The morality of 'An eye for an eye'

[Timeboxer]

I have to admit that I less see "eye for an eye" as Lawful in the sense of "following governmental law," but rather that the precept "eye for an eye" is a kind of ethical law in and of itself -- and thus is inherently Lawful.

Someone Chaotic, I imagine, would be rather more relativistic about it. "Well, it depends on the situation, and who's responsible for removal of the eye, and did the person whose eye was removed provoke this...?" and the like.

 

[Desdichado]

Doesn't really fit on the good/evil axis. If you value 'justice' you are probably more lawful rather than chaotic, but that doesn't reflect on your choices. If you value 'mercy' you are certainly more good rather than evil. But justice and mercy are diametrically opposed concepts in most cases. Whereas you can value justice and be evil, you probably don't value mercy if you are evil.

To me, your question is more along a lawful-chaotic axis, although there the answer is obvious, and doesn't really play into the good-evil axis at all. This could be a really interesting rp opportunity for a lawful good character, who is torn between the demands for justice and the demands for mercy -- do you take an eye for an eye and satisfy justice, or do you forgive and satisfy mercy?

Of course, most D&D players would have it go over their heads, as alignment is usually much more about what team you're on rather than how your character actually behaves.

 

[MetalBard]

I'd also have to say Lawful Neutral... I think you need the whole Law/Chaos thing represented on that poll.

 

[TheEvil]

I'd also have to say Lawful Neutral... I think you need the whole Law/Chaos thing represented on that poll.

I feel it is inherently lawful, for reasons others have said far better then I would. I didn't see it as necessary.

 

[Shemeska]

LN, possibly LG or LE as well. But really it seems to be more an issue of the law/chaos axis than about good or evil.

 

[Crothian]

Ahhh, but in ancient days it often was "an eye for an eye", was it not?

ya, and if the game represented ancient days it might matter...but really nothing in the core books haas the feel or look of ancient times

 

[Lasher Dragon]

I wasn't implying that... just that "An eye for an eye" indeed has been the law in some eras/areas.

 

[dogoftheunderworld]

It depends...

It depends on your read of "an eye for an eye". In the strictest sense, it was an ancient saying based on a legal statement on how much justice you could exact against your enemy. -- Lawful Neutral

As a modern saying, it tends to just be the opposite of the Golden Rule. Evil people are evil and need to be punished. And we can punish them, because their EVIL! -- Strictly speaking, this would still be Lawful Neutral, but it certainly sounds more Chaotic

Brian
<><

 

[Arkhandus]

Lawful Neutral. Simple, straightforward retribution. You hurt me, I hurt you back. You steal my stuff, I'll steal your stuff. You insult me, I'll insult you back. You shame me in public, I'll shame you back. You harass me, I'll harass you. You leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. So long as you don't bother me, I won't bother you. If you do mess with me though, you're getting every wrong against me paid back in full, and don't expect me to go any easier on you than you've been on me.

Lawful Neutral doesn't care to get involved, but it'll reciprocate anything done to it, because that's the balanced and just way to do things, so far as Lawful Neutral is concerned.

 

[Mark]

It's a matter of Law, as far as the game alignment system is concerned.