Is this Lawful Good?

Depends On The Setting.

If the Gods of Goodness in your narrative have no attachment to mercy or compassion, then this is reasonably LG. If you as a storyteller aren't personally that into Ayn Rand, then this is Lawful Neutral.

Necessarily.

Pretty sure it's just the same guy who puts up the Spoony threads and "The Goddess is a Succubus" threads every single day now, guys.

The punishment of the criminal has no effect on the victim. Mercy isn't cheating them out of anything but vengeance, which is evil.

No, that is a philosophically inclined and competent lawful evil ruler. I'd vote for him if the idea of voting was ethically defensible in the face of his superior ruling abilities which it is obviously not.

I still think the idea of a redeemed succubus turned Good-aligned goddess has merit, as long as there's nothing even vaguely resembling a vore fetish involved.

Morality systems are and always have been completely idiotic and unneeded.

He is completely correct... IF you can objectively determine what a just punishment actually is. The argument seems to be based on the idea that we KNOW what is justice in any given situation and know for a fact who the guilty are, which is another matter entirely, and thus can determine the exact punishment that is what he deserves. In that situation, to treat him any better would be harming the victim, BUT treating him any WORSE would be cruelty.

However, in the real world, we do NOT know what is actual justice, we can just make our best guess based on the present moral values of society. It then becomes a balancing act of mercy and vengeance. Mercy is not an evil in this case because without it, our punishments would surly be too cruel. Likewise without any form of retribution, we could not protect any potential victims. That does not make the entire concept of either mercy or vengeance evil, just lack of moderation of either is unjust.

There's no way that this isn't the single most Lawful Netural philosophy ever conceived. Letting punishment fit the crime, with no concern for what the victim or perpetrator wants/feels is the definition of LN.

I can definitely confirm that Mercy treats the guilty better than he deserves.

It's bullshit justifications for Chaotic Neutral, at best.

Incorrect. LN does not care about justice or punishment, only that the rules are obeyed.

The concepts of justice or punishment would be irrelevant in a perfectly LN society because the only way such a society could exist is if it consisted entirely of robots, golems, psionically enslaved people, bound entities or programmed/bound undead.

Justice and punishment are concepts that require free will, something that cannot exist in a perfectly LN society. Since all DnD alignments are extremes to the absurd, if a concept cannot exist at the alignments extreme then it is incomparable with that alignment.

youtube.com/watch?v=hD7EKZ32ODQ

>LN does not care about justice or punishment, only that the rules are obeyed.
This. Remember that punishment often has the effect of increasing crime rates among the punished.

Oh look, this meme again

Justice is ultimately a good oriented concept, so yes, albite a very harsh version of it, one that toes the line. Alignments should operate in broad strokes, rather than very specific things. In my opinion, Good means you actively want people to be better off and are willing to go out of your way to help people, neutral means you won't don't care that much and won't go out of your way to help people, but you're also not going to just fuck people over for your own benefit, and evil means that you'll willingly fuck people over for your own benefit. The Law-Chaos scale, in my opinion, should function as a general approach or philosophy. Lawful good means believing that the the well formulated legal systems are the best way to create a good society, Chaotic good means that you think laws generally get in the way of having a good society, and neutral good means you don't really lean either way. When it comes down to finer details, as has been said, it's going to depend on the setting.

>Justice is ultimately a good oriented concept
Define justice, please.

Good post.

The specific definition is irrelevant. People can disagree over what is just, but these disagreements are disagreements over morality, and the fact that morality is seen as important is what makes justice good.

About as Lawful Good as her.

Posting objectivist characters.

If 'mercy' is by definition a good concept and by definition incompatible with 'justice' then in the extreme the only alignment compatible with perfect and fair 'justice' is Lawful Evil.

The only way true justice and mercy can be incompatible in a LG system is if the victim (or 'society' for "victimless" crimes) is allowed to enact the penalty. In that case you have the victim holding the whip or executioners blade and deciding if they will spare them and/or enact a lesser penalty thus allowing both justice and mercy.

For crimes with a specific 'victim' this is possible with a LG society and a LE society as well. For crimes without a specific victim (besides stuff like treason) it is impossible unless you have a democratic vote (usually LG but not always) or a arbitrary ruling (usually LE but not always) from an authority.

