good. Right?

I don't think it's useful to keep arguing about their survival motive, it might be useful for rebutting the idea, but it's not useful for considering it.

You keep saying that. Do you think that everyone that considers something will naturally agree with you as the only logical alternative.

I think you keep get stuck on the labels. They fight gnolls and orcs and demons, ergo they must be the 'good guys'. 'Team Good' is defined by the fact that they fight 'Team Evil'. And 'Team Evil' is defined by the fact that they fight 'Team Good'. And if you ever get confused, just look for which side has ugly faces, right?

I think it's much more intersting to ask, if their methods actually work, if their tyranical military machine really is a net good for the world, is that LG?

It is a very interesting question. And as I said, I think its even more interesting to ask, if the 'right' and 'wrong' are going to be defined purely by utilitarian concerns, doesn't that mean that the winners are always right? Doesn't that suggest that whoever has methods that work, regardless of what those methods are, that those are the ones that are right?

You seem to have this idea that if the society engages in all sorts of evils, as long as their end goal is this Utopian society where suffering will no longer have to occur, that they are made good and ennobled by their end goal. But, what if they never actually get there? What if its just suffering and servitude and blinding pain forever? Then what?

I think you judge the society as it is and not as it says that it wants to be.

 

[LostSoul]

The priests will need to cast discern lies to really have semi-foolproof lie detection in court. Since discern lies is a targeted spell, the caster knows when the subject saved. Of course, discern lies is a 4th level spell, so now every court needs a 7th level cleric -- more correctly, they need a 7th level cleric per minute or so of testimony.

Not really - a magic item in the form of a "witness stand" or something like that, with a green light that turns red whenever someone sitting in the stand tells a lie would be far cheaper. Have the light turn yellow if someone attempts to resist the magic (ie. makes a save).

 

[Silver Jester]

I think a perfect place to look for ideas on this is the Harmonium from 2nd Edition planescape. I wouldn't so much be focusing on the "good" side of the tyranny, as opposed to the "lawful" side. In the Factol's Manifesto, the Harmonium are laid out as attempting to rid the world of evil and chaos. Unlike most, they actually succeded. The world they run, Ortho or something like that, is described as a place where everyone works side by side, but no free thinking or chaotic entities are allowed to exist (e.g. elves and the fey, for the most part, although demons, slaadi, and other chaotic planars weren't really appreciated, either). If remember correctly, this is what led the Harmonium to actually take to the planes, because these other creatures kept showing up and disrupting their lawful world.