Three men stand before the three gods of Law, Justice and Order.
One is a great Emperor, in life a Tyrant, who says out of the barbarous tribes and savage wastes he forged an Empire. His laws were draconic and harsh, but before him was an age of savage lawlessness, of murder and violence, and his rule was one of peace and prosperity. Out of an era of and war, he made order and law.
One is a great bandit, a thief, who flaunted the laws of the Emperor, for they were all cruel. He stole from the rich, to give to the poor, and fought against the corrupt and the tyrants. Every law the Emperor made, he has broken, including the murder of the corrupt, for he fought for the weak against the strong.
The last is a great barbarian, a warlord who died in the Emperors wars, who took what he could take with his hands, and fought for what he desired to be his. He claims to have upheld the natural order, that of strength. Does nature itself attest that? The worm eats the flower, swift fish eat the worm, the bear aet the fish, and man hunts the bear? The Emperor's laws are a perversion, made to let the weak and feeble rule the strong. He fought for the strong against the tyranny of the weak. The thief he claims, is a fool, for in helping the weak they do not learn to be strong themselves.
Each god can cast one vote, and 2/3rds majority will see their souls justified or condemned. What is the most likely fate of the three men?
Excelent thread.
The God of Justice turns its back on the Emperor for he had no mercy for the unfortunate. His justice was fair only insofar as you were under his law, otherwise, your fate was doomed. However, to his luck, Law and Order favored him for his resolve of steel and overwhelming sense of duty. His soul was saved.
The bandit had his soul saved despite not having the God of Law's approval. It was determined by Justice and Order that his deeds, as lowly as they were, sought to ameliorate life conditions for those whom had not the favor of the law. Despite his unlawful methods, he fought for the order of balance and justice of the dishonored. In his resolve, the thief and the Emperor had more in common than meets the eye. His soul was saved.
The warlord, emperor of the other side of the coin, had his sould condemned. The God of Order stood up for him, if only out of pity, but it had no argument that could convince the other two. This is not a cosmic judgement of his way of life: his destiny, unfortunately, simply was in the hands of gods antagonistic to his philosophy. That's all there is to it.
>The God of Justice turns its back on the Emperor for he had no mercy for the unfortunate.
Mercy is the opposite of justice.
Jesus disagrees
No he doesn't.
it's more complicated than that. God's Mercy is infinite and undeserved, but His justice is perfect. So God judges each person's soul perfectly but always provides "a way out" for even the most wretched sinner.
Considering the current state of Christianity, Jesus' teachings have objectively been proven wrong.
Current Christianity doesn't follow actual Jesus' teachings.
It's long been subverted by Satan.
Jesus was preaching a militant good.
Gold is for the mistress - silver for the maid" -
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade! "
" Good! " said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
But Iron - Cold Iron - is master of them all."
So he made rebellion 'gainst the King his liege,
Camped before his citadel and summoned it to siege.
" Nay! " said the cannoneer on the castle wall,
" But Iron - Cold Iron - shall be master of you all! "
Woe for the Baron and his knights so strong,
When the cruel cannon-balls laid 'em all along;
He was taken prisoner, he was cast in thrall,
And Iron - Cold Iron - was master of it all.
Yet his King spake kindly (ah, how kind a Lord!)
" What if I release thee now and give thee back thy sword? "
" Nay! " said the Baron, " mock not at my fall,
For Iron - Cold Iron - is master of men all."
" Tears are for the craven, prayers are for the clown
Halters for the silly neck that cannot keep a crown."
" As my loss is grievous, So my hope is small,
For Iron - Cold Iron - must be master of men all! "
Yet his King made answer (few such Kings there be!) "
Here is Bread and here is Wine - sit and sup with me.
Eat and drink in Mary's Name, the whiles I do recall
How Iron - Cold Iron - can be master of men all."
He took the Wine and blessed it. He blessed and brake the Bread
With His own Hands He served Them, and presently He said:
" See! These Hands they pierced with nails, outside My city wall,
Show Iron - Cold Iron - to be master of men all. "
" Wounds are for the desperate, blows are for the strong.
