I little over two months ago, I blogged about an encounter my D&D character, Hector, had had with a band of ruffians. Remember that Hector is a Paladin, committed to the virtues of justice and goodness. Remember also that, while these ruffians didn't attack anyone in Hector's presence, it was abundantly clear that that was just the sort of thing they might have done if they thought they could get away with it. To protect the innocents that these ruffians would attack later, Hector probably should have killed the ruffians, but since they didn't attack anyone while Hector was around, and I didn't think it'd be just for Hector to deal the first blow, he and the ruffians never fought, and the ruffians lived.
But now, almost by random chance, Hector has found himself back in the same town where he met the ruffians previously, and he has half a mind to seek them out. After all, if he made a mistake by not killing the ruffians, he should probably correct that mistake now, while he has the chance. But this forces the question again: Should Hector have killed the ruffians? And it adds another layer of complexity: Should Hector kill them now?
Clearly, some time has passed -- at least a week or two, in game. The ruffians must have been doing something during that time. If Hector learns that the ruffians have been attacking people, the ruffians will die. However, if it turns out that the ruffians haven't attacked anyone, perhaps Hector ought to leave them alone. After all, perceptions can be misleading. Hector's first impression of them, that they are violent thugs who are a blight on society, may have been wrong. Maybe they're not actually ruffians. They could simply be assertive people who persuade through intimidation. If they don't actually hurt anyone, not even the people who don't do what they say, perhaps Hector should let them be.
However, I feel like I'm jumping through hoops trying to defend the ruffians. It was clear two months ago that the ruffians are trouble. And, as a Paladin, Hector should probably "deal with" that trouble. Now, Hector has a second (or, technically, third) chance to deal with these ruffians, and I intend for him to do so because I think it's the right thing for him to do.
Still, I'm not sure it's just. The ruffians may "have it coming," so to speak, but justice doesn't work like that. As far as Hector knows, these guys haven't broken any laws or done anything wrong, and even if they had, Hector doesn't have any legal right to enforce any laws, let alone convicting and executing suspects without any solid evidence. I don't know how important "law" is in a kingdom ruled by an evil vampire, but it's certainly not just for Hector to kill people who, as far as he knows, haven't done anything wrong and aren't planning on doing anything wrong besides being insistent and intimidating and lingering suspiciously on the road in the middle of the woods. Hector can't justifiably kill them just for that, and, legally, he probably can't justifiably kill them at all.
So, I'm back in the same tough situation I was in two months ago. Should Hector kill the ruffians or not? On the one hand, they were clearly acting in a dangerous manner, and that didn't seem to be unusual for them, so they're probably habitual thugs and highwaymen. On the other hand, "probably" isn't good enough. Hector would need some kind of evidence, or at least a self-defence excuse, to justify taking action against the ruffians, and even in that case, that action probably shouldn't be killing.
The plan, at the moment, is to see what the ruffians haven been up to these last few weeks. As stated before, if it's found that these ruffians have been acting exactly the way Hector expected them to act, they're done for, but if they haven't been causing any problems recently, Hector will probably, for the third time, let these ruffians live.
2 comments:
I know this is a game and not a religious based game, but it seems to me that in the scriptures things rarely go well for the "good" guys when they do "preemptive" strikes. I haven't studied enough history to see if this holds true generally. We are justified in defending ourselves and others, but not in attacking unprovoked.
I live in a country where a person is legally presumed innocent until proven guilty. It would be wrong to kill or even jail someone because he looked like he might commit a crime. There are times when this is a tad inconvenient, but on balance it is the better way.
How clever is Hector? Is there no other way he can reduce the threat? Can the ruffians be persuaded to change? If not to improve their personal characters, then to protect themselves from potential punishment. Can he show them either the error or the danger of their ways? Or even turn them against themselves so that they self-destruct as a threat to others?
I say, No. Hector should not kill the ruffians now unless he knows that they are a danger to others that cannot be stopped another way.
This seems wise to me. I'll have Hector inquire after them, but I won't have him initiate violence unless he learns that they've been violent in the interim.
Post a Comment