Mercy versus Justice

[bret]

I would tend to see Justice as LG and Mercy as NG or maybe CG (depending on whether it's applied in opposition to Justice). Justice isn't LN - Law & Order are LN, Justice is good Law (the giving to everyone of their just deserts).

Depends on your view of Justice.

If Justice is everyone is given the same penalty for the same crime, then it is LN. Two people who steal a loaf of bread -- one to see if they can get away with it, the other to feed his family -- both could be given the exact same penalty and claim that Justice was done. If you do the crime, you better be willing to do the time.

 

[Michael Tree]

One way to conceptualize it would be Mercy representing the individual good, while Justice represents the greater good. So when trying a criminal, Justice would want to serve the greater good by locking the criminal up for life or executing him, so the greater good is served by him never commiting crime again. Mercy, on the other hand, would represent the criminal's own individual rights, so would take the chance that the criminal might steal again, to give him the chance to change into a good person who's no longer a threat to himself or others.

The duality would be compassion for the individual vs. compassion for the society as a whole.

 

[Mark Chance]

Justice and Mercy can be seen as two competitive forms of justice.

Strict Justice would be retributive, concerned with punishing those who do wrong. Such Justice could easily consider situational factors that could reduce or increase the severity of the punishment.

Mercy, OTOH, would be restorative. Mercy does not balk at just consequences for wrong action, but Mercy's concern is to restore the wrong-doer to a meaningful place within the community.

 

[s/LaSH]

Justice is extroverted; you apply it to people according to their actions. Mercy... you can show people mercy, but it's really a personal, passive thing.

Unless you take Mercy and try to promote it. This gives a really good reason for a Mercy priest to go adventuring. "Evil orcs, I'm going to teach you restraint and compassion. Of course, if you simply can't show mercy I've got two war-hammers, so say goodbye to your skull."

 

[WayneLigon]

One possible angle would be mercy for those who repent and righteous wrath for those who don't!

A less pure form of mercy for sure, but no less possible for a deity. It could be a dualist god - or perhaps even a triumvirate.

I like that. A lot.

I've always been a fan of muti-faceted gods, or a god that has more than one face. One of the main deities in my world (assuming she survives the revision, which I think she will) is Suta: Suta represents six diametrically oppossed ideals: Truth/Falsehood, Pleasure/Pain and Knowledge/Ignorance.

 

[Azlan]

The thing about justice and mercy is that there can be no hard, fast rules for their application. (Remember: Our legal system, here in the US, is administered through courts of law, not courts of justice.) To be truly just and merciful, each criminal case must be carefully, totally considered on an individual basis. Even with today's technology, we don't have the ability to examine and scrutinize a person's mind and heart. Even in a magical world, with spells such as Detect Thoughts and Know Alignment, that would be difficult and time consuming to do.

Besides, to be truly - i.e. harmoniously, unequivocally, and irrefutably - just and merciful is something human beings really don't have the capacity for, and perhaps even gods don't either. Only a perfect and whole (i.e. "holy") god could have the capacity for that. And mythical gods such as those found in the Forgotten Realms pantheon are far from perfect and whole.

Anyway... What you've been discussing here is dividing "justice" and "mercy" between two separate gods. The god of justice (and his followers) would be lawful good; the god of mercy (and her followers), chaotic good. Followers of both gods would be neutral good. And even though both of these gods and all their follower would be "good", there would still be much debate and sometimes outright conflict between them.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I see no reason why two lawful good religions couldn't be bitter, even violent, rivals or enemies. That they worship two aspects of the same diety is just icing on the cake.

Keep in mind that it's hard to have bitter, violent conflict and remain Good. You can have bitter, non-violent conflict, but drawing swords with a Good creature over doctrine is toeing the line.

 

[The Sigil]

Forgive the religious overtones here, but the following parable, one of the best I've ever heard, describes well the dichotomy between a LG deity who wants both mercy and justice.

"Let me tell you a story--a parable.

"There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt.

"He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later.

"So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn't worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important.

"The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow that the day of reckoning really would never come.

"But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full.

"Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.

" 'I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,' he confessed.

" 'Then,' said the creditor, 'we will exercise the contract, take your possessions and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.'

" 'Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?' the debtor begged. 'Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?'

"The creditor replied, 'Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?'