Balm and oil for weary hearts all cut and bruised with wrong.
I forgive thy treason - I redeem thy fall
For Iron Cold Iron - must be master of men all! "
'Crowns are for the valiant - sceptres for the bold!
Thrones and Powers for mighty men who dare to take and hold!'
" Nay! " said the Baron, kneeling in his hall,
" But Iron - Cold Iron - is master of men all!
Iron out of Calvary is master of men all! "
Justice is blind, not heartless
Retarded edgelord take. One can show mercy to the innocent, or take in account the circumstances of both victim and criminal. A man stealing out of greed should be punished differently than a poor man stealing expensive medicine to save his sick child. Justice cannot exist without mercy.
I fucking hate this pic
The reason of existance for justice is to rectify what was lost
Not punish
YOU STUPID FUCKING moron
STOP POSTING THIS SHIT
This assumes that the victim's suffering is inversely proportional to the guilty party's sentence, irrespective of the nature of the crime. This can only be the case if the victim derives pleasure from the suffering of those who wrong him. That's sadism, and sadism is always evil.
At first I thought the Emperor, Bandit and Warlord were the three gods and you were asking whether it was possible for anyone to be justified under judges so clearly at odds with one another. Thanks for giving me that idea, I'm definitely using it in a future setting. I'll answer the actual thread question in another post because it's taking forever to find the exact words
To put it simply, the God of Law would value consistency and honesty above all else.
If we assume no human in this scenario has divine right of rule, it would follow that the Emperor's laws are not considered absolute by the God of Law. Therefore the Bandit and Warlord are not automatically condemned just for breaking them so long as they did not live lawlessly. What matters is that one strictly abides to whatever moral compass he truly believes is best fit for a society, then works to spread these legal principles to his neighbours - by force if necessary - if they are not already in line with the status quo. A good subject will see to it that the law he prescribes to is imposed upon himself and others. It may not be changed to suit his own convenience.
From what we know of the three men, the Bandit would most likely be saved by Law as he abided by his values with both honesty - stealing for the poor rather than his own benefit - and consistency - systematically breaking every law he perceived to be false. If he only had the power of the Emperor, he would likely have been a fair and principled ruler.
Speaking of the Emperor, he would also likely be favoured by Law as he introduced laws and structure to an otherwise lawless land. The only sticking point is his Honesty - we don't know his motivations for ruling as cruelly as he did. If his laws were cruel by necessity in order to strengthen his empire against external and internal threats, he would definitely be voted favourably by the Law God. If he instead legislated insincerely in order to suit his own greed or ambition then his fate would be called into question.
Finally the Warlord would most likely be condemned as he acted purely according to his personal desire. Even if his claim of following the "natural order" is honest, it is hardly consistent. He only imposed his will upon others without any care for whether people adopted his values or even survived his attacks.
Next up is Justice, which pertains to the dealing appropriate punishments to sinners and recompensating the victims for their losses. Bear in mind that there is a difference between vengeance and justice: the guilty should be punished with the express purpose of preventing further unjust acts, whereas making the guilty suffer for the satisfaction's sake alone is definitively an act of revenge. Punishments should therefore be consistent and obviously a subject of the Justice God cannot go around committing unjust acts themselves.
The Bandit is again the most likely man to be saved by the Justice God as he made a point of stealing from those he deemed unjust and recompensated the victims of injustice. Murdering people for the perceived crime of corruption and wealth and systematically breaking each of the Emperor's laws may lead him to be judged as more vengeful than just, but one can argue that such extremes are necessary when the injustice you are fighting is the empire itself.
The Emperor and Warlord however are more likely to be condemned. Though the Emperor's harsh laws may have been borne out of necessity as stated earlier, in order to be considered just he must have been willing to accept appropriate consequences upon himself for the mass suffering he caused. Therefore I think it would come down to how he presents himself to the Gods - he'll be condemned by Justice if he pleads for salvation, but if he admits to guilt and accepts damnation then he may instead be justified. The Warlord cared nothing for the suffering he caused and desired no punishment in return, so his damnation is the most straighforward.
Finally the God of Order cares about how the men would organise the world around them.
