# If the One Ring Don't Fit... (Should Villains Go to Trial?)



## Mindfire (Aug 28, 2012)

I think this question was brought up in another thread briefly. Suppose, just suppose, that after the day is won, the dark horde repelled, and the Great Abomination is returned to the void, that the villain of the piece- Dark Lord Whosits or Sorcerer What-his-name- is *not* killed in battle with the hero or as a result of his own dumb shortsightedness. What then? Should he be tried in a court of law? 

I for one don't see the point. Think about it. The point of a trial is to establish guilt or innocence and uphold the rule of law, etc. This guy has burned villages, razed castles, slaughtered innocents, unleashed unspeakable arcane horrors, murdered the protagonists's family so as to give him proper heroic motivation, and then cackled loudly about it from his dark castle's lowest rape dungeon to its highest Tower of Torture and Black Magic all while a dramatic thunderstorm rages in the background. In other words, his guilt is not in question. As for rule of law, the world is definitely better off minus one card carrying villain. The only possible purpose a trial could serve is as a victory lap. 

It would really be more humane to just off the guy then to rub his face in the fact that he lost. Also saves you money and saves an attorney from the embarrassment of having to defend him.


----------



## squishybug87 (Aug 28, 2012)

It depends on the laws of your society. I agree, but if you look at our world as an example, the court is often a formality. The Nuremberg trials after WW2  was established to try Nazi leaders. If Hitler was alive, he would have been tried there too, though there was no doubt about his guilt. 

A trial can also be used to mock the Dark Lord. Parade him in front of the people, let them hear the magnitude of his transgressions, which would make them even more justified in their hatred of him and his eventual execution. Depends on how your society is set up, there is bound to be a section of society that advocates for a trial on the basis of being civilized. 

Come to think of it, that would make for an interesting story.


----------



## Shockley (Aug 28, 2012)

Depends on one thing: Does their society presume that one is innocent or that one is guilty?


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 28, 2012)

Care to expound, Shockley?


----------



## Chilari (Aug 28, 2012)

I think in part it depends on the morality of the story - whether you're using black and white morality or grey moralities. Even if it is black and white morality, a trial might be used not necessarily to establish guilt, but to do things right, to be the better people, and to show to society that this is what happens, no matter who you are or what you've done, you get a trial - nobody gets executed without one, and nobody who has done wrong can escape justice regardless of who they are, who they know or how much they can pay.

For grey morality, you might need to establish whether what a character did was justified in the circumstances, whether the crimes they are accused of are fabrications by opponents, or whether a choice made with certain information which later turned out to be the wrong decision is an innocent mistake or the result of negligence.

My whole WIP is about justice. My main character seeks to reform the judicial system, and the imbalance in it is one of the reasons for the revolution/civil war. Thus, when the story concludes, in order to establish the new judicial system and the greater equality in law, the key players in the civil war (those that live anyway) must be put on trial to determine whether they acted illegally or immorally and to discover the contexts and motivations of those actions, and thereby fairly punish those who have done wrong, acquit those who have not, and demonstrate this important aspect of the new society they are building. So I'll be using a bit of "we're the good guys and we're going to do things right" and a bit of "we're not actually sure whether these people are guilty or not because it's a complicated situation".


----------



## Shockley (Aug 28, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Care to expound, Shockley?



 Innocent until proven guilty is a concept indicative of a very advanced criminal justice system, or at least one that was developed after certain ideas came into popularity.

 Compare that with certain legal systems in ancient times (or even extant legal systems in some surprising places, such as France) where it is on the accused to prove their innocence. 

 If the first is the accepted system, then I could see people getting squeamish about a hero just offing someone without a trial. If the latter is the accepted system, shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Penpilot (Aug 28, 2012)

