Moral questions of a D&D world...

[WayneLigon]

For the most part, I like to think that the common people of a D&D world are almost totally ignorant about magic; they think it can do things it can't (wizards can raise the dead), and think it can't do things that are in fact easy for it (Feh, son, not even Grumble the Grey can tell what the weather tomorrow will be.).

So, they probably don't have many laws set up to deal with magic, or mages. Every case involving them might be special. Or, the wizards handle their own affairs, like the Church did for so long; like as not, cleric and paladins are judged only by other priests.

For Ressurrection and the like: I like the idea of a counter, something that makes it impossible to ressurect someone. It might be a spell. It might be a simple act (such as separating the head from the body, which would 'sever' the magical connection between body and soul). It might be a complex act (body must tbe burned to ashes, which must then be mixed with holy or unholy water). It might be a device. (I loved the Morganti weapons from Brust's Jhereg books; weapons that killed the soul, so no ressurection was possible).

I can see general laws coming into effect once the authorities become aware of them. Scrying is likely the first thing to be banned. In a number of books I've read, killing someone with magic is a much worse crime than killing them with a sword, especially as far as mages are concerned (usually, the idea is that it might turn people against the mages).

 

[S'mon]

I'm interested in people's thoughts on the morality of various implications of a world in which D&D style magic exists...

For example, a socially inept (low CHA) yet highly intelligent guy turns to magic, specifically the "Charm Person" spell in order to help with his datelessness. Moral or immoral?

How moral is capital punishment for murder in a world where restitution CAN be made for death? A world where the victim's loved ones can take a few thousand gold to the local cleric and have their beloved husband and father back?

1. Immoral, obviously - charm person takes away the victim's free will, it forces them to regard the caster as their 'best friend'. It's at least as immoral as using mind-altering drugs on someone without their consent.

2. I don't really see the link here. Plenty of real world societies allow monetary restitution for murder. I guess availability of easy resurrection would tend to make a society more casual about death, and punishment for a crime might emphasise suffering rather than death per se. Death is quite likely to have a monetary value. Death penalties may be more likely.

 

[Umbran]

'Weregeld' is german and comes from the germanic tribes of the Roman times. And it worked the other way.

If you type "weregild" into Google, you get a lot of things, most of them are norse, not germanic. Mind you, we have to be careful of how we draw a dividing line bwetween Norse and germanic, as they're pretty solidly intertwined.

However, I can clearly see from looking about that weregild is not only germanic, nor does it strictly work in the way you mentioned everywhere. "Weregild" translated roughly as "man-price". The concept may have been used as you say in proto-germany. It was used elsewise by the Norse, and it became a big part of the legal system whent eh saxons went to Britain.

 

[DonaldRumsfeldsTofu]

This is why I have subjective alignment in my games. Any absolute law of nature that provides pages and pages of debate over ethics and philosophy by Dungeons and Dragons is not an Euclidian law. I prefer Dungeons and Dragons characters to be realistic, and not restrict themselves to poorly-defined abstract titles. In real life, people do evil things because they're mentally diseased or misinformed. I like D&D to be that way too. But of course, I find the negotiation inherent in D&D equally as fun as the combat.

As for my take on the issues, I really don't find anything malicious about charming a woman into liking the caster more. There's nothing hurtful about the gesture, maybe a little chauvinistic and hedonistic, but nothing repulsive, it's kind of endearing. Even dominating someone and forcing them to have sex with you, which would be a despicable act, couldn't really be equated to rape. Both rape and date-rape cause pain and physical damage to the victim, and in the case of the former, severe psychological damage. While I wouldn't necessarily give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone going around and dominating and taking advantage of women, I wouldn't hang them for it either.

As for execution and Resurrection, "low-magic" is a bad word for me, but so is "high-magic". Magic is rare and powerful enough for it not to be an issue. Plus the body would be buried and/or cremated, it would cost thousands of gold pieces, and even if the average person could get enough money to have the executee resurrected, it's not like the temple of Heironious is a Burger King. You couldn't just expect to give a priest antiquate pay and say "be a doll and resurrect my serial killer friend"

 

[Agback]

In fairness, the general mood of England was that Harold was going to be the successor, by force of arms and weight of personality. Plus his victory at Stamford Bridge proved his skill. Then again, Harold had sworn to support William in a claim to the English throne; on the other hand, that oath was de facto extracted under duress whilst Harold was William's 'guest'. Just showing that real life is even more complex than most of the stories we imagine!

There's a bit of a misunderstanding here. I was talking about what happened to the succession after the death of Harold.

There is no doubt in my mind that Harold was the lawful successor to the throne. It didn't matter what Edward had promised William of Normandy. It didn't matter what Harold promised William of Normandy. It didn't matter who was descended from whom. It didn't matter what Tostig's grudges were. It didn't matter what archbishop performed the coronation, or what his relations with the Pope were. Edward died. The Witanargemot elected Harold king. That made Harold king.

When William murdered Harold, the Witanargemot elected Edgar. That made Edgar king. William then usurped Edgar's throne.

Regards,


Agback.

 

[Gez]

About weregild, the idea is not only norse. People often quote the Lex Talionis "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", but the real quote is "For an eye the price of an eye, for a tooth the price of a tooth".

 

[Gez]

About capital punishment...

On the one hand, magic allows binding or geas for criminals. (I'm a bit deviating from D&D by mentionning geas, as I'm more thinking of mythical geas, oaths to never do certain things, with magical doom falling on you if you did.) This allows to remove a perceived threats from society without having to use mundane life sentences or capital execution.

On the other hand, a D&D world is a violent place, with frequent battles and confrontations, between "good" and "evil" races, between races on the same side, and between members of the same race. Between living and undead, between mundane and extraplanar outsiders, between people and wild beasts, and so on. Death is an everyday occurence. People are going to be less shocked at the idea of killing someone than in a policed, civilised modern western society in the real world.

That's not moral relativism -- or rather, it is, but on the universe's scale. Killing, in D&D, is not evil. Gratuitous murder is evil, but killing is damn easy to justify. Just being a goblin in a goblin's lair is a sin grave enough for deserving death (in other words, it will not be an evil act for a party of good adventurer to slay that goblin, despite he merely being defending his home).