The morality of 'An eye for an eye'

[diaglo]

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

ditto.

 

[TheEvil]

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.

Nope, no axe, just knew someone would chastise me if I didn't include it.
I find it rather unfortunate that everyone wants to keep saying lawful. I considered it obvious, as do most people judging by the answers. They just can't stop mentioning it...
Still, better to have comments then not.

Losing a hand for stealing a loaf of bread isn't 'an eye for an eye'. The damage done by losing a hand is far greater then any loss to the baker for the loaf of bread. Inconsistant rulings are one of the things 'an eye for an eye' is supposed to stop. You seem to be confusing morality with application of the law.

I do agree that the alignment system can handle a fair amount, though I prefer the Palladium system.

Thanks everyone for you participation so far.

 

[Starglim]

If applied consistently in every situation, it's Lawful Neutral.

If it's a justification for a character's one-off reaction, it doesn't form a consistent enough pattern of behaviour to favour any alignment, though the act of harm in itself is most likely neutral to evil.

 

[Janx]

I voted "good"

I think it depends on the society's level of evolution of "justice" (we are talking fantasy/medieval societies here?).

I'm no expert, but our sense of justice ties to our concepts of revenge, punishment, compensation, forgiveness, repentance, and redemption.

Initially, say cave people, would react to a wrong by striking out against the offender. Basically, you steal my t-rex meat, I beat the stuffing out of you.

Later, we get a little more sophisticated, and we assume the reaction should be equal to the crime. The simplest level of that is, whatever you do to me, happens back to you.

Later still, when we realize that taking your eye, when you poked out mine, still doesn't actually help me, we develop a means for compensation. Lawyers probably evolved by this time. By this time, you now owe me something, in exchange for the loss of my eye. In theory, this payment, will help me survive in the cruel world with only one eye.

All of this law stuff is trying to answer and regulate questions like:
how much revenge can I get on you (legal punishment is a form of revenge, legalized)?
how much should you suffer for your crime?
how much should I be repayed for my injury?
should I forgive you?
should you repent from your life of crime?
should the system convert you to good?