A legal system has no bearing on what we're talking about. I've found this a lot in the modern discourse, people conflating laws with justice with morality. Laws are not morality. In the liberal tradition they're designed not to infringe on your personal freedom, while safeguarding that of others. Trial by jury is a response to trial by fiat or elite, so as to establish that the basis of law is unbiased "Justice is blind". This has no bearing on whether the law in question is good, it is to make it unbiased. Go back and the basis of law, comes from religious doctrine, and local tradition, this meant the people who judged you were ordained by a higher power, for who else can pass judgement. This also doesn't mean the law is good, it just means that the in a just society the ordained are just, so justice is done.
Originally Posted by Ieldra2
Laws that BG3 does not implement for good reason. They never made any sense. Even in a fantasy setting, you can't just beam morality into something or someone without it ceasing to be morality. You can say the alignment system is about ideology, and that would make sense, but then it's not about morality and it makes no sense using the terms "good" and "evil".
I'm not hearing you refute my point. You might not like it, but that's how good and evil work in D&D. Fantasy is about externalizing metaphysical concepts (like good and evil), if you have trouble with that, then you might want to switch to Science-Fiction.
The idea that your morality only comes from the consequences of your actions is an ancient tradition. But it's certainly not popular today, and it's not really part of D&D.
Warlocke! You went to law school, maybe you can help us.