Well, it does depend on the legal and moral system in the society. If the bad guy is insane, like legally insane, can they be guilty? In most modern societies there's not guilty by reason of insanity, or something to that effect. What if the bad guy makes the claim they were only following orders, that their dark god was manipulating them into doing those thing. Maybe they were mind controlled. Hmmm.... this is starting to get a little interesting. This might make an interesting story, the trial of the Evil Dark Overlord. It'd be an interesting mirror to or own times..... but any way, I digress. I guess it comes down to the society. Do they think everyone deserves a fair trial where evidence will be presented, even if said evidence is numerous and quite evident? Do they think the accused  has the right to face their accuser? If the evil person doing all these ill deeds is always in armor that obscures their face, how can anyone be sure it's a specific person?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 28, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I think this question was brought up in another thread briefly. Suppose, just suppose, that after the day is won, the dark horde repelled, and the Great Abomination is returned to the void, that the villain of the piece- Dark Lord Whosits or Sorcerer What-his-name- is *not* killed in battle with the hero or as a result of his own dumb shortsightedness. What then? Should he be tried in a court of law?
> 
> I for one don't see the point. Think about it. The point of a trial is to establish guilt or innocence and uphold the rule of law, etc. This guy has burned villages, razed castles, slaughtered innocents, unleashed unspeakable arcane horrors, murdered the protagonists's family so as to give him proper heroic motivation, and then cackled loudly about it from his dark castle's lowest rape dungeon to its highest Tower of Torture and Black Magic all while a dramatic thunderstorm rages in the background. *In other words, his guilt is not in question.*



Says you. But I was across the sea in Florin when this supposedly all happened. I didn't see it. All I have is your word that this guy had a "tower of torture" (oh, how convenient that it collapsed into a pile of rubble last week before I got here) and that he summoned arcane horrors and wiped out villages. And we've all known for years that you hate this guy. How do I know you're not just using this as an excuse to get rid of a political opponent? How do I know that _you_ didn't do any of these things, and are just blaming him for it?

Rule of law is absolute. You don't _ever_ get to lawfully declare outright "We all know this guy's bad news, so let's just execute him without an actual trial." (Not counting certain specific situations like battlefield justice.) Doesn't matter how bad you claim the guy has been; you still hold a trial or you're violating his rights.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 28, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Says you. But I was across the sea in Florin when this supposedly all happened. I didn't see it. All I have is your word that this guy had a "tower of torture" (oh, how convenient that it collapsed into a pile of rubble last week before I got here) and that he summoned arcane horrors and wiped out villages. And we've all known for years that you hate this guy. How do I know you're not just using this as an excuse to get rid of a political opponent? How do I know that you didn't do any of these things, and are just blaming him for it?
> 
> Rule of law is absolute. You don't ever get to lawfully declare outright "We all know this guy's bad news, so let's just execute him without an actual trial." (Not counting certain specific situations like battlefield justice.) Doesn't matter how bad you claim the guy has been; you still hold a trial or you're violating his rights.



Good sir, might I direct you to the thousands of widows and orphans, scorched villages, and heaps of demon corpses over there?  Or perhaps the spirit of my fallen mentor? Or the spirit of the dark warrior who used to work for the evil wizard but was redeemed by an act of selflessness? Or perhaps the famed Oracle of Flanda-Pamercorthinix that sent me on this quest in the first place?


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 28, 2012)

You either have a rule of law and a justice system based on those laws, or you have a form of mob justice. Having the trial isn't necessarily to ridicule the accused, or even to convince everyone he did it. It is there as an expression of a society's own values. If you say "Heck, we don't need a trial" in one case, then one about the next one, which is close but not quite as clear? 

There is a reason we give people trials even when their guilt is not at all in doubt. The society in your story doesn't have to do that, but if they don't you are saying one thing about the society and their view of justice. If they do have a trial you are saying something quite different.


----------



## Shockley (Aug 28, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Good sir, might I direct you to the thousands of widows and orphans, scorched villages, and heaps of demon corpses over there?  Or perhaps the spirit of my fallen mentor? Or the spirit of the dark warrior who used to work for the evil wizard but was redeemed by an act of selflessness? Or perhaps the famed Oracle of Flanda-Pamercorthinix that sent me on this quest in the first place?



 If that's the mentality you take, then I'd point you to a number of German officers, soldiers and even security guards who have been convicted in courts/prosecuted/persecuted and have legitimate movements to reduce or remove their sentences (mostly posthumously).


----------



## Devor (Aug 28, 2012)

In many countries he could be tried before he's caught, and in others the law comes through the authority of certain individuals who might be present.

Law doesn't always mean trial. But it means the same standards should apply - being dragged pitifully in chains before the king so he can sneer and declare death..


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 28, 2012)

Shockley said:


> If that's the mentality you take, then I'd point you to a number of German officers, soldiers and even security guards who have been convicted in courts/prosecuted/persecuted and have legitimate movements to reduce or remove their sentences (mostly posthumously).



My point was that in a fantasy setting, given the magnitude of the average Dark Lord's crimes, it's hard to imagine someone having any doubts that he actually did it. And even if they did, there'd be vast amounts of evidence literally all over the countryside. All they'd have to do is look around.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 28, 2012)

I don't know about the usefulness of 'evidence all over the countryside' in terms of establishing what the Dark Lord did.