Logically the only way Mercy AND Justice can exist is in either a LG or LE society that ignores victimless crimes entirely.

While both can do so in theory, in practice LE societies are the ones that give zero fucks about victimless crimes, LG societies think the idea too chaotic to seriously consider the idea. So in practice LE is better than LG because it protects you with Justice but gives you the option (and right) to practice mercy without infringing on your right to justice.

In practice LE can reconcile these ideals, LG does not.

...

I'm not asking for an example of something just, I'm asking for a definition of justice. If we're going to say that justice is a meaningless word, it's silly to call it good or harsh or anything but meaningless.

...

...

...

>If 'mercy' is by definition a good concept
I'm not entirely certain that's true, but I'll go with it.
>and by definition incompatible with 'justice'
I'm pretty sure that's false.
>then in the extreme the only alignment compatible with perfect and fair 'justice' is Lawful Evil.
That doesn't follow.

It's LE

Mercy is unlawful, because you choose to under-enact the law. But depending on circumstances it might be good. Or evil, like if you are asked to kill an evil wizard who wants to blow up the world and you are being like nah.

If you think law is wrong, the lawful course of action is to modify the law. Not uphold it arbitrarily.

>Implying that people are always 100% righteous or evil, and therefore that their actions are consistent with their inner character 100% of the time.
>Implying that mercy can't be justice at the same time in a surprisingly broad number of cases, related to previous one.
>Therefore that there are only those extremes as false disjunction, and not realizing that most virtuous procedure is often a mixture of both.
>Implying that such an imperfect concept of justice can't be misinterpreted with ease
>Implying that victims can't be compensated if the criminal does not suffer
>Implying that the concept of justice isn't defined, affected heavily and deliberately by power structures like family, tradition and state in different ways but following the same principles (Sharia, U.S system, ANY law).
>Implying that justice and mercy are universal concepts that everyone can understand perfectly at all times, and can be applied perfectly regardless of circumstance
>Implying that they can be even the same for everyone under the same system
>Implying that victims can't be merciful.
>Implying implications of Agustinian morality.

Nope. That is clearly lawful evil (involuntary, narcicist, controller, neutral tendencies).

Wrong, punishment only increases the crime rate only when the punishment does not fit the crime and every effort is made to prevent the person from ever reintegrating back into society.

The primary purpose of punishment is to give people a good reason to not commit crimes to begin with. Without punishment you can choose to not commit crimes, sure, but it will put you at major disadvantage.

>punishment only increases the crime rate only when the punishment does not fit the
When does the punishment ever fit the crime? Laws are written so that "good people" can feel good about making sure that "filthy criminals" get fucked in the ass. Gods are even worse than humans about this shit.

The majority of criminals need social workers and guidance, not a cell. All the latter does is suck up money and not solve the problem. You don't get rid of rotten food by throwing it in the freezer.

It's an incredibly self-righteous lawful neutral.

What the majority of criminals need is a round of 7.62 and a ditch in Redding.

That man is the most literal of lawful good. He is and strait with his law while only doing good with good intentions.

OK, let me explain my point. Imagine a society in which everyone steals. You don't, so in the end, this makes you poor. Laws have to written so people who steal get punished so you don't necessary lose the race for abstaining from anti-social behaviour.

Sure, people who have no other way to live but crime need help, but that's another point.

Thats not different. Beating a child for no reason vs. beating him for reason, but not beating him more then needed as the punishment dealer. The fact that the victim demands more then is just almost calls for punishment on them with law being the abused Vitim.

I think your wrong. But I only am certain.

Technically all anti-stealing laws do is solidify the wealth in the hands of those who stole fastest, first, and most greedily.
Like the people after the plagues hit. They stole it fucking rich after all the law men died, and stayed that way for a long, long while.

A man steals from me my food. It is just that I get it back. But mercy let's him keep it so he can feed his family while mine starves.

It's literal lawful of the most lawful being lawful. How the fuck do you find even a little bit of chaotic in that?

"So I'm eating this ham sandwich with only ham and bread. I think babies and swords are in it cuz my lack of reason.

Define a meme? And now go to meme base? I'm one with you ya fucking rock.

That requires an entire additional system in addition to a punishment system to ensure you get your goods back.
Getting your things back is entirely unrelated to the level or strictness of punishment.

