The morality of 'An eye for an eye'

[qstor]

I'd go for Lawful Neutral, myself. "Lawful Evil" is more "I can certainly take your eye if, by the rules of the game, I can do it," whereas I think "Lawful Good" would be concerned more with justice or turning the other cheek. But the moral accounting inherent in "eye for an eye" -- "You have done me a wrong and thus I can do you a wrong to balance the moral books" -- strikes me as definitely Neutral. And the "eye for an eye" doctrine itself is Lawful, to me.

"Eye for an eye" also implies, to me, "If you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone as well."

So.

I agree.

Mike

 

[VirgilCaine]

I'd go with e neutrals...lawful implies following the laws and few laws support this. Laws usually have set punishments that may or may not fit the crime, but it is not eye for an eye.

First of all, it was figurative. The punishment should fit the crime.

Second, restitution is obviously required to be equal [and was used before the idea of rehabilitation emerged in the last few hundred years.]

Third, it sounds Lawful Neutral to me.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Most certainly Lawful Neutral. I think that followed to its extreme, a Lawful Good character cannot follow this paradigm and stay Good. For instance, if an evil nobleman rapes and then kills a paladin's wife and young daughter, and the paladin does the same to the nobleman's wife and young daughter, you've got a fallen paladin on your hands.

 

[TerraDave]

I'd go for Lawful Neutral, myself. "Lawful Evil" is more "I can certainly take your eye if, by the rules of the game, I can do it," whereas I think "Lawful Good" would be concerned more with justice or turning the other cheek. But the moral accounting inherent in "eye for an eye" -- "You have done me a wrong and thus I can do you a wrong to balance the moral books" -- strikes me as definitely Neutral. And the "eye for an eye" doctrine itself is Lawful, to me.

"Eye for an eye" also implies, to me, "If you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone as well."

So.

Yet another for Lawful Neutral. And another for the pole is on wrong axis: an orderly LE society could also nominally follow this (though the strong will have a big advantage in practice) as could a LG one (but the bias would run in reverse). For chaotics its all wrong: for the good the concept of justice would just be too diferent, for the evil, they would not give a flying****

 

[the Jester]

I'd go for Lawful Neutral, myself. "Lawful Evil" is more "I can certainly take your eye if, by the rules of the game, I can do it," whereas I think "Lawful Good" would be concerned more with justice or turning the other cheek. But the moral accounting inherent in "eye for an eye" -- "You have done me a wrong and thus I can do you a wrong to balance the moral books" -- strikes me as definitely Neutral. And the "eye for an eye" doctrine itself is Lawful, to me.

"Eye for an eye" also implies, to me, "If you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone as well."

So.

Extremely well said. I agree that this morality is LN.

 

[tarchon]

"An eye for an eye leave everyone with an eye." - Orc Proverb

 

[Samothdm]

Count me in for another Lawful Neutral.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Unfortunately there is no "other" option so I couldn't cast my vote. It's always a little annoying when this is the case but oh well, the 4th option seemed to instead reveal an axe to grind in regards to alignment.

The eye for an eye morality really depends on how literal and how appropriate the punishment. If we have a poor desperate child losing a hand for stealing to save sick grandma then we've got an evil, if lawful interpretation. If the judge of the matter hands down seemingly inconsistant rulings but leans towards merciful warnings then we've got a chaotic, but good interpretation.

I don't think for a moment that the alignment system is 'unable to cope with complex moral issues', in fact I think when used properly it is very robust.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Seeing as the original principle was a sort of "statute of limitations" I'd go for Lawful Good. Lawful and Fair.

Disparate punishments depending on status would be lawful nuetral to my mind. Lawful, never mind the fairness.

Cheers

 

[Wild Gazebo]

That's funny I always felt the good/evil axis was more obscure than the lawful/chaotic.
I see good as being far more disparate than neutral because a side must be taken. Whereas I see the axis of lawful/chaotic as more of a development or scale of order.


edit: clarity