I have Biff, the Dark Lord. He's accused to raising armies of Orcs and ravaging the known world, looking for some poor pig farmer's kid who was mentioned in a prophecy years ago.

Evidence - a destroyed village and a bunch of dead bodies in it.

OK. How do we know Biff had anything to so with that?

Evidence 2 - a trail leading to a bunch of dead Orcs that ransacked the village.

OK. So, how do we know Biff told the Orcs to do it, or even had control over them.

Evidence 3 - one Orc who was captured and not killed, and who says Biff made them do it.

What? You believe a lying Orc?

And so on.

True, in an epic fantasy setting there may be little doubt of what is going on, but pointing at a bunch of death and destruction in general doesn't prove anything with respect to who did it. You need witnesses or complementary evidence to support the idea that Biff made it happen.

But putting all that aside, I still think the trial is more about the good guys, and their standards, than whether anyone really thinks the Dark Lord might be innocent.


----------



## The Din (Aug 28, 2012)

I'd like to see the villain get off on a technicality; hero forgot his search warrant for the torture tower or something. Seems a stretch to bestow a medievil society with a 20th century justice system, let alone any real justice at all. 

From a reader's POV, no worthy villain deserves such a tedious end. Let him die in battle, or escape, just don't take away his power -and thus diminish the hero's accomplishments.


----------



## Ophiucha (Aug 28, 2012)

As somebody who is against the death penalty, I tend to think that even those who commit the worst atrocities should be locked up instead of killed. And in order to put someone in prison, one generally needs to hold a trial. Yes, it is a formality. If the villain raped women, murdered children, burned down churches and pillaged the farms and granaries and fisheries and banks, then yes, everybody knows they are getting locked up and they'll be throwing away the key. But frankly I think it is more of a mockery of the justice system to *forego* a legally granted trial than to go ahead with one in spite of knowing the outcome.

Besides, it's a world of _magic_. Maybe he was possessed by a demon or controlled by a witch behind the scenes. Without a trial, that sort of thing wouldn't come out.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 28, 2012)

Ophiucha said:


> As somebody who is against the death penalty, I tend to think that even those who commit the worst atrocities should be locked up instead of killed.



For the sake of playing devil's advocate, I'd like to point out that execution is also cheaper. Why should society spend money on such an obviously evil person? How many gold pieces is it going to cost to try the case? How many more gold pieces will it cost annually to feed this guy while he's locked up? (Unless you suggest he starve to death, in which case execution is far more merciful.) Plus, this is a Dark Lord we're talking about. He could escape. It costs nothing for the Chosen One to hack his head off. And it's far less risky.


----------



## Ophiucha (Aug 28, 2012)

A mass-murderer, serial rapist bent on destroying the world with a fiery fireball of flaming doom doesn't cost any more to keep alive than, say, a petty thief caught stealing a loaf of bread, yet under certain regimes of history, that thief could spend decades in prison if he ran from the law in the process, could die in the process, hence you'd be paying for him for the rest of his life just as you would the Dark Lord locked up till the end of his days. I would say that any fictional nation that bothers with prisons _at all_ (as opposed to a bit of eye-for-an-eye) can afford to keep one more. As for the risk of an escape, I think you'd just have to have the magical equivalent of a high security prison. Magical!EMP fields or something. I imagine you'd have to do that for other criminals of the non-lethal variety. Imagine one of those charming, rogue thieves who uses spells to pick locks. Great for robbing banks and for breaking out of prison, so they'd surely have to have something to keep him from breaking out. Could use the same thing on the Dark Lord.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 28, 2012)

Alright. At this point I guess it just becomes a matter of whether or not you believe in execution. But who on earth is going to want to share a prison with a Dark Lord? There _will_ be riots.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 28, 2012)

You can imprison a Dark Lord, but sooner or later someone writes a prophecy about him getting loose, and then it's just a matter of time until someone walks off a farm and fulfills it. To be safe, you have to imprison the Dark Lord AND make eradicate all farmers


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 28, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Alright. At this point I guess it just becomes a matter of whether or not you believe in execution. But who on earth is going to want to share a prison with a Dark Lord? There _will_ be riots.



I don't have a problem with execution in the face of a heinous enough crime, in theory. In the real world, I oppose capital punishment in practice because of bias and the risk of mistake.


----------



## Ophiucha (Aug 28, 2012)

We could put him in the highest room of the tallest tower. And make him wait for his prince to come. 

