Moral questions of a D&D world...

[Agback]

You'd think that kinda thing would get all spelled out in the "Kingdoms for Dummies" book...

Maybe not. Imperial Rome didn't have a law of succession. England didn't get one until the Act of Settlement about 1700.

Let's look at England, shall we?

The kingdom was elective until 1066.

1 In 1066, Wiliam the Bastard siezed the throne, while the lawful king Edgar was still alive.

2. When William died, his son Willilam Rufus seized the throne, though the heir was his brother Robert.

3. When William II was murdered, his borther Henry seized the throne, though the heir was his brother Robert.

4. When Henry I died, the nobles enthroned his nephew Stephen, though the heir was Henry's daughter Maud.

5. When Stephen died, Henry II became king, though the heir was his mother Maud.

6. When Henry II died, his (second) son Richard became king, though the heir was his nephew Arthur.

7. When Richard I died, his brother John became king. I think Arthur was dead by then, but I'm not sure.

8. When John died, his son Henry became king, the first due succession of an eldest son to his father according to the supposed hereditary principle.

9. When Henry II died his son Edward became king. (2nd regular succession.)

10. When Edward I died, his son Edward became king (3rd regular succession).

11. Edward II was deposed, and his infant son Edward became king.

12. When Edward III died, his grandson Richard became King (a lawful but not direct succession).

13. Richard II was deposed, and his cousin Henry became king, though the heir was their mutual cousin (whose name I forget).

14. When Henry IV died, his only son Henry became king. He was not the lawful heir of Edward III.

15. When Henry V died, his eldest (?only?) son Henry became king. He was not the lawful heir of Edward III.

16. Henry VI was deposed by Edward of York, lawful heir of Edward III.

17. Edward IV was deposed and Henry VI restored.

18. Henry VI was deposed (or possibly killed, I forget the details) and Edward IV restored.

19. When Edward IV died, he was succeeded by his son Edward. Perhaps this was the sixth lawful and sixth direct succession, but there is a question mark over the leglity of Edward IV's marraige and Edward V's legitimacy.

20. When Edward V was deposed, his uncle Richard of Gloucester became king.

21. When Richard III was killed, a nobody named Henry Tudor became king, though the heir was Richard's nephew, or possibly his niece. That was 1485, the end of the mediaeval period in England.

21 successions to the throne in 417 years. Only 6 were in accordance with law, and only six involved an eldest or only sone succeeding his father. The two sets of six are not the same.

I don't think the addition of Resurrections would make tthis simpler.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I would imagine that charms and compulsions would probably be second only to necromancy--and possibly not even that--in the category of forbidden magics. After all, IRL, charming people was one of the things witches were supposed to be able to do and that ability (along with the ability to curse people) was one of the reasons that suspected witches were burned. (There were others too but fear of their supposed powers was high among the reasons for the persecution of witches). The mere ability to deny someone their free will or to magically force them into believing that you're their friend would be enough to make a person hated and/or feared/persecuted in most worlds.

I'd say, in response to the morality question of the dateless wizard using Charm spells to get the ladies...it would really depend on his alignment. A lawful character would likely find this immoral, as it would be an "unnatural" bending of the will of another for selfish purposes. Chaotic characters, however, would likely NOT find this a moral issue. Neutral ones, of course, would kind of be on the fence about it.

As for the second issue, I would say, again, it would be an alignment thing. If the general alignment of the kingdom was Lawful, it would be an "eye for an eye" issue, where capital punishment would be expected. In a more Chaotic instance, he would likely be charged to pay restitution and buy the resurrection for the family. Neutral, could be either/or

 

[Trickstergod]

I'd say, in response to the morality question of the dateless wizard using Charm spells to get the ladies...it would really depend on his alignment. A lawful character would likely find this immoral, as it would be an "unnatural" bending of the will of another for selfish purposes. Chaotic characters, however, would likely NOT find this a moral issue. Neutral ones, of course, would kind of be on the fence about it.

It still seems more a matter of Good vs. Evil. Charming a woman seems an essentially selfish act, more defined by Evil than anything else. If the wizard didn't do anything "unseemly" and used the charm spell primarily to overcome certain social deficiencies, I could see it being up-graded to a Neutral act. In regards to Law, a Lawful individual would use the spell based on the relation of the victim (which is what the woman would be, no matter ho respectful the wizard was otherwise) in station to himself along with the actual laws of society on the matter, whereas the Chaotic one is less predictable, but Chaos generally implies a certain respect for/preference for free will and the rights of the individual, with those of a Chaotic Good nature being more violently repellant to the idea of charm spells than anyone else you'd meet, while those of a Chaotic Evil alignment would be hypocritical in their opinion on charm spells - that is, they'd likely say that yes, it's evil, wrong and shouldn't be done, but only when it's being done by someone other than the Chaotic Evil individual. Whereas a Lawful Evil one likely would have no problem with them whatsoever.