The Emperor would clearly be saved as his cities promote an organised hierarchy via wealth, location and vocation. The improved life expectancy of his subjects compared to the wildlands also contributes to this. The Bandit is condemned because he disrupted this very same order.
The Warlord is an interesting case as he also subscribes to a strength-based hierarchy, however his vision necessarily leads to a chaotic world where the balance of power shifts in unpredictable ways, as strength itself cannot be measured by mortals like wealth can.
So the Emperor and Bandit are both saved with 2/3 votes and the Warlord is condemned by all three Gods.
This is the dumbest fucking post I've ever seen. Mercy has nothing to do with Justice unless the just thing would be to be merciful.
>justice is when you genocide all outsiders and only then start taking "justice" seriously
No mention of genocide, and if you're fighting against barbarians who commit atrocity on the regular as is mentioned in the OP you're not doing anything unjust. Also yes, if you have no other option, commit a morally questionable act in pursuit of a greater goal, and then succeed at it as is mentioned with his rule of peace and prosperity, your actions cannot be unjustified.
>commit a morally questionable act in pursuit of a greater goal
>fuck over some people to favor others
This is not justice.
It is by definition, otherwise the moral wrong of commiting a violent act against a criminal would make almost every form of human or inhuman examples of justice impossible. We don't live in a universe where it's possible to flawlessly achieve every goal with morally unquestionable acts, and where you're more likely to cause more atrocities in that effort. Grow up.
>Grow up.
I accept your concession.
>No argument
Must be pathetic having to act like a gay 24/7 for attention.
I'm not that anon, stop falling for obvious bait.
>Grow up
Seriously? Talking like that when it's a make-believe game and there is no such thing as objective, metaphysical justice?
Whether or not it's bait is irrelevant, that's why I said what I did, anon is acting like a fucking gay 24/7 for attention, even if I post at him what the fuck does he gain except more reasons to kill himself in a few years? And if you say something stupid and childish, even in the context of a discussion about Barney you'd deserve to have that said to you.
Stop whining about the gay opinion you probably share being called out for what it is.
>Barneyfag is still alive
Nevermind, I'm talking to a schizo. Should've known better.
>He’s never heard of Buddhism.
Anon, one of the most respected philosophers and religious leaders in creation says exactly this, that violence against the wicked is still in and of itself wrong. Grow up, touch grass, and learn about different perspectives.
the emperor kills the god of law and replaces him on the throne
the thief kills the god of justice and replaces him on the throqne
the barbarian kills the god of order and replaces him on the throne.
the conflicts they held during mortal life spill into their immortal ones effectively corrupting the three spheres to petty squabbles between each other.
this is when the other spheres find advantage and end up corrupting the mortal world.
generally causing a bunch of choas.
there is a concerted effort by the oppressed mortals and spheres to awaken the god of truth but he dreams of his children , an emperor, a thief and a barbarian.
>the emperor kills the god of law and replaces him on the throne
>the thief kills the god of justice and replaces him on the throqne
>the barbarian kills the god of order and replaces him on the throne.
How?
Sounds like a campaign hook.
neither of them particularly enjoy being judged, and if they find themselves in the presence of three gods their power must be formudable.
perhaps they dont and fail miserably.
but they all would prefer to get one over on the established cosmology and exploit it in some way.
Why are the gods of law, justice, and order in charge of a world so clearly Lawless, Unjust, and Disorderly that a mortal emperor had to Impose the rule of law over the world?
These fuckers need to be fire for their Shear, Unbridled Incompetence.
Emperor is justified, other two are condemned. The bandit is lying: criminals don't steal from the rich to give to the poor, they extort the poor with threats of violence and claim they're protecting them.
And what, an emperor isn't lying about 'bringing law to a lawless land'? Half the time these sorts are just looking for casus belli to expand their empire.
>Emperor is justified
"What do you mean by seizing the whole earth; because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor"
You can't answer the question by rejecting the provided premise you cock sniffer
The emperor is saved by law and order. Justice would even be at most up for debate as well. If the gods only care about that single virtue than this man would be a saint for all three.
The bandit would be condemned by all but justice for being good is not a virtue of of law and order.
