Methods of Execution/Criminal Punishment

[Janx]

Well, I find the whole thread is starting to hit my "ooky button".

However, I'll say that by and large I find everyone analyzing this from an anachronistic view point....snip lots of smart stuff...snip...

Yes.

Given that the vast population of players are not likely to be detached sociologists or anthropologists, it is a foregone conclusion that everything in the game is absolutely being viewed from the player's/modern society mores.

This is why it is generally acknowledged that stat penalties for women are a bad idea. or that treating their female PCs like crap is a bad idea.

Because modern female players don't want to put up with sexist crap in their entertainment.

The same principle is at play here. Don't offend your players if you can help it. Especially not in the name of "realism" or any of that baloney.

 

[Umbran]

Well, I find the whole thread is starting to hit my "ooky button".

However, I'll say that by and large I find everyone analyzing this from an anachronistic view point. In an ancient society, it's not necessarily the case that women view their own sexuality as being anything but in the service of society, or that they have any value other than what utility that they can get out of the situation precisely because that's the world view that is imposed on them from an early age - that they are chattel and their value is in their sex the way an ox's value is in its ability to pull a plow. It's instructive to read the unabridged Kama Sutra for example as a religious manual discussing what is the moral way to have sex.

And, as we all know, because it is old, it is 100% accurate and indicates how human psychology actually works? And a book written by a man, in a male-dominated society, before the rise of what we'd call reliable science, is still guaranteed to have the women's point of view properly integrated?

Sorry, no. And also no, humans are not infinitely flexible - just because someone *says* a thing is moral and acceptable, and people around them believe it, does not mean that the human psyche happily follows suit without issue. Humans, time and again, have come up with moral systems that are not at all in line with how humans actually behave and react, and it shows. There's folks who are looking back at the ancient world, and finding a great deal of what you might expect - behaviors that today we note as the result of stress and abuse. Just because people of the day said it was okay, does not mean it did not cause psychological harm to people!

So, to rephrase and reiterate - do not conflate "people did this" with "people did this without objection or harm". People put up with crap because they had little choice, or hadn't yet conceived of something different. That doesn't mean they were happy about it.

 

[Celebrim]

And, as we all know, because it is old, it is 100% accurate and indicates how human psychology actually works? And a book written by a man, in a male-dominated society, before the rise of what we'd call reliable science, is still guaranteed to have the women's point of view properly integrated?

This is a pretty classic example of what I meant when I said that if you even mention a point of view, someone will assume you are endorsing it.

 

[Samloyal23]

So how do I integrate the original myth of Dahut and her evil ways into my campaign setting?

 

[Umbran]

This is a pretty classic example of what I meant when I said that if you even mention a point of view, someone will assume you are endorsing it.

Nope. At least, not any more than it is an example of how noting flaws in a point of view is taken as being personal.

Note how I didn't mention *you*? Your personal beliefs aren't part of the conversation. That point of view as you stated it has major logical weaknesses that I thought could do with some highlighting. You had the chance to do so, but didn't. So, I took it on. How is this an assumption of your personal endorsement?

 

[Janx]

So how do I integrate the original myth of Dahut and her evil ways into my campaign setting?

I'd think you could use some of what I suggested in a prior post.

make this evil sorceress (a sucubus?) who identifies men who could be a challenge to her rule (power, wealth, etc) and she seduces them, and then sacrifices them to gain more magical power from them.

She may even hide her self as the Duke's Daughter, so the people see the Duke as the leader (and source of their woes). basically the Duke is a puppet leader.

 

[Umbran]

So how do I integrate the original myth of Dahut and her evil ways into my campaign setting?

The places where your implementation of the myth failed were simple: Gender bias (tied somewhat with the general idea that sex is bad) and agency.

In the original myth, it was an individual person, doing things for her own reasons. Nothing wrong with that. Put one women who gets power from her deity for doing this, and you're fine.