That's not exactly the point I made. Classes usually don't compete with each other outside troubled periods. Workers compete with workers, aristocrats with aristocrats and laws exist to give non-distruptive people the edge they otherwise would lack.

So taking the food he took and giving It to the Vitim isn't park of the punishment?

I dunno, I'd say one of the biggest reason for laws is to prevent the workers from competing with/tearing apart in the streets of aristocrats.
Especially laws about assemblage of groups and shit.

A man fucks your wife. The law says they both should get stoned to death. Logic says that won't fix anything and won't make it any less likely to occur in the future (at least with that specific wife and man). Instead you ask him to stay the night so you can watch, you fucking dumbass cuck.

not unless you want to have the cop themselves go do it, requiring extra cops due to product recovery taking time away from patrols.
Or you create a paralell-to-enforcement industry like social workers or something, effectively creating a net weight on society as a whole to ensure the proper goods get shipped to the proper people via the proper channels.
And then all the expensive corruption-checks that need to be in place to ensure such items are not stolen by the workers themselves would ensure nothing valuable or cash-like is returned. Hence why you don't ship any cash directly in the mail.

It's easy to say "people should get the shit back that was stolen", but entire industries spring up around the question of "but who has to get off their ass and make sure that happens?"

There are two kinds of laws really. Once is indeed imposing will of ruling class, but I wasn't talking about those. I was talking about crimes that benefit the criminal but cost everyone else, like theft or murder and gave my opinion on purpose of punishment.

Lawful good probably wouldn't have laws of the first kind.

...

I'm kind of a hardcore capitalist over here, and I sort of feel like people doing those crimes regardless of the steep consequences means there is a significant problem in the economic forces going on that are more important than whatever it was they stole, or the justice of the matter, and must be attended to.

>Lawful good probably wouldn't have laws of the first kind.
You don't get into a position with the power to write the laws if you're Lawful Good, at least not with all sorts of concessions and backroom deals with non-LG people. And at that point you're not really LG anymore.

If you don't think mercy is a good concept nor do you think it comparable with justice than what do you think?

You seem to be denying both justice and mercy, accepting one or the other is just fine but rejecting both labels you a monster and/or a sociopath.

Fixing society is all good but that doesn't mean you should dismantle the law.

You don't give people with cold immunodepressants because the real problem is them not putting on warm clothes.

Theft might as well be defined as "things that endanger rich peoples' status." Somehow it's not theft if your profiting from a world- and generation-spanning price fixing scheme to ensure that employees don't get paid even remotely close to the value that they add to the company, but it is theft if you make a copy of something for your own personal enjoyment, without profiting from it or claiming it as an original work.

after certain thresholds, more significant or taxing law enforcement is just a weight on society, and directly taking money from feeding starving orphans or whatever the optimal use for money seems like at the time.

See the US prison industry for boondoggles of law that are much more expensive to maintain and perform than the benefit they provide. So much money has been wasted keeping hippies in jail.
Which makes them EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE than they were out of jail!

While we banter, mercy and evil seep into the hearts of more victims!

Depends on how big an asshole your DM and/or the current crowd posting on Veeky Forums is.

Hey lawful good poeple, tell me what is just punishment for stealing a loaf of bread!?

No. That fucker is neutral at best.

Lawful Evil at it's finest.

Removal of the hands.

Return its full worth. (You stole a fresh loaf you return a fresh loaf) and a lot on the wrist and threat of community service if further crime continues.

All that at the average. But I can change from land to land city to city or county to country.

Whatever local law is established for the punishment of such a behaviour recieves precident. If the Paladin feels the law is excessive or unjust, they may intercede as they feel necessary. This is the perogative of being LITERALLY THE CHOSEN ARBITER OF JUSTICE AND PUNISHMENT BY GOD.

Lawful Neutral for me.

This goes right down the fucking toilet if the victim asks for mercy on the behalf of the guilty. Lawful Neutral at best, going downward rather than upward.

Could vary. Cutting off the hands would be much too severe punishment, particularly for a laborer without any servants; you'd basically be killing someone like a farmer, or a petty craftsman.

