The morality of 'An eye for an eye'

[MoonZar]

Hello,

I think this neutral, for the simple reason that you have to commit some evil act sometime to did what the other guy did to you.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Morally, this is Neutral-- you're not taking the eyes of innocent people, but you're not really showing much respect for life, either. You're exacting retribution-- which isn't necessarily justice.

Ethically, I'm going to have to disagree with the vast majority of posters: Neutral.

While the origins of the phrase "eye for an eye" were from an ancient legal code, there is nothing specifically Lawful about demanding such a punishment. Retribution, even if equal to the original offense, is not always justice.

Also, I disagree with the concept that justice is a Lawful concept. I have a hard time picturing a Lawful Evil character caring much for justice, especially considering what will happen when he gets what he deserves. I see justice as a Good concept-- people get what they deserve, and making sure that people get what they deserve promotes and kindness. Think about the Chaotic Good vigilante-- is he not seeking justice for perceived wrongs against others?

For the purposes of discussion, I consider myself Lawful Neutral, and I do not concern myself with notions of justice. I want that which will promote stability and order in society, regardless of guilt or innocence.

The cycles of revenge created by this philosophy can strain the orderliness of a society. It can create Chaos. If it's imposed by the courts, it's probably Lawful. Also, if you reflect on the fact that it involves each person suffering only what they have inflicted upon others-- or inflicting suffering upon those who have wronged them, to balance the scales-- it seems like this is a very Neutral philosophy.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

In DnD I believe the cocept of revenge can be applied to all but two alignments; Lawful & Neutral Good.

 

[driver8]

I kinda agree with the majority. This falls more along the lawful axis then the good evil axis.

Id say Lawful whatever, good or evil.

 

[driver8]

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.

But what if your deity is a deity of vengance?

 

[3d6]

Then, per the apparent consensus of the thread, the paladin's deity is Lawful Neutral (or Lawful Evil). An example would be St. Cuthbert, a deity of retribution, who is Lawful Neutral.

 

[s/LaSH]

'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth' - Hammurabi, early Babylonian ruler.

Or so my theologian researcher tells me (a very useful fellow to have around). At the time, this code was a great invention. It was previously (and subsequently in places) the practice to exact disproportionate punishment for crimes, especially when the nobility were involved - a hand for accidentally touching me, perhaps. The concept of equivalent restitution was a great leap forward for order. So I'll tentatively say 'LN', like the majority.

However, looking at it in another cultural context, it's harder to say. What does the local law say about restitution and punishment? Odds are, it's more harsh than this - taking a hand from thieves, for example, and I've heard some positively frightening things about medieval Finland. So in your typical medieval paradigm, it might actually be Lawful Good.

 

[MonsterMash]

LN shading to LE depending on the extent of it being an eye for an eye - if the response is disproportionate then it's evil, if its carefully controlled and sometimes mitigated by circumstances then neutral.

 

[Al]

Lawful Neutral. It is an unflexible and static code not subject to any form of discretionary judgement, and hence is paradigmatically Lawful. In the absence of any such discrimination but also lacking compassion, it's Neutral on the Good-Evil axis. Stormborn has it right: since the fundamental undertones of the law imply equality before the law, I'd say that it is automatically exempt an Evil classification.

 

[Plane Sailing]

'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth' - Hammurabi, early Babylonian ruler.

Or so my theologian researcher tells me (a very useful fellow to have around). At the time, this code was a great invention. It was previously (and subsequently in places) the practice to exact disproportionate punishment for crimes, especially when the nobility were involved - a hand for accidentally touching me, perhaps. The concept of equivalent restitution was a great leap forward for order. So I'll tentatively say 'LN', like the majority.

Interesting, my earlier research identified the ancient Babylonian law codes as ones which particularly codified disproportionate responses, and different standards for nobility. It inspired me to do some new checking of the facts and I found a copy of the Hammurabi code here:

http://www.constitution.org/ime/hammurabi.htm

From what I read it is good in the sense of allowing commoners rights against the nobility (so my earlier assertion proved incorrect) but bad in the sense of arguably disproportionate penalties for crimes against property.

Cheers