Kidding aside, yeah, you'd probably have to put him in a separate part of the prison, though on the other hand, medieval prisons weren't exactly known for their cafeterias and basketball courts like most modern prisons have. Still, I definitely wouldn't put up a fight for the top bunk if the Dark Lord was my cellmate.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 28, 2012)

I don't understand threads like this.  The question asked is: "If the dark lord was defeated but wasn't killed, will there be a trial??  (Paraphrased).

The answer is:* Depends on the world building of your universe.*  You decide if the people would execute or not.  You decide if their moral fabric allows for the civility of a trial or the brutal call for immediate blood.  

This does raise the age-old (actually,about 100 years) question of "Should you world build or write the story and let the world building evolve with your work."

Why?  Because as a reader I know when the author is feeding me his personal ideals disguised as slop, even if I *believe* in those ideals.  I hate it.  Take Terry "Democracy Now" Goodkind.  After the third book I thought I was reading a presidential campaign disguised as fantasy.  I don't want that.  I want a story.  Since when has stories been about the resolution of good over evil?  When has a story needed the _right_ decision made for it to feel complete?

People are fascinated by stories about Genghis Khan, but if we were to live around his time we would think him the devil incarnate (depends on which side of the fence you stand).  Are you going to tell me that his story is bad because the ideals and morals of his rise to power were not in line with our personal belief?

Another example:  Romance of the Three Kingdoms.  That 2,000 (guessing) year old story is all about loyalty, betrayal, jealousy, and death.  Yet it's one of the oldest stories that we can read.  Do your (using the term loosely) morals allow for jealousy?  How about betrayal?  Do you think the world at large would want that to happen to them (jealousy, death, betrayal, and all that bad stuff)?  Then why has it survived the ages?

Don't let personal beliefs dictate the story.  It's the same rule as "don't fit the plot to your character."  People will see right through it.

Now that I got that all written down, a disclaimer: "No rule is written in stone, unless you believe in the Ten Commandments." (Paraphrased


----------



## Zero Angel (Aug 29, 2012)

More interesting to me is the guilt of your "hero" characters after killing the possibly innocent orcs, lizardfolk not to mention the endangered creatures in the form of wyverns, dragons, dire bears or whatever.


----------



## Shockley (Aug 29, 2012)

> Another example: Romance of the Three Kingdoms. That 2,000 (guessing) year old story is all about loyalty, betrayal, jealousy, and death. Yet it's one of the oldest stories that we can read. Do your (using the term loosely) morals allow for jealousy? How about betrayal? Do you think the world at large would want that to happen to them (jealousy, death, betrayal, and all that bad stuff)? Then why has it survived the ages?



 This is one of my things. While the historical events happened about 1800 years ago, the story itself was written about 600 years ago. 

 That said, there has been some major values dissonance with the work. For instance, a good number of people seem to have drifted away from Liu Bei as the good guy - he bases his claim solely off of his bloodline, is vaguely incompetent, murders his own son and, oh yeah, commits cannibalism. Even with that said, the focus of the work is the importance of the state, order over chaos - the rule of law being the requirement for everything else.

 If China had the concept of presumed innocent, I'm certain they would have hauled Dong Zhuo in front of a court (instead of stabbing him in the neck with a halberd). Even without that concept, I can think of at least four characters being hauled in front of what is basically an appeals court, and one of them at least getting off.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 29, 2012)

Whether or not real world societies of these types had advanced theories of justice, your fantasy world can have them.


----------



## Jabrosky (Aug 29, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Don't let personal beliefs dictate the story.


I am not sure if I completely concur with this. If your story purposefully has a strong moral theme, your personal beliefs if anything _should _inform the story's development, because it is the message you want to get across in the first place.

As for the OP, my climaxes are often battles to the death, so the antagonist ends up dying anyway. I wouldn't have a problem with jailing a villain for life as their ultimate punishment for once, but that raises the question of why the people following their orders haven't received the same courtesy and end up dead instead.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Aug 29, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Says you. But I was across the sea in Florin when this supposedly all happened. I didn't see it. All I have is your word that this guy had a "tower of torture" (oh, how convenient that it collapsed into a pile of rubble last week before I got here) and that he summoned arcane horrors and wiped out villages. And we've all known for years that you hate this guy. How do I know you're not just using this as an excuse to get rid of a political opponent? How do I know that _you_ didn't do any of these things, and are just blaming him for it?
> 
> Rule of law is absolute. You don't _ever_ get to lawfully declare outright "We all know this guy's bad news, so let's just execute him without an actual trial." (Not counting certain specific situations like battlefield justice.) Doesn't matter how bad you claim the guy has been; you still hold a trial or you're violating his rights.