The barbarian would not be saved by any and all three would condemn him
All acquitted.
>One is a great Emperor, in life a Tyrant, who says out of the barbarous tribes and savage wastes he forged an Empire. His laws were draconic and harsh, but before him was an age of savage lawlessness, of murder and violence, and his rule was one of peace and prosperity. Out of an era of and war, he made order and law.
Creates law and order from which springs justice. Justified.
>One is a great bandit, a thief, who flaunted the laws of the Emperor, for they were all cruel. He stole from the rich, to give to the poor, and fought against the corrupt and the tyrants. Every law the Emperor made, he has broken, including the murder of the corrupt, for he fought for the weak against the strong.
Breaks law and causes disorder, leading to injustice. Condemned.
>The last is a great barbarian, a warlord who died in the Emperors wars, who took what he could take with his hands, and fought for what he desired to be his. He claims to have upheld the natural order, that of strength. Does nature itself attest that? The worm eats the flower, swift fish eat the worm, the bear aet the fish, and man hunts the bear? The Emperor's laws are a perversion, made to let the weak and feeble rule the strong. He fought for the strong against the tyranny of the weak. The thief he claims, is a fool, for in helping the weak they do not learn to be strong themselves.
Nature is Chaos, attempts to appeal to God of Order fail. Stupid argument as he didn't even attempt to appeal to the other two. Condemned.
>Stupid argument as he didn't even attempt to appeal to the other two.
In theory, he appealed to the laws and order of nature: that of the stronger, the fitter, nature does not discriminate
>Creates law and order from which springs justice. Justified.
Law and Order do not create justice. In fact, tyranny creates injustice, with unjust laws and unjust punishments put upon those who would rise up against that tyranny.
>Breaks law and causes disorder, leading to injustice. Condemned.
They fight unjust law for the greater good and true justice. Those who do evil are brought to heel by his blade, and those who need help are given aid by his hand.
>Nature is Chaos, attempts to appeal to God of Order fail. Stupid argument as he didn't even attempt to appeal to the other two. Condemned.
Nature is actually quite structured. There is an order to things, predator and prey, and that is why it is unjust.
Bhaal is a fool if he thinks he has power over Myrkul. Even if every murder in the world stopped, people are still going to die of age and disease.
Bhaal became god of death, not god of murder
You wot. Myrkul is the god of death and the dead, Bhaal is explicitly called the "lord of murder"
No
Bhaal is gid of death
Myrkul is god of the dead
Says right there
Huh, so it does. Why did WOTC change it to make Bhaal focused on murder instead of death in general?
PC viewpoint?
Murder is an aspect of Bhaal that a 'regular' player class like assassin might worship.
Death by old age or accident would be counterproductive, though interesting, aspect of Bhaal for an adventurer to worship.
Disease is also it's own thing and not always terminal and I assume has it's own god.
>Death by old age
It actually would make Bhaal a superior god for Necromancers who decay their targets with necromantic magic to death than Mrykul.
Fuck all three for not giving proper sacrifice while alive. Gods are dicks.
The Emperor stands proud as the god of law nods along to his speech, satisfied that the god of justice could not overrule the other two. To his dismay however, the god of order does not vote in his favor. He stampers and tries to argue with the decision, but is silenced. The god of order commands him to see his empire for what it really is. What order is there for a normal person under a tyrant? Their life is at the whim of his policy, each day they do not know if they will be drafted or assaulted by the king's enforcers. Such a nation is disgusting to the god of order, more so than the barbarians that came before and knew what they fought for.
The thief, upon seeing the god of order's judgment, was hopeful, however he too was condemned. Law was disappointed in him for not trying help other from within the system, while Justice saw how his actions brought hope to the downtrodden. Order however saw that the thief's intervention were random and impulsive. Because the thief followed no code and had no loyalties, both the poor and the corrupt were subject to his whims of who deserved stolen goods, and who's crimes were worth retribution.
The three gods listened to the barbarian. None of them saw him favourably. All three detested the rule of nature, and the beasts that did not know of the Law to tell if one should or should not be punished, or of Justice to give unto one what they deserve, or of Order to create for eachother stability. This warlord sought for man to become like the beasts, and so the gods decided to slaughter him as one.