Some time on the stocks would do him some good. Caning or public lashing might do if they were unable to repay the baker financially. Indentured servitude to the baker might also work, though general community service under the watch of a guard might be more appropriate if the guilty party has a violent past. You could also cut off a finger. Maybe some time in a cell, if one is available? There are plenty of options that don't involve destroying a man (or woman).

A good example of Lawful Good at least in my eyes would be this.

Someone is running from ogres and needs to cross a bridge, you've been ordered to stop anyone from crossing the bridge.

I as a lawful good character, let the fleeing person pass placing them under the care of a companion until the circumstance can be verified, I then ask/kill said ogre.

After confirming the persons story, regardless if I decide to let them stay or not I will present myself before the justice. And await my punishment.

Thoughts?

That is completely beside the point made in OP's argument.
Asking for the guilty to suffer more than what would be just is very obviously unjust and thus not what OP's pic is talking about when it talks about justice.

Lawful (Evil)

Making people suffer at all might be just, but it is not good.
Justice is just what people feel is just or the law determines to be just.
Both are intrinsically disconnected from what is good in the grand scheme of things.
From the criminals standpoint what he did was most likely just, while from the victims standpoint punishing the criminal a lot would be just, while from societies standpoint, the optimal thing would be somewhere in between.
Who are you to decide whose opinion does not matter? Why would someone going against arbitrary laws forfeit the right to have their opinion matter?

Plus the really good people in history and legend were always very clear about not seeking retribution. Buddha, etc, and Jesus didn't even mind being killed.

Perfect good would have no place for retribution or punishment, because people could be instantly reformed. This is not possible in our world.
Perfect lawful would have no place for mercy, because every punishment would be perfectly matching the crime. This is not possible in our world.

This means that if someone has absolutely no place for mercy they are less good than the best possible lawfulness would be in our world.

Which would make them Lawful (Evil).
End of proof.

You know, the concept itself could be very noble, but I can't find a suitable example.

You forgot the effort expended in catching the bread thief.

>A man fucks your wife.
He deserves as much harm as he inflicted. He is now your wife.

Misread that as "What's the punishment for SELLING a loaf of bread"
Taxes.

>Justice is not good
>confusing Justice and justice.
>confusing Justice and retribution
>what is the social contract?

Have you considered that reabilitation and education can be goals for a sanction? Or do you think that no parent that punishes his child can be Good?

May I suggest a good read? It's available for free on the net.

That's Lawful stupid as fuck.

>it's "Veeky Forums bites the ancient bait" episode
I honestly expected most anons to call OP out on his shit.

No, it is only your vengeance driving you to want your food back once you are made aware that he is just trying to feed his family. It is up to you if you have mercy towards the man or not and allow him to keep your food. Justice need nothing to do it.

/thread

Objectivism is objectively terrible

LE is the best alignment.

/thread

>lack of moderation of either is unjust.

5 YEARS FOR WHAT YOU DID
THE REST BECAUSE YOU TRIED TO RUN
YES, 24601!

rehabilitation is not just.
it shows mercy instead of punishment.
if someone kills someone else the family of the victim could think that just 'rehabilitating' the killer is not justice.

so yes, justice is best characterized by "an eye for an eye"

Plus
a) social contracts are non existent. no contract can be valid where one of the signing parties has no choice to abandon it. so social contract theory is an inadequate description of the situation in the world
b) no matter what social contract you enter, if it deals with 'punishments' for crimes, it's more concerned with being lawful than being good.

In this situation Mr. A ensured a man fell off a building for being a criminal, which isn't legal, but Mr. A knows he knows better.

youtube.com/watch?v=e6jp_MKI_6w

On a more realist note it matters who you are stealing from and what the conditions are. If it is from a grocery stall in a market ( those guys were poor IRL) and it was during a food shortage that would be rather bad. That guy's family is likely living on unsold produce. By stealing under those conditions you are literally taken food out of the mouths of a poor yet productive ( at lest one of them have a job) family.

>rehabilitation shows mercy instead of punishment.

Read the book, please. It's really the foundation of modern criminology.
In legal terms, expiation is rehabilitation through punishment.

Also, Talion is a very imperfect form of compensation, so it's not the best characterization of Justice at all.

>a)
Exile

>b)
One could say it(s because a contract is inherently lawful. Because punishing Evil is usually considered an attribute of Good.
Please find me a single example of a group not dealing with infractions via punishment.