Heh, somehow this reminds me of Heinlein's Glory Road, where the multiversial empire's model of goverment was basically "rule by experience," their leader being an ongoing amalgamation of all their previous leaders. So, if there was a problem with the provinces, she would listen to everyone involved, then point at one of them and go: "Look, this will all sort itself out if you just take that guy outside and shoot him." And then they did exactly that, and the problem went away.

The protagonist was mildly horrified by this, but apparently everyone else had long since accepted that this approach usually worked out for the best.


----------



## ALB2012 (Aug 29, 2012)

You have to take into account that after dark lord whatsit died the chances are there will be civil war. Those people who supported him will not just go "oh well good whilst it lasted" and slope of back under a rock. Someone else will want to be in charge new King thingy is unlikely to have an easy time.

Who has this trial- who do the judges work for/ who are the jury if there is one?


----------



## Zero Angel (Aug 29, 2012)

Shockley said:


> This is one of my things. While the historical events happened about 1800 years ago, the story itself was written about 600 years ago.
> 
> That said, there has been some major values dissonance with the work. For instance, a good number of people seem to have drifted away from Liu Bei as the good guy - he bases his claim solely off of his bloodline, is vaguely incompetent, murders his own son and, oh yeah, commits cannibalism. Even with that said, the focus of the work is the importance of the state, order over chaos - the rule of law being the requirement for everything else.
> 
> If China had the concept of presumed innocent, I'm certain they would have hauled Dong Zhuo in front of a court (instead of stabbing him in the neck with a halberd). Even without that concept, I can think of at least four characters being hauled in front of what is basically an appeals court, and one of them at least getting off.



Cao Cao all the way!

Didn't know about the cannibalism though, and nice catch with the timing. I knew it was a book about the historical events so I assumed it wasn't 1800-1700 years ago like the events themselves. Of course, most of what I know about the whole thing comes from the video games -_-


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 29, 2012)

ALB2012 said:


> You have to take into account that after dark lord whatsit died the chances are there will be civil war. Those people who supported him will not just go "oh well good whilst it lasted" and slope of back under a rock. Someone else will want to be in charge new King thingy is unlikely to have an easy time.



Well, usually dark lords have some sort of supernatural power that lets them rule. Nobody really supports them (except a few minions); they rule because they're effectively invincible, and some people would rather be on the dark lord's side. But if the dark lord goes away, those people no longer have a super-powerful sugar daddy on their side, and they become vulnerable to ordinary justice.

When dark lords have _real_ support, it's because they've got realistic power—that is, the power to convince other people to follow them. Guys like Hitler, for example.


----------



## Shockley (Aug 30, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> Cao Cao all the way!
> 
> Didn't know about the cannibalism though, and nice catch with the timing. I knew it was a book about the historical events so I assumed it wasn't 1800-1700 years ago like the events themselves. Of course, most of what I know about the whole thing comes from the video games -_-



 I'm a Sun Clan loyalist, personally. Far more meritocratic than any other faction, and they cast the longest shadow on the social, cultural and economic development of China. 

 As for the cannibalism, Liu Bei is running through the woods and comes across a farmer. The farmer recognizes him as the Imperial Uncle and that he's in danger, so he takes him into his home. Not having any food, the farmer kills his own wife and serves her to Liu Bei. He then tells him what he's done. Instead of taking the usual route (freaking the eff out), Liu Bei rewards him with gold and thanks him for the meat.

 Odd duck, that one.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 30, 2012)

The trial is the golden opportunity to debate morals in open dialogue. It can either give clarity and affirmation, or open provoking questions, about the righteousness of the hero and the good side.


----------



## Zero Angel (Aug 30, 2012)

Shockley said:


> I'm a Sun Clan loyalist, personally. Far more meritocratic than any other faction, and they cast the longest shadow on the social, cultural and economic development of China.
> 
> As for the cannibalism, Liu Bei is running through the woods and comes across a farmer. The farmer recognizes him as the Imperial Uncle and that he's in danger, so he takes him into his home. Not having any food, the farmer kills his own wife and serves her to Liu Bei. He then tells him what he's done. Instead of taking the usual route (freaking the eff out), Liu Bei rewards him with gold and thanks him for the meat.



Well could you imagine how rude it would have been to refuse? "I just killed my wife for this a--hole and he said he was too good to eat her? Last time I have him over for dinner!"


----------