>What order is there for a normal person under a tyrant? Their life is at the whim of his policy
Around two or three magnitude more Order than being at the whim of bandits and barbarians, I would say.
Your god of Order is a retard if only a 10/10 count as a passing grade.
Dear oh dear. There’s a lot of pretentious bullies in this thread. You’re all making this more complicated than it needs to be. The solutions are as follows:
>The Emperor
Condemn immediately. His actions are deplorable and his justifications hold no water under scrutiny. Yes, anarchy is a brutal state of affairs, but it is also a blank slate. Neither good nor evil. And either can arise from it. The emperor could have raised a good society almost as easily as an evil one. But he consciously chose evil, whether this was out of fear or sloth is irrelevant. To hell with him!
>The Bandit
Justify this man. Yes he broke every law conceivable. And he blatantly flouted lathe laws of his city. But those laws were fundamentally wicked, cruel, and merciless by design. There was no bettering things from within the system. Because it was all functioning as intended. But the bandit fought against this tyranny to the very last. His methods were less than ideal, but that ought to be expected considering the emperor’s corrupting presence.
>The Warlord
No condemnation or justification. He is neither good or evil, he is simply a beast. Thus we shall not judge him, yet. Instead, banish him back to earth. Drive him forever from the city, and from all cities. Curse him so that he may never set foot among his fellow civilized men. He shall not die, but he will age. He will watch as decades pass. Watch his precious strength shrivel away. Watch his loot be stolen by younger mirrors of her former glory. Watch his constitution weaken too much to enjoy the sweetness of wine; only water and bread for him. And let him watch as all the world’s beautiful women turn up their noses at him, piteous and repulsed by his ancient and shriveled body. Let him suffer all this. And then deny him the release of death, until he finally chooses to be a man.
This wasn't about a good/evil dichotomy, you retard.
And I say it is. Without any sense of good or evil. We just have blind midwits regurgitating faux-dramatic exposition. That oversight was OP’s fault.
> Anarchy is worse than tyranny
You’ve been swallowing the emperor’s propaganda. He teaches you to fear his absence so that you grow dependent on him. You’re better than this.
>The bandit broke good laws
So what if he disrupted order and peace? When did quietude and walking in lines become glorified over the good? The emperor’s order and peace were built on fear and suffering. Would you have rathered the poor and downtrodden all stay quiet? Why? Do you just not like their noise? Would you honestly believe that a whipped slave was not suffering if his master slashed out his tongue? Just so that he could not verbalize his agony?
All things the bandit did WERE judged. I said his actions were less than ideal. On balance the scales tipped in his favor. I’m sorry that you don’t like my ruling.
>The Warlord
Good. I’m happy we can agree on something at least.
>You’ve been swallowing the emperor’s propaganda.
And you the thief and the barbarian's.
>Anarchy is a blank slate
In anarchy, there is no law, no order, no peace. A feral state of being, where only the wretched rule, as wretchedness is what is needed to survive in such a state. Cruel laws are a mercy.
The bandit broke every law, including the good. How many good men fell before him, on his just quest? Did he not disrupt order and peace? All things must be judged, not merely the broader ideal of their action.
The warlord I partially agree.
This poster has the best answer. 10/10, I find no flaws.
>In anarchy, there is no law, no order, no peace.
The opposite is far worse, because peace is only an illusion. Stomp down on the backs of those beneath you long enough, force them to follow your tyrannical and unjust laws, and the pressure will explode. Law and order taken to their logical extremes without a concern for liberty or freedom only leads to chaos and violence. A dangerous freedom is a million times the superior of a safe state of tyranny.
>The bandit broke every law, including the good.
If he broke the laws, then they were not good, as his actions were surely just.
>How many good men fell before him, on his just quest?
None, as described. He only punished those who deserved it, whose actions were evil and vile. He rejected tyranny and fought for the liberty and freedom of others, a true hero of justice.
>All things must be judged, not merely the broader ideal of their action.
He brought about a greater good than either of the others through his actions, the good of crushing tyrants.
