I really, really like black-and-white morality in my fiction. Unfortunately, that makes for unrealistic (and often dull) stories.
A reasonable current events example is Iran. One of the problems with decapitation is that when you kill those responsible, who’s left to make decisions? Iran as a state cannot surrender because there is no one who can make the decision and have it stick. Individual soldiers cannot surrender because there is no one to surrender to, just death from the sky (be it drone or bomb).
Does that mean the war should pause while we let them sort things out? I don’t think so, although this constant “let’s negotiate” followed by “you lied; more bombs” is sort of a pause. It’s at least a tempo decrease.
Any group being “attacked” has the same issues. Law enforcement routinely lets small fry off lightly, or semi-turns them as informants, in order to attempt to catch the big fish.
Removing homeless encampments is similar – but worse because there is no “leadership”. It’s easy to say they are horrible blights that need to be removed, but what do you do with the people? Especially the ones who are, for lack of a better description, hopeless?
Since my story is taking place mostly in the middle of nowhere, removing homeless encampments is not an issue. Managing free loaders, which is the same problem, is, though. My current thought on the escalation path is: Warning, Exile, Bob-fodder.
There are no monster waves in book one. I suppose I could throw one in at the end as a harbinger of what will come. The point here is that there is no reason for a walled town, yet. That means “exile” is bit squishy. It’s hard to exile someone from an unwalled town because they can just walk right back in. Of course, getting caught and fed to the dungeon is a deterrent.
The current plan is that Lord Banner doesn’t care at all about free loaders. If people want to support the idle among them, it’s fine with him. However, there is no institutional support for it in his demesne. If another organization (e.g. a church) wants to take on the burden, he will not object.
Humans being humans means there will be crime. I’m not sure anything other than murder needs state judgement. If the victim is still around, the victim can decide the punishment. If someone really hates the perpetrator, pick-pocketing could become a death sentence if the victim insists the thief be fed to Bob. I’m not sure that’s “fair”, but it has the advantage of simplicity – and if people think it’s excessive, social opprobrium will need to suffice. It even makes a good subplot (or three) to watch that play out.
I’m seeing trials as mostly pro forma. Throw everyone involved under a truth spell and be done with it. It’s the sentencing that’s troublesome. Keeping prisoners is expensive. Who pays for it?
For the first (on screen) human-on-human battle, I went with black-and-white. There are going to need to be some battles with the US Army (or a fragment of it) that are going to be much more ambiguous (and I rather hope some readers think I – and by extension our intrepid heroes – made the wrong choice). I’m hoping to delay that until book three, but the “those poor soldiers who are just following orders” moment is probably in book two.
I’m going as libertarian as possible, but the philosophy has practical limits. Individual liberty is a fine starting point, but it’s not an end. Group problems are a real thing and need group solutions. I’m willing to throw in a bit of utilitarianism, but that very quickly leads to very dark places.
The April series did a good job bringing duels back. That might be appropriate when there isn’t a settled body of law. I am considering it, but the “might makes right” problem is hard. On the one paw, having every sentence result in a duel with the victim over its severity drops us right into “might makes right”. On another paw, as soon as there is interference in what can be dueled about, a slippery slope has been stepped upon. There should be two more. Humans are Manichean because we have two hands.