But your approach was to project this onto women, plural, as a class. Either the women must do this (which is rapey), or they choose to do it for no reason - the women of the court, and their uncontrolled, unconventional sexuality, are evil, collectively. That's problematic stereotyping. The thought that women would just want sexytime with condemned criminals, for no other reason, is kind of like "Bwhahaha-twirl-mustache" evil.

Here's a version that actually ends up giving you campaign political plot hooks:

You have the court of the Duke. The presence of a Duke implies some higher authority, like a King/Queen. So, we take it that while the Duke has considerable judicial power, there are some things he cannot do - like maybe he cannot strip a noble of lands and title. So, if you have a noble who is up for death, the Duke cannot simply confiscate their lands and property. They must go to some rightful heir, or they revert to the King/Queen. Maybe elsewhere in their law, it is established that, when the noble is not around to designate which child shall inherit what, the Duke can do so.

Now, you have a reason for the behavior - condemned prisoners get one last chance to produce an heir. Until that heir comes of age, of course, the other parent will have control of the lands and titles in question. When the non-condemned parent has other children, or is just really scummy, they tend to shuffle the kid off to the church, because if they are caught actually killing the kids, they themselves face execution by the King/Queen for stealing titles from the crown. The kids, however, are not told who their parents are, so they usually don't show up on their 18th birthday to claim their birthright, so it stays with the new family.

So, now you have a church containing *legitimate* heirs, which is political funtime just waiting to happen! The structure is ripe for abuse by the corrupt, but is applicable to either women or men who are condemned - you just have to wait to see if the lady has issue from her last night before you execute her. And you have a good reason for someone to want to sleep with the condemned: title, lands, and power!

 

[Celebrim]

Nope. At least, not any more than it is an example of how noting flaws in a point of view is taken as being personal.

In short, bullpucky. You are being disingenuous to the point of being insulting, and you continue to assert that discussing of this proves that the poster endorses the social mores in question.

The structure of your post is darn clear. You begin with rhetorical questions directed against the poster you quote, and then you refute your rhetorical questions. To now claim that you quoted me, directed rhetorical questions toward me, and proceeded to a refutation, but didn't actually believe that I believed your straw man you set up to refute or had failed to grasp any of the things you felt the need expound on is ridiculous and contradicted by your own commentary about your internal reasoning.

I could write a bunch proving that point, but what would be the point? The thing is self-evident. I can rely on EnWorld posters to see that for themselves.

Sorry, no. Your thesis, "People put up with crap because they had little choice, or hadn't yet conceived of something different. That doesn't mean they were happy about it.", could very well be a summary restatement of what I said. You don't have a leg to stand on here, since even your assertion that I needed to highlight further that pederasty is bad or treating women as sexual chattel is bad is ridiculous, or that I had a chance to do so but didn't speak in strong enough terms.

Again, all you are proving is that I was right about how people behave when encountering this sort of material.

You did beautifully illustrate through all your insults of other posters much of my thinking as to why Samloyal23 should not make use of the myth of Dahut in any form in his setting, time and time again, far better probably than I could have by trying to use dialectic methods and being respectful to him. For that, we can be thankful.

 

[Samloyal23]

Okay, well, the story of Dahut is integral to the background of the original story or Ys. Her corruption and decadence lead her to falling for the Devil in the form of a handsome knight who manipulates her into allowing him to destroy the city. I am just riffing on the whole idea of a sunken city called Ys.

One alternative I am thinking about is not making it an "official" policy, but something the duke's family does for kicks and to profit from sacrifices to the gods of the sea. This is more about human sacrifice than it is about sex, the fraternization before the execution just spices it up and shows how wicked the city is...

 

[Samloyal23]

In Shosnar the cult of Set reigns and executions are commonly performed by throwing a criminal into a pit of vipers. For those who are especially detested by the queen or her priests there is a giant cobra in a chamber deep beneath the royal palace that has been known to swallow a victim whole. Queen Aneh-tet also has slaves on her island plantation thrown to sharks when they displease her.

In Burghausen they are more pragmatic, so anyone not exiled to the penal colony of Shame Village is simply executed by firing squad.