" 'I believed in justice when I signed the contract,' the debtor said. 'It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well.'

" 'It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,' the creditor replied. 'That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.'

"There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.

" 'If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy,' the debtor pleaded.

" 'If I do, there will be no justice,' was the reply.

"Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also?

A lawful god believes in justice. A good god believes in mercy. A lawful good god, then, believes in both justice and mercy - but they appear to be in conflict from time to time. The parable continues...

"There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended--but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.

"The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.

" 'I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison.'

"As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, 'You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.'

"And so the creditor agreed.

"The mediator turned then to the debtor. 'If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?'

" 'Oh yes, yes,' cried the debtor. 'You saved me from prison and show mercy to me.'

" 'Then,' said the benefactor, 'you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.'

"And so it was that the creditor was paid in full. He had been justly dealt with. No contract had been broken.

"The debtor, in turn, had been extended mercy. Both laws stood fulfilled. Because there was a mediator, justice had claimed its full share, and mercy was satisfied"

I have removed the overt (though probably still obvious) Christian references, as this board is not the place for "Real World" religion, but I use this story because it provides a good philosophical point independent of "real" religion - and reinforcment for what was said earlier.

A LG god will, IMO, first attempt to extend mercy to those who have violated violated the law and deserve the punishment of justice in the form of some sort of penance. He may not do it directly, and/or he may set a time limit.

If the person who has violated a law and deserves the punishment of justice refuses to undergo his penance, or delays past the time limit, justice has claim on him. The wrath of the god is upon him.

If, however, the poor wretch is truly penitent (before the time limit) and begins his penance, mercy has claim on him.

The exact nature of the Mediator (obviously, in the above Christian example, it would be Christ) and/or the penance that must be done varies from religion to religion. An atonement spell would probably be sufficient in some cases, other cases might require the character to undertake a quest of some sort. It varies, I guess, by the God's emphasis.

Hope that made sense.

And Joshua Dyal, I expect you to recognize this reference instantly.

--The Sigil

 

[Agback]

G'day

Nice choice of parable!

The really illuminating thing, I think, is that the 'mercy' the debtor asks for in the first place amounts to robbing the creditor. If the mediator simply abolished the debt he would be the opposite of merciful to the creditor. It is only after he buys the bond that he is able to be merciful, to forgive the debt without harming anyone. In short, it is possible to be merciful only at your own cost. 'Mercy' at someone else's cost is just playing favourites.

So, how can a god be able to exercise mercy, other than for personal harms against himself or herself? Only if he or she makes good every harm at his or her own expense, or if he or she is identically the same as every person.

Regards,


Agback

 

[S'mon]

One way to conceptualize it would be Mercy representing the individual good, while Justice represents the greater good. So when trying a criminal, Justice would want to serve the greater good by locking the criminal up for life or executing him, so the greater good is served by him never commiting crime again. Mercy, on the other hand, would represent the criminal's own individual rights, so would take the chance that the criminal might steal again, to give him the chance to change into a good person who's no longer a threat to himself or others.

The duality would be compassion for the individual vs. compassion for the society as a whole.

Yup, like I said - LG vs CG.

Edit: Imposing Order for its own sake is LN not LG. If Justice means something other than Law (and I think it does, in most people's speech) then Justice means Good Law, a pretty clear definition of what Lawful Good seeks. Mercy tends to get in the way of Justice IMO, that's why I think CG tends to ignore Justice in the good-Law sense.

However CG characters are person-oriented. An individualist Viking-type legal system where you have the right to seek out and slay your brother's killer (but not the killer of someone else's brother) may be characterised as CG in intent. A modern legal system where revenge killing is outlawed and only sanctioned authorities can carry out retributive measures (arrrest, trial, imprisonment) seems Lawful, LG in intent.

Lawful systems tend to promote order and the good of society over the welfare and autonomy of the individual. Individuals' duties to society are emphasised.

Systems that promote individual's rights and freedoms may be characterised as CG in D&D terms. An insistence on a right to bear weapons as a means of maintaining individual autonomy, despite the wider costs, may be a CG philosophy. Granting victims or their relatives rights within the legal system may be CG, systems that ignore the victim and focus on the crime as a 'crime against society' may be LG.

Balancing the needs of the individual vs the needs of wider society for the 'best good' seems to me to be NG.