In either case, using charm spells to get dates is at best a Neutral act, but usually Evil in nature.

As for capital punishment, how many folk have a few thousand gold? And how many gods do you really think take kindly to their servants using their miracles as a form of transaction? Outside of gods like Waukeen or Hedrada, I hardly think your average god looks kindly on miracles only being performed for those who can afford them.

Which is to say, murder should still be murder because most folk can't pay for resurrection, and miracles for money is an idea I think many gods, particularly of a Good nature, would find repugnant. Although I realize on that second part, a good many folk don't play things that way...ahh well.

 

[Agback]

As for the "reversible death" issue, I suppose a murderer might purchase himself out of sentence by paying for the Raise Dead and paying some more to the victim in restitution for the crime and compensation for that lost level or Con point. It depends on how lawful the justice system is... a tight system of law would probably levy those fines and THEN execute the perp to prevent him from doing it again. A looser system (such as that of the Vikings) would call it even after the money was paid.

The question is, does the legal system bother with a death penalty when the rich can get themsleves Raised and the very rich REsurrected? And what do the poor think about tthis if it does?

Does the law require that the bodies of executed criminals be destroyed? Buried in the grounds of the prison where the relatives can't get them?

Regards,


Agback

 

[Sejs]

In either case, using charm spells to get dates is at best a Neutral act, but usually Evil in nature.

Neutral, I'd say. Rather selfish, and dishonorable - but not evil. Or capital E Evil if you prefer. Keeping in mind that Charm doesn't make the target do anything, it just changes their perception of the caster. You'd still need to use your own charisma to convince them of something they'd otherwise not do. It also doesn't erase or change the target's memory - if they just met you, they don't suddenly remember you as a life-long friend; you're just this really pleasant, affable stranger they just met. Same way you can't use Charm Person to make someone kill their friends just because you say so- they're still friends with those people as well.

Now, Dominate on the other hand... where you can force someone to do things regardless of if they want to or not, is another matter.

Does the law require that the bodies of executed criminals be destroyed? Buried in the grounds of the prison where the relatives can't get them?

Yes, Ms Crimeworthy, your husband was executed for his transgressions on the 4th. Here are his possessions that were in storage, and here is a box that containes his ashes.

 

[s/LaSH]

What do the gods think? Are their opinions divided? How recently have raise magics been available? Etc. Law may not be the only authority here...

 

[Dogbrain]

I'd say, in response to the morality question of the dateless wizard using Charm spells to get the ladies...it would really depend on his alignment. A lawful character would likely find this immoral, as it would be an "unnatural" bending of the will of another for selfish purposes. Chaotic characters, however, would likely NOT find this a moral issue. Neutral ones, of course, would kind of be on the fence about it.

No, it is immoral, period. Truly Good characters would demand the perpetrator's gonads be char-broiled. Evil characters would be claiming "the only thing he did wrong was get caught".

In D&D, morality is absolute, at least as long as alignments are not abolished.

 

[Nifft]

"Power is the greatest aphrodisiac." -- Kissinger

Power will lead to lots of dates, even if you have a low Charisma. I don't think he'd need to use Charm Person.

-- N

 

[Hand of Evil]

The game of D&D is a game of good and evil, law and chaos; by those terms the game is defined and yet you hear of issues. The DM is the ruler, the master of the table, he plays the gods and controls the game in a way to tell a story.

Yes, comparing charm person to a date rape drug is extreme but human nature says every young wizard would be making love potions and charms to get the local tavern help into bed. The guilds, the church, or the courts would have in place taboos and rules to prevent it. Just think how many of us would either visit the girls (or boys) locker room or steal if we could become invisible?

Right and wrong are built into our culture, this is what I mean about defineing good and evil, about building your world myth.

 

[Trickstergod]

In D&D, morality is absolute, at least as long as alignments are not abolished.

No, they're not. The only characters for whom alignment is an absolute are for those such as paladins. Their presence shows that, for most characters, the alignment as an absolute is not usually the rule, but instead, the exception.

Alignment is a reflection of general tendencies. Most good characters do a few misdeeds - it's simply that the amount of good they do far outweighs them. Something that those who have a problem with alignment need to keep in mind; it's not an absolute, but a guideline and indicator of general tendencies.