>Yes, anarchy is a brutal state of affairs, but it is also a blank slate. Neither good nor evil.
bro, please show me a single country that devolved into Anarchy without it being a fiesta of evil and atrocities.
If the god of Justice was truly just, he would not agree to condemn a good man (the bandit) just because the others (a vile emperor who would steal the freedom of others and inflict cruel and unjust punishment upon any who dared break his laws and shatter his "peace", which is nothing more than tyranny) deserve the deepest pits of hell for their vile, unjust behavior.
At the same time, he would condemn those two as individuals, because he would know that to judge someone not by their own deeds and by the deeds of others is the opposite of justice.
Law and Order would see the inverse, seeing the bandit as opposing their tyrannical wills but they would basically get down and suck the cocks of the tyrant and the warlord for their vile behavior because tyrants love tyrants and authoritarianism is for fags.
If they're all casting a vote, and only one can be justified, then the Tyrant will be justified and the others condemned - the warlord rightfully so, and the bandit unjustly.
And thus the great war of heaven would begin, with Justice striking out against the other two for their unjust methods of judgement, and in the end he would prevail, because justice always prevails over evil. Then, each man going forward would be judged according to his deeds in the eyes of the ultimate being of justice.
The real answer is the Emperor. Law and Order would save him, Justice wouldn't care for him. The bandit would be despised by law and Order but voted for by Justice, the barbarian is an idiotic animal who chooses to remain ignorant of human morality and civilization which is our greatest strength, all three Gods would condemn him without even hearing his testimony.
Also I forgot to add that since he broke every law by default the Bandit is also a rapist and a murderer of children, it's entirely likely he'd be condemned by all three as well.
Depends on the statute and the quality of their defense counsel.
You've told us a lot about the men, but nothing about the gods.
What code does the god of Law give to his followers?
What is "just" to the god of Justice?
Does the god of order stand for peace and balance, the natural order of things where the strong prey upon the weak, or does he stand between our own "ordered" universe and the chaos outside it?
Without knowing the judges and their code I can't say whether they'll be condemned or saved.
He won't because the point of the question is to see what people's individual definitions of justice order and law are since they'll inevitably fall back on their own definitions instead of a universal one.
Well that's utterly inane.
Of course it is, this is Ganker. It's better for all of us if we stay on inane nonsense. Have you seen the tomfoolery we get up to when we decide to be serious for a moment?
Just make everyone the same and remove any chaotic elements, then we'll have perfect law, order and justice.
Such useless waste to have variations in the equation.
They all wind up in good standing.
>Emperor is supported by Law and Order but condemned by Justice
>Thief is supported by Justice and Order but condemned by Law
>Barbarian is supported by Justice and Law but condemned by Order
Technically, the Barbarian can be said to have upheld the Law, Order and Justice of his tribal ways.
If I'm reading this correct than there is a god of law, a god of justice, and a god of order.
Emperor is condemned by a 2/3rds vote from the god of justice and the god of order. The emperor created laws but did not create order as there those that violated the law (the bandit and the barbarian)
The bandit is condemned by a 2/3rds vote by the god of law and the god of order. The bandit violated law and created disorder.
The barbarian is condemned by a 2/3rds vote by the god of law and the god of justice. The barbarian followed the order of nature.
All three mortals only adhered to one of the three aspects and therefore none were saved.
>The emperor created laws but not order because some people rebelled against it, somehow this means the god of law condemns him.
Idiot.
Trick question, the Emperor is the god of law, the Thief is the god of Justice, and the Barbarian is the god of Order; and they are judging me shortly after my death.
Frosted buttz
>Law and Order - Pass
>Justice and Order - Pass
>Order only - Fail
The god of Death walks in on the three gods moralizing and tells them to bigger off, this is his domain.
He approaches the three and tells them they have each spent their lives as they saw fit, words will not alter what has occured and it will be up to future generations to look upon their legacy for their time on the mortal realm has ended. He then leads them into to the next life.
What's the bandit's take on the barbarian?
emperor is lawful evil, bandit is chaotic good and barbarian is chaotic evil. every other argument is meaningless.