• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

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

Mindfire

Istar
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

Minstrel
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.
 

Chilari

Staff
Moderator
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

Maester
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

Staff
Article Team
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?
 
Last edited:
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

Istar
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Maester
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

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
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

Istar
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Troubadour
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

Auror
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

Istar
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

Auror
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

Istar
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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 :D
 
Top