Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6268332" data-attributes="member: 4937">Thanks.  I've spent 30 years thinking about the implications of a 'magical medieval' society.  I'm not claiming this is the only way to look at things, but I think its an internally consistent one.Only if you are accepting of the very modern notion that guilt isn't a literal stain or corruption on the person in question.  You see the problem here is that you are fundamentally tied to the idea that if you weren't consciously aware of what you are doing, you aren't guilty.  And this isn't a universally accepted idea, and its really one that is still evolving.  In any event, it's not universally accepted in the game world's fiction.What you have to understand is that from the perspective of those villagers, it doesn't really matter in terms of guilt/innocence whether or not the perpetrator of the act had a 'guilty mind' if the act is actually guilty.  As I said, it in their minds only reduces culpability, it doesn't elimenate it.   The notion that Justice should prevail itself is something that isn't universally accepted, even today.  The prior notion is that Vengeance should prevail, and you can see this even today in customs of places like Afghanistan.  Under that notion, it doesn't matter why something happened at all - only that it did.   Justice gradually replaced vengeance (from a practical standpoint) because it set a limit on Vengeance - some stopping point where you could say "Enough" and it just wouldn't keep going and going.  But even in places in my game world where Justice prevails over Vengeance as a standard (LG vs. LE), the notion that the 'guilty mind' and not the 'guilty action' is what's important isn't universal.   After all, even if I accept that Justice demands you don't recieve the full punishment that is due your action, surely Justice demands the innocent victim - the one who wasn't possessed and was on the receiving end of the guilty act - recieves the full recompense for the harm done to them.   The complaint to the deity here would be, "I have suffered greiviously at the hand of your servant.  Why do you continue to exalt, glorify, and reward you servant when I have been brought low?"   This is why Atonement, when the guilty act was gross or willfully, generally requires some quest to make things right again before you get your powers back.  One of the biggest challenges I have as a DM in my homebrew, is that modern Americans are so radically different in outlook from most people living in the homebrew.   Maybe 20% or so of players are really able to get in the head of a 'lawful' character.   Most players so strongly believe in Individualism, that they strongly gravitate to what are in my world highly chaotic positions and are simply unable to really comprehend anything else until we've been playing together for a long time.Pretty much, yes.   Especially if the widow or family of the slain officer demands full restitution, or if the community/judge feels that there is a possibility of a reoccuring offence - which is certainly implied by the warlock escaping.  (Incidently, I hope you see now why known sorcerers are treated as if they were inhuman fiends.)  In practice, if the widow doesnt' have a grudge, and the offending officer is beloved, some lesser sentence than death is agreed upon - loss of citizenship and banishment for example would be typical in a case like you raise, with the officer's property being forfieted to the widow.  The guilty party could concievably atone himself with the city by capturing and killing the evil guy and otherwise performing acts of reknown and honor.   But there is certainly an understanding by all involved that a terrible evil has hpapened and the officer was involved in it.This happens to you in my game, you roll a madness check to see if you go insane.Again, the facts of what happened aren't the only source of dispute.   They are an important one, because in most cases you dont' have multiple authoritative witnesses who can attest that they saw diabolical spell-craft (a suggestion spell, for example) occuring.   Few magistrates have enough spellcraft to make that judgment.   More likely, you have a priest (or a PC) witness the event and give testimony.If you are saying that you think lots of people in my world should be angry at the gods, then you are starting to get it.   If you are getting meta-enough that you can undertand that I sympathize with the complaints of those angry with the gods (because the gods are well, me, and I'm not worthy of worship), then you are really starting to get in my head.Not necessarily.  Many do.  Many don't.   Many believe the afterlife is just as unjust as this one.   Pretty much everyone agrees that there is something wrong with the world, and are hoping at some future date - after some sort of climatic battle or apocalypse - that a new world without the essential flaw (whatever they think it is) will come into being.  Incidently, the philosophy of the Nuetral Evil sects in my world is that sense no truly good world can come into being as long as this world exists, the most moral thing you can possibly do is burn this one done to its roots.  If the world starts over, great.  But if it doesn't, that's a pretty good outcome too.</blockquote>

Verification